A Framework for Creating a Climate of Transparency for Professional Performance Assessment: Fostering Student Investment in Gatekeeping

Abstract

Students unfamiliar with their counseling program's professional performance assessment policies may consider such policies pejorative. Moreover, student beliefs about the primacy of ethical service to clients may be confounded when faculty members are reluctant or fail to formally address concerns about deficient professional performance of students. The authors propose a framework intended to promote openness and transparency in professional performance assessment and believe this framework is critical to students' accurate perceptions of the assessment process, their trust in faculty members, and their future investment in safeguarding public welfare and the ethical integrity of the counseling profession through gatekeeping.

Ward v. Wilbanks: Students Respond

“…Foster and McAdams () 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 (), Ziomek‐Daigle and Christensen () provided a theory of gatekeeping.…”

Counselor Educators' Gatekeeping Responsibilities and Students' First Amendment Rights

“…The Keeton v. Anderson‐Wiley (2011) and Ward v. Polite (2012) cases involved the legal authority of counselor educators to determine whether a student or potential student has the capability or willingness to uphold ethical standards of the counseling profession. Such determinations have been referred to as gatekeeping (Bodner, 2012; Foster & McAdams, 2009; Frame, 1995; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, & Maxwell, 2002; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007). Scholarship related to gatekeeping has documented both its importance to counselor education programs (e.g., Bodner, 2012; Foster & McAdams, 2009; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Kerl et al, 2002; McAdams et al, 2007) and effective methods for implementing gatekeeping procedures (e.g., Foster & McAdams, 2009; McAdams et al, 2007; Ziomek‐Daigle & Christensen, 2010).…”

“…To ensure that students receive an adequate opportunity to address deficiencies, many programs have created a review process in which remediation plans are developed to help students correct problems (Foster & McAdams, 2009; Frame, 1995; Kerl et al, 2002; McAdams et al, 2007; Ziomek‐Daigle & Christensen, 2010). As part of the process, mechanisms are established for counselor educators to raise concerns regarding a particular student and hold meetings with identified students to share concerns once a certain threshold is met.…”

Ward v. Wilbanks: Counselor Educators Respond

“…Parker and colleagues recommended future counselor educators receive training on how to respond to peer reporting. Similar to Lumadue and Duffey (1999) and Foster and McAdams (2009), Parker et al also stressed clear and consistent communication of program policies to students. Foster, Leppma, and Hutchinson (2014) used case analysis to illuminate counseling students' perceptions of gatekeeping.…”