by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Not a single day goes by when I don’t hear from some overseas “agent” offering to ‘represent’ us abroad. On a weekly basis I hear from someone wishing to join the Independent Educational Consultants Association from Asia, Europe or the Middle East who indicate that they are educational consultants but operate “differently.”

That difference makes all the difference.

In almost every case, those claiming to be such atypical consultants are in fact “agents.” They are paid by colleges on a per-head basis for each international student they can feed into the school’s admission funnel. They may tell a parent that they are helping to find a “good match” but in fact that match is limited to the two, three or ten colleges with whom the agent has a contract and they only suggest colleges who pay them a finder’s fee. That is not consulting. Consultants work independently of colleges and make suggestions based solely on the best interest of the student. In fact, accepting a fee from a school, college, camp, or program is grounds for dismissal from IECA. That is how serious a violation of parental trust we consider this.

Frankly, most colleges must agree. I don’t know of any colleges that would pay such a fee for a student referred domestically. Indeed such a scheme would constitute an ethical violation of most any association or organization in the field. Yet many colleges actively engage in this farce across the globe. Many will say they only do so because operating internationally is tougher, that economic realities require such outreach. I remind my colleagues that ethical behavior shines brightest when it is applied to difficult situations, not the easy ones. Do schools really want to communicate to students that ethical lapses are okay, if you have empty beds, or really, really want something badly enough?

Luckily, an increasing number of colleges are rejecting “agents” just as IECA rejects them from membership. Despite our hard line, our international membership has doubled in the last two years and we continue to expand to new countries. What makes this growth all the more exciting is that we can say internationally what we’ve said domestically for over 30 years: that IECA members take no money from schools and programs and their only obligation is to advise families based on the needs of the student.

I look forward to the day when colleges, too, can make the same ethical claims domestically and internationally.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

We tried a number of new things at the conference: from a bookstore and Conference Central to debates and a master class. Among the most anticipated were our first Speed Meetings that gave participating schools and consultants a series of short, seven-minute appointments over a three-hour block of time. Drawn directly from evaluations and letters, here’s what we heard.

My view: the school meetings went flawlessly, a few glitches with the therapeutic meetings need to be ironed out but the concept works. I’m thrilled that we could offer these to schools at a cost of under $200, about $10-$15 per contact. Add your thoughts using the comment section:

from Dana Harbert, Eagle Hill:
“Eagle Hill School participated in the consultant speed conferencing. I am grateful that we as a school were chosen for this venue. I think six minutes for conferencing proved to be a decent amount of time to start discussions (and in some cases to finish the discussions). I want to stress, however, that these speed conferencing sessions should always be in addition to the swap on Thursday morning. This was my eleventh IECA conference and it was by far the best.”

from Andrew Weller, Ridley College:
Thanks for selecting Ridley College for the first of the speed meetings—it was great. You asked for feedback and I only have one thing really: It would have been great to have at my table a list not just of all the consultant attendees but a list of the ones I was seeing—in order. On the whole, I heard very positive comments from folks and imagine you did as well. Most people in the room were disappointed when it ended! That said, the one criticism I heard from others was that seven minutes was not long enough. I respectfully disagree. I think these meetings function best when the goal is to assess whether or not the conversation needs to continue outside the scope of the event (meet later, visit someone in their office, have them to campus, etc.). I imagine those unhappy with the short time probably did not have a good game plan or were expecting too much in just a short time. My singular goal for each meeting was to simply determine if there was mutual interest in continuing the conversation—and the time allotted was sufficient for that.

from Maryline Deschamps Kruger, educational consultant:
I had my doubts about the speed meeting format, but after participating in the therapeutic program speed meetings I’d like to report that I was pleasantly surprised. I found them extremely informative and believe that the information I gathered will prove to be helpful to my consulting practice. Thank you IECA!

From Brian Fisher, AdmissionsQuest:
The speed meeting approach gives admission officers and educational consultants a quick, defined time to exchange substantive information. It could be a new introduction. It could be catching up on what’s new. This new approach represents a purposeful exchange. Schools & consultants agreed that it’s an excellent modification to the conference format.

And 10 anonymous comments quoted from the conference evaluations:

(1) I was disappointed with the Therapeutic Speed Meetings! The organization was poor and we only got to meet with about half of the consultants we expected. The consultants did not seem into it and did not follow the rules!

(2) The Speed Meetings on Wednesday morning were excellent. Wish there were more opportunities like this…do another round rather than the Thursday morning fair?

(3) I was not happy on how the schools were selected for the speed meetings. My school did not get in and I feel like the fair was not as well attended by consultants since they participated in the speed meetings.

(4) I thought the Speed Meeting session was a terrific addition. Please keep it in the conference agenda. Thank you for this opportunity to speak at length with an IECA member.

(5) Overall, this was the best IECA conference I have attended in six years. It was so well attended, and I enjoyed all the opportunities to network. The speed conferencing was spectacular. I thought six minutes would be too little time. It was fine though. Probably ten minutes would be perfect.

(6) The therapeutic school speed meeting was horrible!! It did not start on time. Many consultants showed up late and others did not show at all. During the meeting consultants didn’t keep the rotation order and did virtually what they wanted to. In the future, the meeting times should be 10 minutes long, breaks should be followed by EVERYONE and, it needs to be much more organized.

(7) I really do think you should offer the speed meetings the afternoon before the college/school fair. I had at least seven consultants state they wished they had more time to visit and discuss.

(8) I participated in the Speed Meetings. These were GREAT! Made the IECA conference more valuable than any I have attended in years. I would love to see this replace the info swap. I would love to see the speed meetings take off. I think eight or nine minutes would be better than six. For consultants who did not know Bement, a few extra minutes would have been helpful. I would be more than happy to see this event grow from a morning to an all day event (with breaks and lunch) or two mornings. The time flew by for me and the use of breaks during the morning was helpful and sufficient. I do hope more consultants sign up next year. I feel as though the information from Rachel about what to bring and what to prepare was helpful and accurate. I felt really ready for my meetings and the time with the consultants was really valuable. Only change (aside from two to three more minutes) I would suggest is making it longer so we can meet with more consultants!

(9) Please find a way for more programs to participate in speed meetings. It was hard having only one program like mine be eligible. If it was successful for the boarding schools, I certainly believe it would be an instant success for colleges and universities.

(10) I was disappointed in the Speed Meeting session for therapeutic schools as a number of consultants chose not to attend so that left a number of programs with an empty dance card.

by Sarah Brachman, Manager of Communications, IECA

In Conference Central at the Charlotte conference, I offered training on social networking for members who wanted assistance. I wasn’t sure what to expect—there’s a lot going on at conferences and I knew that attendees would be busy attending sessions, visiting vendors, attending the fair/swap, and networking with colleagues, so I was afraid I wouldn’t find many people to help. As it turned out, I needn’t have worried about being bored. After the first round of breakout sessions (and after Mark urged attendees to stop by the social networking help desk), I was swamped! Attendees had questions from setting up a Facebook page, deciding between a Facebook page and a Fan page, starting a blog, importing their blog into Facebook, linking their Web site to their ‘tweets’ and their Facebook page, how to keep their client ‘friends’ private, how to send photos from their iPhone to their Facebook page, and how to use their Blackberry (that one stumped me). Long-time professional members and new associate members came by; some twenty-somethings and some more seasoned. Everyone had different social networking questions, and I loved the challenge. I also thoroughly enjoyed getting to know all who stopped by. I talk to or e-mail many of you throughout the year, but sitting down with members and working through these technology issues really brought out their personalities.

Since returning to the office, I have been following up with several of you to answer questions I didn’t have time to during the conference, or didn’t have the answer to. And I’ve been visiting the Facebook pages of those I helped to see how they’re coming along. I made sure that everyone I met became a ‘fan’ of the IECA Facebook page to encourage more of you to follow the conversations on our page, and I hope that you will all check this page at least one a day and post your comments. I also encouraged everyone to post photos of campus tours on their Facebook pages, and include some information about the schools they visited as a way to communicate with clients and also to show that you are visiting schools and can share this valuable information with clients. A great example of this is at Stephanie Klein Wassink’s Fan page. I just helped Stephanie just set up her Fan page, and within the hour she had uploaded photos from the tours she attended earlier in the week. Check out her page, and become a fan.

So after working with the 30+ attendees at the social networking help desk I’ll admit I was a bit tired, but I actually felt more invigorated by everyone’s enthusiasm and excitement over learning something new and (hopefully) overcoming some technology fears.

For those of you who have already e-mailed or called me with more questions, keep ‘em coming; for those of you who weren’t able to meet with me, contact me here at the office and I’ll work with you over the phone or through e-mail. I look forward to de-mystifying social networking for those of you who have a healthy fear of technology, to those who want to learn more, and for anyone who just doesn’t have time to figure it all out.

Find me on Facebook! www.facebook.com/sarahbrachman.ieca

by Emily Snyder, IECA Professional Member (Virginia), and Chair of IECA’s College Committee

For those of you who follow national development of educational issues, I returned home from the IECA Conference to hear Al Sharpton, Newt Gingrich, and Arnie Duncan come together with David Gregory on NBC’s Sunday morning “Meet the Press” to discuss forming a coalition to address what they all believe is a need for national curriculum standards. The implications of such a movement — which we have actually been headed towards for some time — on education from pre-K through college and beyond are enormous. My belief is that any resulting legislation will require us to alter how we work with students and families, regardless of our specialties, in ways that we have not even begun to fathom.

Part of our role as consultants is being aware of what’s on the educational horizon so that we can appropriately guide the students and families we work with as they make expensive and long term educational decisions. That’s why it will be more important for us than ever before to support IECA sponsoring workshops and sessions on controversial legislation that impacts any and all of us — like the Friday afternoon session where members from CAFETY and therapeutic boarding schools came together to discuss their views with consultants.

While there wasn’t much time to do more than touch the surface of the issue and its implications, Mark Sklarow as the moderator, the panelists, and the comments from the audience all served a purpose — IECA created a public dialogue where both sides of the issue were aired and information was shared; a forum I would encourage all of us to support as the nature of our work continues to evolve.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Departing NC

I am minutes away from leaving the Westin in Charlotte. That means the staff is minutes away from finalizing plans for our spring gathering in Toronto. Help us by posting your thoughts about the conference in Charlotte. What was interesting? Valuable? What worked? What needs tweaking? Please post your comments, and especially consider the new developments: more extensive, advanced-level pre-conference seminars, the Speed Meetings, Conference Central, Saturday’s Masters Class, the Friday point-counterpoint. Thanks in advance for your input!

By Peter Baron, AdmissionsQuest

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

From the IECA Conference in NC

I had the opportunity to moderate a truly extraordinary session before 400 attendees at the IECA Conference in Charlotte. A panel of seven represented divergent views on legislation currently being considered that would regulate the therapeutic industry.

Brian Lombrowski, president of CAFETY supports the legislation and spoke of the role of government to ensure the safety of youth, noting that in many states with licensure and standards already in place, the federal legislation would have little impact, but would address problems in states with little or no regulation.

Next Dr. Jared Balmer, co-founder of a residential treatment program, provided some history. He noted that 25 years ago most troubled youth were housed in psychiatric hospitals, a far worse situation than what is afforded young people in RTCs today. He endorsed regulation but indicated concerns with some aspects of the current legislation.

Next up was Chris Noroski, a student at the University of St. Thomas, and vice president of CAFETY. He noted a concern for the lack of standing a teen has in deciding his or her own placement in a program. He drew attention to the conflict that may come when the parent is the customer and the student is the client. Grace Cole, a student from Charlottesville, Virginia, spoke next and reiterated Chris’ point that students deserve greater say in deciding their own fate and spoke of the need of students to be able to report suspected abuse.

Dr. John Santa, founder of Montana Academy, countered that from his experience, virtually no adolescents will willingly go to the residential treatment center, and so students cannot be making such decisions and that parents make this decisions out of concern for the well-being of their child. He also noted the danger that can come if students can regularly make accusations without foundation, to federal or state authorities. The result of the proposed bill, he said, is that programs would opt for safety, rather than treatment that might invite accusations of violations.

Lon Woodbury, chair of the Special Needs Committee of the Independent Educational Consultants Association spoke next, noting a series of legislative attempts to serve troubled teens that have been unsuccessful. He reminded everyone that even if well-intended, the key to results in new laws are in the regulations and guidelines that are written to implement the law and that these often corrupt the original intent.

Dr. Robert Friedman, a professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies at the University of South Florida, was the final panelist. He expressed concern for programs, Web sites, and unethical consultants that prey on parent anxieties, noting that many of the programs in the room, and IECA, seem committed to raising standards and operating in an ethical manner. He offered that efforts must be made to deal with those less ethical and those who do not work to meet higher standards.

During questions and answers, attendees raised questions about why the legislation doesn’t include traditional boarding schools, as well as questions about lowering the age of consent, as has been done in Washington state.

In the end it was remarkable because it marked the first opportunity for each side in this important debate to listen and speak with each other and to begin a dialogue. I was taken at one point by Dr. Santa’s view that 10 of the 14 regulations outlined in the bill he completely agreed with, and he saw two as administrative annoyances that he could live with. That left just two parts of the bill where he disagreed–with some vehemence–but this showed me that both sides are closer together than anyone had thought. The CAFETY and A-START folks are NOT trying to close down all residential programs, and the therapeutic industry folks accept the value and need for some regulation or licensure.

In the end I think it was a worthwhile exercise, and I had dozens of attendees seek me out to offer their opinion that the session was interesting, valuable, and a breakthrough. We look forward to continuing the dialogue and finding the role consultants may play in ensuring student success and family harmony.

By Peter Baron, AdmissionsQuest

By Brian Fisher, AdmissionsQuest

Dr. Nido Qubein, President of High Point University, shared his zest for life and his philosophy during Thursday’s conference lunch. Part tent revival, part comedian, part practical philosopher, part story teller, Dr. Qubein affirmed the importance of education and the transformational experiences that schools and educators provide students.

Preaching to the choir he made the case for the responsibility that educators carry and the great affects they have on their students.

Environment. Environment. Environment. He likened students’ abilities to grow and adapt the adaptive abilities of the Koi fish. An environment rich in opportunities, expectation, and support grows the healthiest students.

Focus, expectation, and modeling drive his interactions and decisions for his students. He’s brought student centered learning to his alma mater, High Point University.

I laughed more during Dr. Quebein’s talk than during any keynote I remember. What I write doesn’t do justice to Dr. Qubein’s public speaking.

By Peter Baron, AdmissionsQuest

Erin Avery, Avery Educational Resource, IECA member, talks about what she enjoys about the conference- from conference sessions to the networking opportunities to the quality discussions with schools, colleges, therapeutic programs & vendors.

Ben Kavanaugh, Bucknell University shares the college perspective on IECA Charlotte:

Cyndy McDonald, College Consultant Assistant, shares her impressions of the conference.

Clint Williams, Maine Central Institue, talks about why he values the IECA conference.

Sharon Laney, Three Springs tells us about the networking opportunities and conversations that happen at IECA.