Letters
| Author | Kerry McCarthy,Alan MacDonald,Jill Armitage |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050104800428 |
| Date | 01 December 2001 |
| Published date | 01 December 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
319
E-mail letters to:
prbjournal@aol.com
An Integrated Training?
Dear Editor,
Having completed the DipPS in October
2001 I read the article by Knight and
White (Probation Journal 48 (3), Sept.
2001) with interest. I agree with its “core
contention” that academic work alone is
insufficient to demonstrate ability to link
theory with practice and to work in a
reflective, anti-discriminatory way.
When completing the NVQ, while
simultaneously undertaking a degree in
two years and working three days a week,
there was a temptation to submit evidence
that was ‘good enough’– picking practice
that easily ‘fitted’the performance criteria,
at the expense of interesting examples of
reflection and learning. However, without
taking the time to add greater depth to the
NVQ evidence, it could become a routine
exercise that demonstrates little about
what is actually learnt. Surely, the NVQ
could place more emphasis on
synthesising theoretical learning, practice
experience and learning from reflection
through candidate reports and reflective
journal notes. I did not get the sense that
the extent to which these were included
was essential to ‘good enough’evidence,
despite being essential to my learning.
For “practice learning and
achievement” to be rewarded through a
system of grading the NVQ would place
more pressure on those undertaking an
already demanding training programme. It
would also lead to a distinction between
those demonstrating ‘good enough’
practice and those judged as ‘excellent’.
During my training, many inequalities of
experience were apparent – for example,
in relation to workloads and access to
training. Such factors are bound to
influence the grades obtained by trainees,
potentially leading to unfair labels of only
‘good enough’.
One way to address trainees placing
emphasis on academic achievement
“sometimes at the expense of their
practice” might be to look at how theory
and practice could be more integrated in
all of the assessed academic work.
Deadlines for academic work and NVQ
submissions could also be more effectively
staggered, allowing time to prepare NVQ
work without the distraction of an
imminent academic deadline.
Finally, “one of the key questions”
raised by the article was the role for which
trainees are being prepared. As a qualified
probation officer I will, not unexpectedly,
be part of a team with a shortage of staff,
the focus being very much on ‘coping’
with the workload to meet Key
Performance Indicators. There appears to
be less and less time available for putting
into practice what I was taught about
actually working with offenders. Perhaps
the imminent re-structuring in my area and
more specialisms may provide
opportunities for professional
development, so that this responsibility
will not lie entirely with “a small group of
academics and managers”. Alternatively it
may result in an emphasis on managing
sentences according to rigid frameworks.
If the latter is the case then training that
has developed ability to “understand,
interrogate and develop” may lead to
frustration in qualified practice.
Kerry McCarthy
Probation Officer, London
What Works Research
Dear Editor,
I have been following with interest the
recent articles in Probation Journal
expressing various concerns about ‘What
Works’(Probation Journals 47 (4)
December 2000, 48 (1) March 2001), as
well as the article giving the HMIP
perspective.
The HMIParticle drew attention to the
LETTERS
Letters-p319-320 22/11/01 9:20 am Page 1
To continue reading
Request your trial