Gatekeeping in counselor education : experiences of terminating students for nonacademic concerns

Counselor educators are required by both the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2005) as well as the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (2009) to serve as gatekeepers to the counseling profession. In this role, counselor educators ensure the safety of future clients and the counseling profession, meaning they have the responsibility to prevent students of concern from entering the counseling profession. While this duty of counseling educators is necessary, it is not often easy. This phenomenological study explored the experiences of five counselor educators from across the country with gatekeeping (terminating) a counselor-in-training for nonacademic concerns. In order to prepare students for their future as mental health providers, counselor educators are responsible for academic and skill-based competence of counselors-intraining. Perhaps the most significant yet least objective role for counselor educators is determining their students’ personal, ethical, and emotional suitability to the practice of counseling. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) refer to this role as that of gatekeeper. For the purposes of this study, gatekeeping is defined as the process of terminating a counselorin-training from a master’s level counseling training program for nonacademic reasons, thereby impacting the student’s ability to enter the counseling profession. The role of gatekeeper has been mandated by both the American Counseling Association (ACA) and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The ACA Code of Ethics (2005) requires counselor educators to serve as gatekeepers for the profession. Specifically, Section A.1. a indicates the primary responsibility of a counselor is to, “Respect the dignity and promote the welfare of clients” (p. 4). Additionally, Section A.4. a. , requires “counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm” (2005, p. 4). Section F.9. a. requires counselor educators to provide ongoing feedback throughout the training program. As part of this, Section F.9. b. indicates counselor educators offer support when a counselor-in-training is Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS 2014 2 demonstrating difficulty through a remediation plan or consultation in a timely manner. The CACREP standards (2009) require that when “evaluations indicate that a student is not appropriate for the program, faculty members help facilitate the student’s transition out of the program and, if possible, into a more appropriate area of study” (p. 5). According to the research, it is likely that counselor educators will be required to serve as gatekeepers at some point in their careers (Gaubatz & Vera, 2002). Available gatekeeping research uses quantitative methodology and tends to focus on the ethics associated with gatekeeping and the remediation of students who have been acknowledged as “impaired” by faculty (Bradey & Post 1991; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; McAdams & Foster, 2007; Wilkerson 2006). While these discussions are relevant to the topic and performance of gatekeeping, there is a lack of research that addresses the subjective experiences of counselor educators as they enact that role. Conceptual Framework and Existing Literature Defining Impaired Counselors-in-Training Bernard and Goodyear (2004) described counselor-in-training impairment as those “nonacademic traits that interfere significantly with trainee performance” (p. 39). They further defined impairment as, “[n]ot only a reversal of previously adequate functioning, but incompetence or the inability to attain minimal performance standards” (p. 39), which includes ethics as well as professional behavior. Supervision in Counselor Education Supervision is a process of self-regulation for the profession, in which “the professions control who is admitted to practice, set standards for members’ behavior, and discipline incompetent or unethical members” (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004, p. 2). Additionally, supervision “provides a means to impart necessary skills, socialize novices into the profession’s values and ethics, protect clients, and monitor readiness of supervisees to be admitted to the profession” (p. 2). Supervision helps to maintain the standards of the field. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) further defined supervision as “an intervention provided by a more senior member of a profession to a more junior member or members of that same profession. serving as a gatekeeper for those who are to enter the particular profession” (p. 8). There are two purposes of providing supervision to counselors-in-training: to promote the wellbeing of the client and to support the supervisee’s development as a counselor (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Gatekeeping Role and Models McAdams, Foster, and Ward (2007) argued counselor educators are “mandated to serve as ‘gatekeepers’ for the profession, protecting the rights of counseling service consumers by ensuring that only those students who are qualified are permitted to matriculate toward a graduate degree and licensure” (p. 213). Gaubatz and Vera (2002) maintained that perhaps the role of gatekeeper is not being enforced, as their research suggests 4-5% of counselors-in-training have insufficient interpersonal skills or psychological health to provide safe and effective care to clients. They argue that many other students who would be considered impaired are “untouched by gatekeeping procedures” (p. 294). Gaubatz and Vera further reported more incidents of “gateslipping” Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS 2014 3 by faculty who reported more concern about being sued or receiving blemished teaching evaluations, in addition to institutional pressures not to screen (p. 299). Also of interest, the researchers’ findings suggested non-tenured faculty reported greater concerns of institutional pressures and threats of poor teaching evaluations, while both tenured and non-tenured expressed the concern of legal ramifications. They also argued that CACREP accredited programs with more formal processes experienced gateslipping rates of 2.5% of their students, compared to 6.6% of non-CACREP accredited programs. Therefore, they conclude that formal evaluation procedures are imperative for “ethically sound professional training” (p.304). Ethical Considerations in Gatekeeping There are a number of ethical considerations when discussing the issue of gatekeeping in counselor education. The American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2005) outlines key guidelines for counselor educators in working with counselors-in-training, with the specific intention of promoting the welfare of the counselors’ future clients (Section F.1.a). As means to do this, the Code addresses the welfare of counselors-in-training and in so doing, requires supervisors to inform students of the policies, procedures, and their due process rights as students (Section F.4.a). The Code also requires counselors-in-training to be informed of their progress in their training program through which, “[s]upervisors document and provide supervisees with ongoing performance appraisal and evaluation feedback and schedule periodic formal evaluative sessions throughout the supervisory relationship” (Section F.5.a; p. 14; ACA, 2005). In addition, counselor educators must explicitly detail the “levels of competency expected, appraisal methods, and timing of evaluations” (Section F.9.a; p. 15, ACA, 2005). Through this role, supervisors become aware of the limitations of supervisees that might impede performance and provide remediation when necessary. This also provides an opportunity for the counselors-in-training to make any necessary changes in their performance and/or behavior. Section F.9. b requires counselor educators to assist counselors-in-training who demonstrate difficulty in attaining the competencies necessary to be an effective counselor. Counselor educators should “assist students in securing remedial assistance when needed, seek professional consultation and document their decision to dismiss or refer students for assistance, and ensure that students have recourse in a timely manner to address decisions to require them to seek assistance or to dismiss them and provide students with due process according to institutional policies and procedures” (p. 16). The Code also requires counselor educators to provide counseling referrals to students, if counseling is a required component of the student’s remediation (Section F.9.c, ACA, 2005). Also critical are the ethical considerations for students. Section F.8. b of the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2005) requires counselors-in-training to obtain professional services for themselves when their “physical, mental, or emotional problems are likely to harm a client” (p. 14). They should resist from seeing clients during this time and inform their supervisor. Should the counselor-in-training not satisfy the requirements set out by the Code and recommended by their faculty, supervisors may recommend the student for termination from the program, and/or refuse a student for