ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Office proposals to remove the training of probation officers from universities, reported in The THES two weeks ago, have wider implications. They may, if implemented, threaten other forms of professional education, and endanger the future of probation-related research.

There are those who question whether universities should be involved in education and training for the professions at all. Given that they are, what are the arguments for defending such provision when it is under review? There are several.

First, under the present arrangements, professional training is intellectually rigorous. Many of the current courses are at masters level, and some of the academic work undertaken is very good indeed. There is, for example, a flourishing series of monographs based on students' dissertations, and some return to undertake further research.

Second, the presence of the training courses in university departments helps to sustain a research base. Probation academics are involved in applied criminological research and in consultancy work for probation services around the country. Although services have research and information staff, their main task is to collate statistics and keep staff informed about research findings: with a few notable exceptions, they do not have time to undertake original research. University staff are, in any event, in a better position to pursue an independent agenda. At a time of crisis in the criminal justice system, there is a greater need than ever for critical thinking about probation practice.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The links between universities and the field are important in a number of other ways. Courses have been designed, and many are taught, in partnership with the profession. This brings current practitioners into the university, which benefits them as well as the students - and helps academics to remain up-to-date. Theory and practice are not artificially separated, and indeed some lecturers are employed in joint posts, combining practice with academic duties.

The existing arrangements also encourage inter-agency links and understanding. Probation officers are trained alongside social workers, in departments which in many cases are involved in other forms of professional training. (My own, for example, also teaches gerontology and counselling courses; elsewhere, probation students learn alongside trainee health visitors or nurses). Such links can only be beneficial in terms of students' future understanding of and relationships with cognate professions.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Secretary's incoherent proposals remove all these benefits. Although the proposed regional training consortia would be free to buy in modules from universities, few of us regard the prospect with enthusiasm. The curriculum would be dictated by a government department, there would be no provision for research, and no continuity. The future of probation-related research would be seriously threatened.

The report recommending the changes was published the day before the validating body's new framework for the whole of social work training - itself commissioned by the Government. The ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Secretary has made no secret of his desire to remove probation work and training from its social work base. The timing of the announcement proved this.

While the move to a United States-style correctional force is a political decision, the wisdom of isolating the training from its intellectual and historical roots has to be questioned. Probation officers' knowledge and value base is extremely similar to that of social workers, and the same research methods apply to both fields of work. Probation officers work with similar clients - indeed, often with the same people as social workers. They need some of the same skills, but some additional knowledge and abilities (of, for example, criminological research and how to mediate between offenders and courts). The present courses provide exactly this kind of preparation, and the removal of probation students from social work courses would threaten their financial viability in some universities.

The calibre of recruits likely to be attracted by the proposed courses must also cause some concern. Probation officers work with difficult, often damaged, sometimes dangerous people. Some people could qualify after only a few months' training under the proposed arrangements. At present, students have to practise under super-vision for half of a two-year sandwich course, and not all of them qualify. University courses provide important quality control mechanisms which protect the public.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professional people need to be able to see beyond the narrow task in which they are engaged. They should be able to practise as reflective, socially aware and rounded human beings, appreciative of the complexity and moral implications of what they do. Above all, they need a sound knowledge base. The ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Secretary is preparing to throw this away.

Brian Williams is lecturer in probation studies at the University of Keele.