Gatekeeping in Counselor Education Programs: An Examination of Current Trends

This study examined gatekeeping policies of CACREP-accredited counselor education programs by reviewing gatekeeping procedures as published on or within their web sites. Content analysis was used to examine the published materials of 257 CACREP-accredited programs specifically looking at their policies in the areas of admission, evaluation, remediation, and dismissal. The Gatekeeping Literature Introduction Counselor educators are ethically obligated to serve as gatekeepers to their profession and to train competent professionals. That said, the process of gatekeeping is complex, and multiple gates exist within programs to manage the progression of students from application to graduation. This article explores current gatekeeping procedures in Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Programs (CACREP) master’s programs to determine how closely programs are currently following best practices as suggested within the literature. Program web sites were examined for evidence of gatekeeping criteria and procedures in the areas of admission, evaluation, remediation, and dismissal. The Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) Ethical Standards for Counseling Supervisors were originally developed in 1991 and later incorporated within the 2005 American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics (ACES, n.d.). Four different areas of the ACA code relate directly to gatekeeping responsibilities. First, Section F.4. a, Informed Consent for Supervision, directs Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS 2013 2 supervisors to inform their supervisees of any policies or procedures for which they are responsible, as well as “the mechanism for due process appeal of individual supervisor action” (p. 14). Counseling Supervision, Evaluation, Remediation and Endorsement, (Section F.4.) contains several mandates related to ongoing evaluation, periodic formal evaluation, and systematic feedback to students regarding their performance including a directive that “supervisors do not endorse supervisees whom they believe to be impaired” (p. 14). Section F.7. deals with student welfare and directs counselor educators to orient prospective students to programmatic expectations in seven different areas. Finally, Evaluation and Remediation of Students (Section F. 9.) outlines specific directives in the treatment of students who are experiencing difficulties, including expectations for communicating with students, remediating, and when necessary dismissing supervisees from the program (ACA, 2005). The CACREP 2009 Standards (CACREP, 2009) address gatekeeping responsibilities in several of the standards. Section I.K guides programs to consider applicant abilities in three specific areas (i.e., aptitude, career goals as they relate to the program, and interpersonal skills) when faculty make their admission decisions. Section I.L clearly delineates program responsibilities in communicating expectations to students including an orientation and dissemination of a handbook informing students of program objectives, endorsement policies, remediation and dismissal procedures, and their rights to appeal. Section I.P outlines evaluation expectations for programs, such as a systematic evaluation of students throughout their program, and evaluation of “academic performance, professional development, and personal development” (p. 5). Admission The most proactive gate available to counselor educators is the admission process. It seems logical to presume that a well-conceived, effective screening of applicants prior to admission would reduce the need to address problematic student behaviors through remediation and dismissal after they are in program (Wilkerson, 2006). In the past, admission procedures for counselor education programs have focused upon undergraduate grade point average (GPA), standardized test scores such as the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or the Millers Analogy Test (MAT), a personal interview, and some form of a personal statement (Bradley & Post, 1991). Smaby, Maddux, Richmond, Lepkowski, and Packman (2005) investigated the predictive validity of GRE scores and undergraduate GPAs with regard to counseling graduates’ scores on the Skilled Counselor Scale (SCS), the Counselor Skills and Personal Development Rating Form (CSPD-RF), and the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE). Results from this study found that undergraduate GPA and GRE scores did predict success on the CPCE and the acquisition of counseling skills as measured by the SCS. The authors cautioned, however, that while GPA and GRE scores could predict knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition and academic motivation, they were not helpful in predicting personal development of counseling candidates. In a study by Procidano, Busch-Rossnagel, Reznikoff, and Geisinger (1995), the majority of programs surveyed (87%) reported using some type of screening to identify inappropriate applicants with the most popular screening procedures being interviewing (75%) and examination of letters of recommendation (38%). Findings suggested that Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS 2013 3 programs who interviewed were less likely to consider other applicant data in the decision-making process. In addition, results from this study also found no evidence that interviewing reduced the prevalence of students identified with clinical-skill deficits later on in their program. Nagpal and Ritchie (2002) interviewed counselor educators with regard to the application and interview process in their programs. Their qualitative study found considerable agreement between the counselor educators when it came to the evaluation characteristics assessed during the selection interview. Similarities diverged, however, when it came to the decision-making process itself as some counselor educators relied more on objective data while others also utilized subjective judgment. A comprehensive screening process was used in a study by Stone and Hanson (2002) in order to “select graduate students who have the greatest promise of becoming leaders, advocates and change agents in the school” (p. 175). First, selection teams were used comprised of not only counselor educators but also school teachers and administrators, parents, and students in program. The application portfolio included the typical academic criteria (i.e., GPA and test scores), letters of recommendation, interviews, and a goal statement. In addition, these applicants signed an informed consent document describing program expectations, a written response to an assigned reading, as well as a four minute speech on the achievement gap. Evaluation Counselor educators are charged with monitoring and evaluating the competency of student counselors, and this assessment includes not only academic ability, but also personal traits and clinical skills (Hensley, Smith, & Thompson, 2003; Lumadue & Duffey, 1999; Olkin & Gaughen, 1991). Past literature includes various recommendations and suggested criteria to incorporate in the evaluation process as well as evaluation instruments created and implemented by programs (Frame and StevensSmith, 1995; Hensley et al., 2003; Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, & Maxwell, 2002; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007, Wilkerson, 2006). Bemak, Epp, and Keys (1999) encouraged programs to create and implement evaluation policies and procedures and identify specific criteria for the purpose of gatekeeping. Furthermore, best practice requires that programs disseminate this information to students (Bemak et al., 1999; Hensley et al., 2003; Knoff & Prout, 1985; Olkin & Gaughen, 1991) and afford the students an avenue to receive formal feedback regarding their evaluations (Bemak et al., 1999; Knoff & Prout, 1985; Wilkerson, 2006). Bradley and Post (1991) studied counselor education programs with respect to their student evaluation procedures. While 65% of programs did report some type of ongoing assessment of students, evaluations were primarily academic in nature. In a study by Olkin and Gaughen (1991) only 28% of the programs stated that they had some type of formal evaluation procedure in place. Studies of doctoral-level psychology programs by Vacha-Haase (1995) and Procidano et al. (1995) found a lack of formalized evaluation of students by nearly half of all programs surveyed. Gaubatz and Vera (2002) surveyed counselor educators regarding gatekeeping procedures, and responses suggested the majority of respondents believed their program used formalized procedures for reviewing and evaluating student counselor fitness. In a very fundamental sense, structured and formalized evaluation of student counselors is best practice as it relates to the ethical and legal obligations of counselor Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS 2013 4 educators. First, systematic evaluation is a safeguard for student due process rights, (Hensley et al., 2003) and is pedagogically best practice. Likewise, systematic evaluation reduces the number of deficient students graduated by counselor education programs (Gaubatz & Vera, 2002) and identifies students with problems earlier in program, rather than during their clinical work, when considerable time and money have been invested in their education (Hensley et al., 2003). Adequate communication of the evaluation procedures, faculty expectations, and the importance of the feedback process improves student trust and orients them as future professionals (Foster & McAdams, 2009). Finally, both CACREP and ACA require programs to implement formalized evaluation and feedback procedures (ACA, 2005; CACREP, 2009). Remediation Identifying and remediating counselor trainees who demonstrate problematic behaviors goes to the very heart of gatekeeping. The implementation of a systematic evaluation protocol will lead to the identification of students who present with deficiencies, problematic behaviors, or other performance problems that may be developmental in nature, or more serious in etiology (McA