Addressing Concerns
The following are recurring (in some shape or form) anti-P4P talking points that our organization has been given since our inception. On this page, we hope to challenge and address these points as a way to foster trust and open communication with the community. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us at contact@p4pumich.org if you would like to discuss further!
Concerns:
“What’s socially just about giving $18,000 to a bunch of privileged college students at an elite university?”
Our movement is a financial crisis for students that impacts low socioeconomic status (SES) students and students of historically marginalized ethnoracial identities the worst.
-> In our survey and during discussions, people have shared their financial struggles due to not getting paid for field. Even in our leadership, we have both people who are financially stable as well as those who live under the very conservative definition of the US's poverty line.
-> Allowing paid placements will inevitably allow more low-SES students to attend the UM SSW. Future cohorts will contain many more people who grew up dealing with the problems that social work seeks to solve. In education, this is truly the actual acceptance or denial process for most in poverty.
-> Think about your own financial difficulties (if any), and what it would be like to have that additional money this year.
“If the SSW starts paying us, they’ll eventually run out of money. How could they possibly sustain paying us $18,000 a year?”
Under P4P’s proposed payment plan, this extra money would come from a 0.33% increase in the total share of the University’s endowment that the University draws down every year.
-> We are not asking the SSW to do more with less.
-> As such, we are asking you to join in demanding the Regents vote to increase the total annual disbursement of endowment funds.
-> The university has a huge endowment, $17 billion, and regularly disperses 3-5% with no barriers. Keep in mind that we are asking for 0.33%, A THIRD OF A PERCENTAGE, to help subsidize field placements that would not otherwise be able to pay. It is a lie to suggest that we don’t have access to endowment money, and we have well-documented proof via the Bunsis Report.
-> Moreover, the total cost of P4P for a single student ($18,000) is less than one third of the sticker price for in-state tuition (slightly over $60,000).
“If we get paid, the field sites will lose money. That means a lot of field sites will have to choose between retaining their field placements and funding services for their clients.”
Under P4P’s proposed payment plan, the funding would come from the SSW, which itself would receive a budget increase commensurate with the total estimated yearly cost of P4P ($7.81 million).
-> Read the last point on how this would work.
-> Field sites would only fund their student’s field work on an “opt-in” basis: field sites would have to sign and submit a form to the OFE to do this.
➥ In other words, no field site that is currently not paying their field student would be asked to do so.
➥ This appeals to the University as well, and empowers all parties.
“If the School of Social Work has to fund our field placements, that’ll take resources away from programs we can’t afford to lose, such as need-based scholarships.”
Under P4P’s proposed payment plan, this extra money would come from a 0.33% increase in the total share of the University’s endowment that the University draws down every year.
-> We are not asking the SSW to do more with less.
-> Our plan keeps the funding for all current SSW line items constant.
-> Let's call it like it is: A “scarcity” argument, and this falls into the scarcity myth and conflict theory because: 1) UM is a very wealthy school and 2) the main people arguing this, administrators, have a stake in not paying us.
➥ It’s offensive that the school acts as if we have to choose between impoverishing students through unpaid work, or through impoverishing students by taking away scholarship programs. This suggests the SSW will inherently exploit us, and that’s false!
“Even if the SSW agrees to all your demands, there’s no way they’ll be implemented in time for them to benefit our graduating class.”
There’s nothing procedurally stopping the Regents from voting to disburse more of the University’s endowment during a normal meeting, even if this isn’t something that they do regularly. In fact, that’s what “reserve money” is for!
-> The Regents could vote to give us our $7.81 million at their next meeting, hypothetically speaking. This would come out of over $4 billion unrestricted reserves in the endowment, i.e. money that is completely open to miscellaneous use.
-> The procedure is in place for them to do it; what we need to build is the political will to get them to do it.
-> Remember that this is a crisis, and that the best way to confront this issue immediately is to be unified together. Think about any frustrations about not getting paid right now, especially since it’s possible for this situation to be solved at the drop of a hat!
“The CSWE has taken a strong stance against compensating students for their fieldwork. No one school of social work, not even U of M’s, is gonna contravene the CSWE.”
As of 2022, the CSWE has changed this standard and clarified that field work can be monetarily compensated and still be characterized as educational experience! (see their EPAS draft section 3.3.7).
-> Beyond the new revisions, this stance isn’t binding in any way. If it were, then U of M would have been penalized for letting 1 of every 8 MSW students get paid for their field work.
-> Moreover, educational standards are revised all the time. They aren’t set forever in stone - and if as prestigious as school as the UM SSW decides to contravene them, then the CSWE just might take a hard look at them.
-> Some points the CSWE makes to justify unpaid field work are highly contestable:
➥ The last two points in their position paper argue, in as many words, that field work is not work, that it is not meant to resemble a job...
➥ But how many of us are, for all intents and purposes, working a human services job when we’re at our field site?
➥ Think about how you feel about CSWE’s control over us not getting paid. If you feel frustrated, please note that we are right there with you, and that is why, together, we have the power to change this!
“Sure, I concede your point that most of us feel like we’re at work when we’re at our field sites. But our field placement is supposed to be an educational experience. What needs to be fixed about this are the day-to-day activities of our field placements. If you’re having this issue, talk to the Student Union’s Ombudsperson or your field advisor.”
How many of us have this issue, though? Nearly every one of us!
-> Aspects of field placement work that supposedly make it an “educational experience”, i.e. supervision meetings and field connections, are not fundamentally different from supervision and tasks that people are expected to complete at entry-level jobs. The fact that most, if not all, students describe their tasks as similar or exactly the same as paid work is not to be overlooked.
-> Fundamentally fixing this problem would require the constant attention of every field advisor, making it impossible for them to do their jobs.
➥ It would require reshaping the SSW’s relationship with its field sites.
-> How do you feel about having to pay money to do the hard work at their field site? It’s degrading to pay money to do vital work. This is a broken, frustrated system that should and can be fixed!
“What about students from other social work schools, nearly all of which have smaller endowments than the University of Michigan’s? Don’t you care about them?”
We are currently in dialogue with social work students from 11 different universities in 9 different states!
➥ Many of these schools have smaller endowments than UM’s, most of them much smaller. And the students from each of these schools recognize this - they recognize that their funding scheme might have to be different from ours.
➥ We’ve been upfront with these students about this difference, and it has not deterred them from asking for our help.
-> We are stronger as a unified front! And obviously, nobody among us is happy with this current situation. The more our movement grows, the stronger a sway we can have on not just individual schools, but state and federal policies.
➥ We already have seen this, as Governor Gretchen Whitmer had a press release about expanding loan forgiveness for social workers, and is in talks with NASW-MI about payments for field placements.
➥ In other words, states have a vested interest in funding us and retaining social workers, and we can capitalize on this! As our job sector expands, the number of current social workers is not large enough to meet that need. The U.S. needs our labor, and should value us accordingly.
“We need a systemic approach to fixing this—NOT simply giving payments to field students.”
Systemic changes start with grassroots movements.*
-> Achieving Payment for Placements is a step towards broader systemic change. Our perpetual state of overwork due to the need to balance coursework, field work, paid jobs, caregiving, and our personal lives/self-care is overwhelming. Payment for Placements will take some of this work off of our plates, giving us more time and energy to continue organizing around and solving the issues that matter to us.
-> Also, what do you mean by “systemic”? That word can mean a lot of different things.
➥ Do you mean legislative? This is a current crisis, which does not have time to wait for a legislative fix, and can be ameliorated immediately by the Board of Regents.
➥What’s so exciting about Payment for Placements is that it’s adding momentum to a large movement towards desegregating higher education. Over 15 social work schools are now pushing for paid field placements. I know of at least 4 NASW state chapters lobbying in their states to create long-term funding schemes to pay social work students. All of this cannot be separated from the #CancelStudentDebt movement, led by people of Color. All of this is to say, Payment for Placements is certainly not the end-all-be-all of fixing higher ed, but we see UM as a potential trailblazer in furthering the movement.
“You get a class credit for the class where you work in field. Since it’s technically a class, you shouldn’t get paid.”
-> The GSIs (graduate student instructors) at UM actually receive a course credit for their paid work as teacher’s assistants. They also require 1 hour of supervision from their professor per week in this class. GSIs are an example of UM graduate students who are both workers and trainees, and work is a part of their education. Just as they receive compensation for their work, we should, too!
“What about disabled, international, welfare receiving, and other students who might be affected by payment?”
-> We chose stipends to address concerns related to disability and other social services eligibility. Every individual's needs are unique and we are not lawyers, so we encourage any individuals with concerns to discuss with an attorney, which there is free legal aid provided by the university for those who need it. We also call for an opt-out of this program for students as well.
-> For students concerned about implications of a stipend, our proposal would allow individuals to opt-out with no explanation needed. During each course registration cycle, students may opt-in again by contacting Office of Field Education and completing the process needed.