by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

Last night came the inevitable battle between the two world powerhouses in women’s hockey: USA vs. Canada. The two teams have dominated the sport for many years, and the impending contest at the Olympics resulted in a pressure cooker building for years leading up to the contest. One game, winner takes gold. Imagine trying to motivate the players, or more exactly, ensure that they peak on the right day at the right time without allowing the stress, pressure, and anxiety to take over.

Peter Jensen

Now you understand the role that Dr. Peter Jensen plays for the Canadians. As founder and director of Performance Coaching, Jensen is the sports psychology trainer for the Canadian women’s hockey team, and has been the sports psychologist for 40 Olympic medal winners. In recent years Jensen has taken his techniques and applied them to real life, instructing leaders in business and education, and parents, in how to “ignite” the kind of passion and commitment in others that Olympians have.

We are pleased to announce that fresh off his Olympic success, Dr. Jensen, author of Igniting the Third Factor, will serve as keynote speaker at the opening session of the IECA conference. He will focus on five actions that all of us can take to motivate students to succeed.

Early Bird registration ends today, so if you haven’t registered be sure to do so today. For more information, go to our conference page.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

Based on overwhelmingly positive feedback from consultants and school representatives, we are pleased to announce that the Speed Meetings test-run in 2009 will return as part of IECA’s upcoming Spring Conference, although a few key changes will make them even more valuable. Two sets of Speed Meetings have been planned: one for traditional boarding schools and the other for special purpose and therapeutic schools and programs. They will run simultaneously on Wednesday morning, May 12, just prior to the opening of the conference.

The Speed Meetings are designed to have a maximum of 40 consultants in each session, with a similar number of schools or programs. The event features a series of eight-minute private one-on-one meetings to give the consultant a feel for a school’s philosophy, approach, and unique offerings. The cost to schools is just $175, a very cost-effective way to get quiet networking time with more than 15 consultants. The $35 fee charged to consultants is refunded after they complete their full slate of “appointments.”

A few other changes are based on feedback. We’ve increased the time of the meetings from six to eight minutes, and schools may now have two representatives present. We urge only one of these to be an admissions representative with the other being an administrator, counselor, or other school professional.

Here are a few comments we heard after the trial Speed Meetings run in Charlotte:

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 six 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.

(from an anonymous source in conference evaluation:) 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.

(another evaluation comment) I participated in the Speed Meetings. These were GREAT! Made the IECA conference more valuable than any I have attended in years. 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!

Schools will be given the opportunity to apply to participate in the Speed Meetings AFTER they complete their conference registration. For consultants, the registration for Speed Meetings is part of the conference registration process. Those who may have already registered for the conference but wish to add participation in the Speed Meeting, may access their online registration by following the directions on their confirmation e-mail.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

Our spring conference registration opened less than a week ago, and registration is already approaching 250. Early bird discounts end THIS FRIDAY (February 26), so if you are planning to attend our gathering in Toronto (May 12-15), get your registration completed right away. Full details on the conference are posted on the IECA Web site (http://www.iecaonline.com/conferences.html) and additional information, including details on all breakout sessions, will be added to the site in the next few days.

I have gotten a few questions and welcome this opportunity to clarify:

“I really don’t work with Canadian schools or universities (or ‘We don’t really get any students from Canada’). So maybe there won’t be as much for me at this conference.” Hold on!  Just because we are meeting in Canada for the first time doesn’t mean our focus is shifting. Of the first 225 registrants, just 15 are Canadian consultants, schools, or universities. The other 210 are from the U.S. What we expect is full participation by our IECA members from across the U.S. with a bit of an uptick in non-U.S. participation, reflecting how much easier it is for consultants in Asia, South America, and Europe to travel to Canada. We expect all of the schools, colleges, and programs that typically attend IECA conferences to be joining us in Toronto, but with the added bonus of greater participation by Canadian institutions. Remember, school, program, and college representatives from Nova Scotia to Vancouver helped us plan the conference!

“There’s so much going on before and after the conference, I’m still trying to figure out what to do, so I can’t register yet.” Wait a minute! We don’t want you to lose out on the early bird discount. Register for the conference now and get your discount. You can always sign back on using our Web-based registration system and modify your registration. That way you won’t miss the discount. We know there’s a lot going on: pre-conference activities include IECA tours of Ontario universities; special tours of Ontario boarding school and gap year programs; the popular Speed Meetings—actually two of them: one for traditional boarding schools and the other for therapeutic programs; and a pre-conference workshop on LD issues as well as one on Web-based marketing. Whew!! Post-conference activities include TWO different college tours: one of universities in upstate New York and the other in Nova Scotia. There’s a school tour in Nova Scotia as well.

“I just got a conference/tour price list via e-mail and it looks like the prices really went up.” NO! That was an e-mail from some other association! Don’t be confused. The cost of our three-day college tours (pre- or post-conference) is still just $95—not the $200 the other group charges. Our conference fee for members, including meals and special events and even including a pre-conference workshop, is unchanged at $395 ($370 early bird)—not the $595 the other group just e-mailed for their conference and pre-conference registration. IECA works hard to keep our costs as low as possible (with thanks to our conference sponsors). As proof: our membership dues have not changed in 30 years! Finally, even non-members can save a bundle. Our conference and pre-conference workshop full registration for non-member consultants is $530—not the $745 others are charging, according to that e-mail. Of course, cost is just part of the story. We are confident that everyone will get a great deal out of participating in the IECA conference: amazing speakers, great educational sessions, and lots of opportunities for networking.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

From the LDA Conference in Baltimore, MD

Led by IECA ’s Learning Disabilities Committee, the Independent Educational Consultants Association has launched a new, sustained initiative to educate learning specialists, psychologists, parent advocates and state and regional LDA officials about the role IECA members play in advising on school and college search and selection for students with learning differences.

This week, IECA will maintain an information booth at the national Learning Disabilities Association conference in Baltimore. Staffing the booth are LD Committee Chairs Pam Tedeschi (MD) and Rachel Sobel (PA). Volunteers in the booth so far include associate member Nancy Black (RI), Rebecca Reynolds (MD), Deborah Shawen (MD) and Marcia Simon (MD). The goal is to speak with educators, educational testers, psychologists, learning specialists, and parents about IECA and the role of educational consultants. Early Wednesday there was a steady stream of visitors, many of whom knew of IECA and wanted to welcome us to the conference, as well as some LDA leaders who explored new areas for cooperation. Discussions began on a presentation at next year’s conference that would include several IECA members on the panel.

In preparation for the LDA conference, IECA created new educational and promotional materials. A new brochure, written by the LD Committee, explains how “Independent Educational Consultants Partner with Learning Specialists.”  This brochure underscores how consultants can work as part of a team: helping to advise other professionals on placement alternatives when a local school is not the best provider of the services a student needs; or when a student is preparing to move on to their next level of education: junior high to high school or high school to college, for example. At the same time, the message notes the need of consultants to reach out to educators and professionals to conduct appropriate testing…all to find the best options for the student and the family.

Several months ago, the LD Committee sponsored its own tour of schools that emphasized the learning centers and services provided for students with learning differences. The Committee plans to meet soon to discuss next steps in this sustained outreach to professionals and families.

by Emily Snyder, IECA Member (Virginia) and Chair, IECA College Committee

In “Inside the College Rankings” in Friday’s US News and World Report, Bob Morse (of the Morse Code), cites the recently released “UCLA Freshman Survey: Fall 2009″ as evidence that students are using a variety of factors—not just national rankings—when making a decision about where to go to college.

The survey asked 219,864 incoming freshman at 297 colleges to rate as many as 22 factors that they considered to be “very important” in influencing their decision to attend a particular college.

The survey results show that financial aid (#3) and cost of attendance (#4) are very important considerations—no surprise given the current economic climate. With other factors, such as campus visits (#5); size (#6); social climate (#7); and location (#9) receiving a higher rating than national rankings (#12—down from #11 last year), it is clear that the groundwork that IECA has laid for educating students and families on making a decision that is right for them has taken hold. Hopefully we won’t have to work as hard to dispel the myth that a university’s national ranking determines it worthiness.

In the data driven age of the 21st century, where statistical comparisons are used for making all kinds of decisions, national education rankings will continue to play a role in most families’ decision-making process. For what it’s worth, in my opinion, to assume otherwise would be shortsighted.

However, as the importance of national rankings shifts, so does our responsibility. Do we even need to continue to debate whether rankings are worthwhile? Can we use this survey as a conversation changer in how we counsel families?

When the conversation surfaces, why not say that rankings are out there, that each one represents one source’s results (and in some cases opinion), and that we would all be better served to focus on the factors that are the most important to each particular student’s situation; let’s be the ones to shift the conversation. The fact that US News is giving coverage to a survey that some could construe as “devaluing” the importance of the national rankings speaks for itself—the timing is right.

The results of the UCLA survey prove that students and families are heeding the advice we provide; something we should all be proud of. It also renews my faith in what we do for students—guide them as they utilize available resources to evaluate their options and make decisions that are right for them.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

As the competitiveness in college admission continues to grow, and with it parent anxieties, school systems across the country seem to be in a frenzy to grow their Advanced Placement (AP) offerings. In doing so, many schools place increased pressure on students to take AP courses in a desire to strengthen their students’ college applications and meet parental demands.

The problem of course is that schools need to meet three conditions BEFORE such a plan can be successful: (1) adequate training for teachers who will be responsible for the AP curriculum; (2) adequate preparation for students; and (3) sensible screening of students before placing them into AP classes. The current lack of such planning is further harmed when national “experts” evaluate and rate schools based on how many AP courses they offer and how many students are “pushed to challenge” themselves, with little attention paid to how many succeed. Some schools are reporting failure rates exceeding 70%!

Nationally more than 41% of students are now failing AP tests (receiving a grade of 1 or 2, typically considered failing). This is a 14% increase in the failure rate over the last decade. Much of the increase, and the highest failure rates, are seen in the South where almost half of all students fail, including more than 55% in New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. During this same decade the number of students enrolled in AP courses has more than doubled.

As recent IECA surveys indicate, students are best served when they take challenging classes and succeed in them. Looking at these new figures, one has to wonder whether the groundwork has been laid for this huge increase in offerings and participation as students in alarming numbers are not able to pass these tests. Are schools and counselors properly advising students when they are urged into coursework that is either above their ability or when a class’s progress is delayed because improper screening was done? One wonders if the growth has been pushed by an organization that materially benefits when more students take AP courses and tests—whether they are fully prepared for success or not.

Let’s continue to challenge students, but let’s use some common sense. Let’s also look at schools where three-quarters of student fail, and ensure that teachers are properly trained and students are able to handle the requirements.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

The typical student in the United States is awake for about 16 hours a day. School, including getting there and back, and the occasional after school activity, accounts for nearly half of those hours. The balance is meant for family, meals, volunteer commitments, part-time jobs, community sports leagues, church or synagogue, leisure reading and homework.

If that seems like a lot to squeeze into just eight waking hours a day, consider the following: adolescents are spending seven and a half of those hours connected to electronic media! This according to a new study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The explosion of multi-purpose cell phones (cameras, game-playing devices, Facebook interfaces), among other developments in the past decade, has dramatically increased such activities. Harry Potter and Twilight aside, these increases have come at the expense of leisure reading.

According to the Kaiser study, adolescents between the ages of eight and 18 average four and a half hours of television-watching daily and an additional two and a half hours listening to music. Of course unlike when we were teens, listening to music meant being holed up in our rooms with the stereo cranked up, today’s music listening often accompanies other activities like chores, reading, and homework.

Another two hours are dedicated to cell phones: text messaging now occupies nearly an hour and a half of each day, while talking on those phones just a half hour. Video games played either on their phone or on the computer accounts for over an hour a day, and at-home, non-school related computing another hour and a half.

Do the math: that amounts to 13 ½ hours, squeezed into less than eight hours thanks to multi-tasking that comes so easily to teenagers today. Back to that image of yourself as a teen, lying on your bed, eyes closed listening to albums through the headphones your parents made you wear rather than disturb the entire house. Today that scene—ear buds plugged into a phone, listening to music while texting friends, catching up on Facebook while finishing math homework. Don’t ask me how it’s possible…I still can’t concentrate on the reporter’s words while trying to read a chyron as it scrolls “breaking news” across the bottom of the TV screen.

I am not sure what message this really brings. I suspect I’m just the latest in 2,000 years worth of older folks worrying about how the newest generation can possibly keep up with the pace of life. But I do hope that college students (medical students in whose care I’ll someday be) are really able to learn their stuff, complete their assignments and retain everything, while connected to so many for so long in so many ways, while they meet the demands of schooling.

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

From the NATSAP Conference in San Diego

On Thursday morning we received a briefing by NATSAP’s government relations representative, Kristina Pisanelli. She both provided an update on the Miller bill as well as set the scene for the legislative landscape in DC.

Back in 2007 when the Miller bill was proposed, it contained a number of provisions that would have effectively closed therapeutic schools and programs. The most onerous provision would require programs to meet not only the laws of the state where they were located, but also all applicable laws for all the states from which current students permanently reside. This would have meant, for example that a program in Idaho might have to meet the laws of 32 individual states—a list that could change weekly.

That bill died with the 110th Congress. In January a new bill was introduced in the House and quickly passed the Education Committee and the House. THIS new version of the bill was greatly influenced by NATSAP’s legislative work, including the editing out of the provision noted above. Aspects of the new legislation are far more acceptable to NATSAP schools and programs, although it still creates a new government oversight that duplicates efforts already done by other agencies and in many states. It was this new version that was the subject of a debate at the IECA conference last fall.

NATSAP’s effort will now shift to the Senate, where no regulatory bill has yet to be introduced, although Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced an alternate bill. Hatch’s bill would create federal minimum guidelines but would leave the development of specific regulations and enforcement to the states rather than create a new level of federal bureaucracy. This is the approach that is supported by NATSAP. With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the newly installed chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is Tom Harkin of Iowa. A new bill would have to make it through Harkin’s committee and be approved by the Senate and reconciled with the House bill within a year.

Given the current legislative agenda: jobs, the economy, health care, terrorism, education, and more that were articulated during President Obama’s State of the Union address, it is unclear if the Senate will be able to tackle the issue of regulating therapeutic programs in this Congress.

It is also worth noting that with President Obama calling for a freeze in discretionary domestic spending, it may be less likely that the government would create a new bureaucracy as called for in the House version.

Prior to the start of this session, I had breakfast with a number of the members of IECA’s Special Needs Committee and we brainstormed the possibility of new PR initiatives. I look forward to sharing these after the matter has made its way through the committee and the IECA board.