I've spent the past six months in dialogue, on a one-to-one and confidential basis, with student social workers, new and established social workers, employers, service users and academics to prepare a report on the education of children's social workers for the government. I didn't have detailed terms of reference: I simply asked whether social work education at university was consistently good enough – and if not, how it might be improved.

When, just a few days ago, I tweeted that my report was about to be published, one social worker said: "I hope the government don't use it to thrash the profession." They won't. The fact that I expect to brief the prime minister tomorrow morning is a reflection of the importance attached to children's social work.

As I've told Michael Gove, and as I make clear in the report, we are producing some very fine children's social workers. But too frequently their preparation at university is inadequate.

I found four main weaknesses. First, there is too much confusion and duplication in what we ask universities to teach, and many employers believe too little attention is given to some vital subjects. When I was running Barnardo's, one particularly able manager asked me to do something about the fact that newly qualified social workers knew too little about child development. She sent me out shadowing a bright and enthusiastic newly qualified worker. I realised quickly that she knew rather less of what to expect in development terms from an 18-month-old child than I remembered from having my own children.

We need to be clearer with universities about learning priorities. At the moment they have to draw on at least five curriculum guides from at least three bodies. By contrast, the General Medical Council produces a succinct and admirably clear document, Tomorrow's Doctors, that outlines exactly what a new doctor needs to understand at graduation. We require something similar for children's social work.

Second, we need students of the right calibre. Academic excellence isn't everything with social work, and I don't believe we should raise Ucas points requirements – but universities must adhere to them. And for those without A-levels, access courses, which they complete before degree study, must be sufficiently rigorous.

Third, we need to replace two duplicative and weak inspection regimes for social work degrees with just one, to be conducted by the College of Social Work, a body with great potential. It should be brought from the margins to lead the social work profession. But it must look much more critically at the whole educational experience at university, including the practical side.

Finally, although I don't argue for children's and adult social work becoming separate professions, I do argue for greater specialisation at university in both academic work and work experience. The time taken to study dementia or other diseases of later life would be much better spent by children's social workers in understanding attachment theory or the long-term consequences of child neglect. And a hundred days' work experience in an old people's home is time better spent in a child setting.

There is nothing very new in much of this. In 2009 the education select committee called for the rationalisation of requirements for the social work degree. The Association of Professors of Social Work told this same committee that entry requirements for some courses were very low and as a consequence students with good A-levels were not applying. For some years local authorities have had informal lists of good and not so good universities. And Lord Laming, who conducted the Victoria Climbié inquiry, has repeatedly called for greater specialisation in children's social work. "Social work students are covering too much ground without learning the skills and knowledge to support any particular client group well," he said. "It is currently possible to qualify as a social worker without any experience of child protection, or even working within a local authority."

That must stop.