In developing the draft for EPAS II, the developers have made a number of important changes in what is emphasized in the accreditation process.

Importance of Context

In the Rationale and Guiding Principles for the new EPAS, developers note that:

“The research by COCEI indicated that attention to context is an increasingly important element of professional education and practice.  As such, the proposed EP includes an expectation that programs attend to context in the shaping of their mission, and practitioners attend to context in the shaping of practice interventions.” (http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/20435FA7-162A-4258-AD06-5668081DEADC/0/RationaleandGuidingPrinciplesfor2007EPAS.pdf, Retrieved 10/20/07)

Although the emphasis on context has always been present in social work education, as noted by the fact that one of our current curriculum areas is called Human Behavior and the Social Environment (emphasis added), the importance of context is given even more emphasis in the new standards.  Context should be emphasized throughout the program, its mission, and in the practice methods that the program will teach.  This is an important and positive change.

Emphasis on Competencies Rather than Curriculum Areas

A second major change in emphasis in EPAS II is the change in the evaluative standards from an emphasis on program inputs, in the form of curriculum areas, to an emphasis on program outputs, in the form of competencies.  The rationale states:

The educational policy employs a competency-based educational outcome model for curriculum design. It represents an attempt to capture the essentials of professional social work practice, while providing more flexibility to programs in shaping their curriculum. A competency-based approach to curriculum design permits social work programs to determine the curriculum content which they believe best ensures that graduating students achieve its competencies.  (http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/20435FA7-162A-4258-AD06-5668081DEADC/0/RationaleandGuidingPrinciplesfor2007EPAS.pdf, Retrieved 10/20/07)

A welcome addition in the draft EPAS II is the specification of the system sizes that each social work program must address:  individual, family, group, community, and organization.  These system sizes are specifically enumerated in several places in the new document.  This is a welcome change, particularly for those of us who teach the macro systems (organization and community), who have often felt that there is insufficient emphasis on these areas in the social work curriculum.

Approach In Harmony with National Trends and Requirements

The move to competency based assessment as part of accreditation is one that has already been made by many of our sister professions.  Nursing is a key example of this, as reflected in the 2003 nursing accreditation standards (http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Accreditation/NewStandards.htm, Retrieved 10/20/07).  The American Psychological Association also has current standards that are competency based (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/G&P0522.pdf, Retrieved 10/20/07).

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has encouraged this trend, and in 2008, CHEA is giving an award for institutional progress in student learning outcomes.  In announcing this award, CHEA notes both the importance of measuring student outcomes and the challenges involved in doing so accurately.

Evidence of student achievement, student learning outcomes, plays an increasingly important role in discussions of higher education quality and effectiveness. At the same time, developing and using capacity to address student learning outcomes is a complex and significant challenge for colleges and universities, whether pursued at the level of a major, a program or the institution. (CHEA_Award_Application_2008.doc, downloaded from http://www.chea.org/default.asp?link=3, Retrieved 10/20/07)

Federal law already requires accreditation to take responsibility for assessment of student achievement:

“‘Current law requires accreditors to examine institution or program success with regard to student achievement by taking into account the school’s mission along with certain forms of evidence, “including, as appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examinations, and job placement rates.’ [20 U.S.C. § 1099b(a)(5)]” (http://www.chea.org/Government/HEAUpdate/HEA_Update_39_Chart.pdf, Retrieved 10/20/07)

S-1642, is the Senate version of The Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which will reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA) for the next five years.  It was passed by the United States Senate on July 24, 2007, and requires that accrediting bodies assess student achievement, but leaves more freedom in the hands of institutions as to how outcomes assessment will be handled.  The exact language is:

“(Student Achievement) Accrediting organizations are to examine institutional success with regard to student achievement in relation to institutional mission. The standards may vary by institution and are to be established by institutions.  Eliminated in the bill passed by the Senate is the laundry list of government-specified outcomes indicators (e.g., student retention rates, course completion rates) as well as the language about “empirical evidence” and “external indicators” that was in the committee bill.”  (http://www.chea.org/Government/HEAUpdate/CHEA_HEA39.html, Retrieved 10/20/07)

Thus, the emphasis on competencies and outcomes evident in the new EPAS is a move that is in harmony with both federal law and with changes already made by accrediting bodies around the country.  The rationale statement for EPAS II specifically notes the importance of “accountability through assessment”  (http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/20435FA7-162A-4258-AD06-5668081DEADC/0/RationaleandGuidingPrinciplesfor2007EPAS.pdf, Retrieved 10/20/07).

The trend toward such accountability has been evident in the progression of the last two sets of social work accreditation standards, in which there has been an ever increasing emphasis on outcomes and on assessment.  The major change in the new draft is the elimination of requirements for curriculum areas and their replacement by requirements for measurable competencies.

Comparison of EPAS II and Current EPAS

As with any major change in requirements that are so central to our operation as social work programs, the current EPAS II draft has evoked many comments and concerns from the social work educators whose responsibility it will be to implement EPAS II.  Many of these comments note that, in the transition to this new way of thinking, important concepts have been omitted from consideration. 

Suggestions have been made for incorporation of such content into EPAS II.  The Wisconsin Commission on Social Work Education has made specific comments and suggestions for incorporation of additional content that would further clarify the new standards and more clearly define new concepts included in the EPAS II draft.  (http://bpdonline.org/site/indexer/180/content.htm, Retrieved 10/20/07).  The Wisconsin Commission’s Comments appear to accept the idea of a competency based model, but request additional clarification, as well as re-integration of certain specific items, such as the requirement for program objectives.

Those of us who have been involved with social work education and accreditation for many years will look at EPAS II and consciously or unconsciously begin to form bridges in our thinking between the current curriculum areas and the newly drafted competencies.  The following are your editor’s thoughts on these bridges:

• The first competency, “identify with the social work profession and behave professionally”, is reflected in the current EPAS as content that must be included in a program’s objectives.  This competency does not directly equate to a current EPAS curriculum area.
• The second competency, “apply ethical principles to guide professional practice” closely relates to the first current EPAS curriculum area of “values and ethics”.
• The third competency, “apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments” is reflected in the current EPAS as content that must be included in a program’s objectives.  This competency does not directly equate to a current curriculum area.
• The fourth competency, “engage diversity and difference in practice” is closely related to the second current EPAS curriculum area, “diversity”.
• The fifth competency, “promote human rights and social justice” closely relates to the third current EPAS curriculum area, “populations-at-risk and social and economic justice”
• The sixth competency, “engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research relates to the seventh current EPAS curriculum area, “research”
• The seventh competency, “apply knowledge of the human condition” appears to be related to the current EPAS fourth curriculum area, “human behavior and social environment”
• The eighth competency, “engage in policy practice to deliver effective social work services”, is closely related to the current EPAS fifth curriculum area, “social welfare policy and services”
• The tenth competency, “engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations”  closely relates to the sixth current EPAS curriculum area, “social work practice”
• Field education, as the signature pedagogy of social work, as reflected in EP2.3 is closely related to the current EPAS eighth curriculum area, “field education”.

Without a sense of these bridges, I believe that it would be very difficult for new members of the social work education community to know how to go about building a curriculum for a new program that would adequately address the ten competencies. 

The new standards offer a great deal of freedom to programs, but provide less guidance to new programs and new faculty on curriculum development than the current standards provide.  This is an issue that will have to be addressed at some level, whether by CSWE or by individual programs.

There is also the fact that the new EPAS II draft does not include a requirement for program objectives, a second factor that may make curriculum development difficult for new social work programs and new social work educators.

If you are attending APM, don't forget to attend one of the EPAS sessions sponsored by CSWE: