SWEAR
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Please support SB379! It removes the ASWB exam requirement for the supervised practice levels of social work licensure (LBSW and LMSW). Additionally, it adds two consumer members to the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners.
​
Would this bill get rid of social work licensure?
No, we support an equitable licensing process. Currently, unproven exams have veto power over every other skill and qualification someone might have. We support removing biased and harmful exams that are not valid measures of social work competence.
​​
Would this be dangerous to the public?
No. This question presumes that exam passage is related to ethical and effective practice. However, there is no peer-reviewed evidence that this relationship exists, as the CEO of ASWB stated in her testimony on February 4th. There is much more evidence that indicates ongoing validity problems with ASWB exams (Albright & Thyer; 2010; Caldwell & Rousmaniere, 2022; Johnson & Huff, 1987; Randall & Thyer, 1994; Victor et al., 2023)
​​​
Shouldn’t schools do a better job of teaching to this test? Isn’t this based on the quality of social work education?
​Teaching to the test is bad educational practice (Welsh et al., 2014). Social work practice requires critical thinking and astute attention to context, neither of which are captured in a multiple choice exam. Students do not want to be taught to this test, as the question stems often presume poor social work practice, and we do not go into this profession because we like quick answers. People of color are typically told during their test prep, “Think like a middle aged white woman,” and report afterwards that this advice was helpful. While there are some exceptions, racial, age, and other disparities are persistent and consistent nationwide, across schools of social work. Even in schools that have students with higher overall passing rates, there are notable disparities within schools. These results suggest that the disparities have more to do with the exams than they do with the quality of education.
Couldn't this be solved by better test preparation?
Both first time and repeat test takers already spend a great deal of time, effort, and money to prepare for these exams. If the only answer to this problem is that candidates need better test preparation, this only proves the point that these tests do not measure social work competence.
Isn’t this discrepancy explained by historical oppression of Black and Brown communities?
The exam is supposed to test for social work competence, not for social privilege. If test scores are significantly skewed based on experiences of systemic inequality, then they are not valid exams. The available evidence strongly suggests exam bias and major validity problems. The huge exam outcome disparities by race, age, and native language do not reflect academic outcomes or the reality of the practice. Additionally, there is recent research that uncovers several racial microaggressions embedded in exam questions. We also know that ASWB does not follow the best practice methodological standards laid out by the National Council on Measurement in Education. ASWB has been unwilling for decades, and continues to be unwilling, to make appropriate data available for outside research and verification.
​​
Isn’t ASWB working on fixing their exams?
No, because they do not admit there is a problem with them. There have been concerns about bias in these exams since their inception - ASWB has had 40 years to fix them. ASWB continuously states that their exams are not the problem, including in testimony on February 4th. Of note, ASWB has substantial financial interest in keeping all exams in place as they are - they are worth more than $40 million despite being a 501(c)3, and they earned $1.5 million in 2023, about ¾ of it from exam revenue.
​​
Isn’t ASWB doing research into this issue?
They specifically only funded research into what they term “upstream factors,” and they refuse to provide access to data related to their exams to independent researchers. They are starting their research with the assumption that their exams have nothing to do with the problem. When the only tool provided by ASWB is a hammer, everything will look like a nail.
​​
What do you mean ASWB does not follow sound methodological practices?
There are numerous examples of ASWB not following Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, and state boards (including our own) have not held them to account to provide the information they are supposed to. Additionally, ASWB continually analyzes their test questions for excessive variance, and they will pull them from their test bank if they are not performing appropriately. This means that someone could have a problematic test question on their exam, fail by one point, have that question pulled the next day that would change their score to a pass, and still retain the failure. Many repeat test takers report they have only failed by a couple of points, and ASWB pulls as many as 5% of questions in a given year - up to seven questions in one exam. It is chilling to think of how many colleagues should have passed these exams, but did not solely due to poorly performing questions being present on their version of the exam (DeCarlo, 2023; DeCarlo, 2025).
​​
Why add more consumers to the BSWE?
As a member of the ASWB, BSWE has shown blind allegiance to ASWB’s vested financial interests rather than the interests of diverse Marylanders in desperate need of mental health services. When advocates came to them in Fall 2022 looking for leadership about the problematic exam data, they told social workers to trust the ASWB. Only recently, the BSWE has quietly undertaken a survey of licensed social workers. This is without consultation or collaboration with the Workgroup, and they are unable to answer basic questions about its methodology to ensure fair representation of marginalized groups. This survey is a thinly veiled attempt to garner further support for their position since their position has not won out in the workgroup. Unfortunately, their actions demonstrate that they need greater consumer oversight.
​
Will this legislation prevent Maryland from joining the Compact?
​​No. The Compact allows for "single state" Maryland-only licensing and a differing process for "multistate" Compact licenses (lines 289-90 and 338-9). Therefore, Maryland could both join the Compact and eliminate exams at any licensure level, regardless of what the Compact Commission might decide about its own licensure process.
​Who are you, anyway?
We are SWEAR - Social Workers for Equity and Anti-Racism, and we formed in Fall 2022 following the data release that now has us all talking about SB379. We are a coalition of hundreds of social workers across Maryland. We are truly grassroots, and our budget is very small! We are fueled by a desire to provide accurate information and right the wrongs that these exams have exacted on our state. Please reach out to us with any questions or concerns you may have: hello@swear-md.org.
​​
Reform opponents like to hypothesize about far-fetched possibilities in order to draw out fear from social workers and legislators. Here are our responses to their most common scare tactics.
​​
Would removing exams mean that social workers would be taken less seriously and could not be expert witnesses in court?
There is no evidence that social workers would lose their ability to testify as expert witnesses - even social workers who hypothesize this idea admit they have never actually heard of this happening! Judges assessing for expertise/Daubert criteria do so by asking about the amount of time spent with the people in question and about the education, experience, and training a social worker has related to the topic at hand. Not even lawyers get asked about their bar exam in court. Social workers are respected within a variety of practice settings for their expertise, compassion, skill, and versatility, not because we have passed a 150-question, multiple choice exam.
​​
Won’t there be two tiered licensure - social workers who have and have not passed an exam?
This legislation will help end the two-tiered process we already have - people who can pass the licensing exams and people who cannot. The simple solution to the unlikely issue of a “two-tiered” licensure issue is to remove the “How Licensed” field on the license verification website. Many jurisdictions, irrespective of their use of Masters level exams, do not have this field displayed on the public information of their website. In other states that have passed similar bills, this issue has not arisen. In fact, when Joel Rubin, Executive Director of NASW’s Illinois chapter, presented to the Maryland workgroup in the fall, he was asked if licensed social workers in Illinois who didn’t take the exam are seen as “less than” in the practice community. He answered, quite succinctly, “No, I don’t. A license is a license” (1:09:10).
​​
Will this lower social worker wages and affect insurance reimbursement?
Social worker wages are based on education, license level, and experience, not exam scores. LBSWs are not allowed to do clinical work and LMSWs are unable to directly bill insurance, so this legislation will not affect insurance reimbursement. Additionally, legacied social workers who never had to pass an exam have not complained of lower wages.
​​​
Doesn’t this negate the hard work of other social workers who have passed these exams?
As a society, we don’t keep discriminatory barriers in place because some people have made it through them despite the challenges. We have outlawed discrimination based on a host of characteristics in Maryland - not because no one could make it through the active discrimination, but because we are able to hire our best and brightest when we seek to remove artificial barriers to a more diverse workforce.
​​
Won’t supervisors not want to supervise people who haven’t passed an exam?
There is no evidence to support this conjecture. There are plenty of willing supervisors who see this exam as the useless and harmful barrier that it is and are excited to supervise a new body of diverse LBSWs and LMSWs. Additionally, over time, more diverse LMSWs can lead to more diverse LCSW-Cs who will gladly provide the culturally competent supervision that our workforce deserves.
​​
Will this water down or deprofessionalize social workers? Other mental health professions have licensing exams.
This will not water down the profession. No other profession has up to four different types of exams for four different types of licensure. There is only one national exam required to be a licensed Marriage and Family Counselor, Art Therapist, Professional Counselor, or Psychologist. The redundancy and quantity of social work exams places unnecessary burden on practitioners, resulting in huge and wasteful expenses of money and time.