Ward v. Wilbanks: Students Respond

Counselor education programs are mandated to monitor the development of counseling students. The primary source for this mandate is the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2005). Standard F.9.b. of the ACA Code of Ethics states that counselor educators are to consistently monitor and address student deficiencies significant enough to impair their ability to provide counseling (ACA, 2005). Standard F.9.b. goes on to state that counselor educators must help students secure corrective assistance for any such deficiencies and afford students due process in cases where remediation concludes with student dismissal (ACA, 2005). Additionally, programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) must carry out comprehensive appraisals of student performance and, in cases where a student is judged to be unfit for the counseling profession, must facilitate the student's removal from the counseling program (CACREP, 2009). One of the fundamental implications of these imperatives from the ACA Code of Ethics and CACREP was summed up by McAdams, Foster, and Ward (2007): "They [counselor educators] are mandated to serve as the initial 'gatekeepers' for the profession" (p. 213). As such, the topic of gatekeeping retains a strong presence in the extant counseling literature. * Gatekeeping Gatekeeping is often discussed but less frequently operationalized. A definition of gatekeeping formulated by Brear, Dorrian, and Luscri (2008) is offered to provide a foundation for the subsequent discussion: "Gatekeeping is the evaluation of student suitability for professional practice. It is a mechanism that aims to ensure the health of the profession by controlling access to it" (pp. 93-94). This definition establishes that the goal of gatekeeping is to protect the counseling profession. Consonantly, gatekeeping has been a subject of inquiry within the counseling literature for more than 20 years (e.g., Lumadue & Duffey, 1999; McAdams et al., 2007; Olkin & Gaughen, 1991; Ziomek-Daigle & Christensen, 2010). Gatekeeping is broadly understood as student selection, retention, remediation, and dismissal (Ziomek-Daigle & Christensen, 2010). Specific dimensions of gatekeeping that have been investigated include legal challenges to student dismissal (McAdams et al., 2007), models of gatekeeping and gatekeeping theory (Lumadue & Duffey, 1999; Ziomek-Daigle & Christensen, 2010), and engendering student involvement in gatekeeping (Foster & McAdams, 2009). McAdams et al. (2007) discussed a court case in which a student sued after being dismissed from a university's counseling program, offering suggestions for counseling programs' remediation and dismissal policies. Lumadue and Duffy (1999) presented a review of ethical and legal mandates regarding "evaluation, remediation, and dismissal" of impaired or incompetent students (p. 109) and provided a model of gatekeeping. Lumadue and Duffy stressed the importance of including methods of evaluation in admissions packets and incorporating standards from the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005) into student evaluations. Foster and McAdams (2009) added to the gatekeeping literature by emphasizing the importance of openness and transparency with students to promote trust in faculty members and accurate student perceptions of the gatekeeping process. Similar to Lumadue and Duffy (1999), Ziomek-Daigle and Christensen (2010) provided a theory of gatekeeping. On the basis of a qualitative study, Ziomek-Daigle and Christensen (2010) outlined four phases of gatekeeping: (a) preadmission screening, (b) postadmission screening, (c) remediation plan, and (d) remediation outcome. These phases highlight the view that gatekeeping is a comprehensive process that begins prior to admission. The extent of the discourse on gatekeeping is ostensibly linked to the inherent complexity and risk involved (Gaubatz & Vera, 2002), and this complexity may become a dilemma if student dismissal is the outcome. …