Read on Twitter
1. Another of my idle reflections looking back over the decades of care experience & social work is the use of the title "expert" in social work & care settings. In all my years, I've never really understood what an expert is & how those in powers making decisions identify one. >
2. In all my years "in the job", decision makers have listened to experts even though they didn't ( & don't) listen to "experts by experience". (Whatever they are - do other experts have a limit included in their labels?). Yet who are these folk & who decides they are experts? >
3. Care experienced folk are often rightfully wary of experts. Tony Latham (Pindown) & Frank Beck (Leicester) were experts responsible for a great deal of heartache to kids in care in their day. Care files we see contain some outrageous, often untrue comments by "experts". >
4. We see experts on care who've never lived in care or worked hands on in a care setting. We see experts on behaviour management who've never had to manage behaviour. We see experts making decisions with politicians with no idea what the impact of their expertise will be >
5. If these office based experts are worth listening to, why not experts "by experience" (who may also be highly qualified professional people, but let's not let that get in the way of the label!) For these 'experts', seems having a few on tap as a token presence is enough. >
6. We see groups of gov't appointed "experts" meeting in secret meetings who deliberately exclude "experts by experience" but never truly explain why. Are the experienced ones a lower kind of expert whose opinions carry less value. One could be forgiven for concluding so >
7. I'm happy to listen why gov't are selective in defining experts, but after listening to those who lived care at @careexpconf & so many settings over the years, saddened that their wisdom, knowledge & expertise in care is so easily discounted. Wrong sort of expert, it seems.