Lawmakers Hear Push to Remove Master's Exam, Fund Paid MSW Internships in 'Super Act

Boston Supporters of a package of bills known as the "Super Act" told the Joint Committee on Higher Education that removing the master's-level standardized licensing exam and funding paid internships would expand the social work workforce and reduce racial and linguistic disparities in licensure.

The lead representative of the Association of Social Work Boards, Stacy Arnie Chandler, warned committee members that "eliminating the examination requirement would have drastic implications for both the public and the profession," while urging alternatives that address pay, caseloads and supervision. Chandler identified herself as CEO of the Association of Social Work Boards and a licensed clinical social worker.

Proponents including master's students and hospital social work leaders said the exam is not a valid predictor of clinical competence and that unpaid internships and high exam costs drive promising candidates from the field. "I am only able to choose two," MSW student Mickey McGrath said describing the tradeoffs between coursework, unpaid field placement hours and basic living costs. "Passing... would tell us that our time and efforts are valuable," MSW student Michael O'Neil added when urging stipends for internships.

Hospital leaders described operational effects. Pamela Chamorro, senior director for social work at Boston Children's Hospital, told the committee that shortages of licensed social workers cause delayed discharges and repeated cross-coverage that increases burnout. "The ASWB licensing exam has been shown through the organization's own data to disproportionately fail Black, Latinx, bilingual, immigrants, and older social work graduates," Chamorro said.

ASWB project director Jennifer Henkel cautioned the committee that multi-state license compacts use a uniform exam as a credentialing baseline; she described a potential administrative solution in which states create a bifurcated licensure track but called that approach “complicated.” Both Henkel and Chandler said states that have removed the exam have created separate pathways to preserve interstate portability for exam-takers.

Supporters proposed three parallel changes: (1) a state grant program to provide stipends for MSW students' required field work; (2) removal of the master's-level standardized exam as a mandatory condition for initial licensure, substituting practice-based pathways; and (3) continuing education credit for LICSWs who provide clinical supervision.

Committee members asked about interstate portability and public understanding of tiered licenses. Witnesses said a bifurcated system is administratively feasible but could limit access to the interstate compact for those who do not take the exam. They also emphasized that removing the exam would not eliminate graduate education, supervised practice requirements, or other licensing safeguards.

Advocates from university programs and professional associations urged the committee to report the Super Act favorably; hospital leaders and practitioners recommended prompt action to relieve workforce shortages and preserve culturally concordant care.

The hearing produced no formal committee vote. Supporters offered to supply additional data on exam pass-rate disparities and the number of bilingual or older examinees affected as follow-up.