by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

Sixteen years ago, my first day with IECA was at the start of the spring conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. I believe there were fewer than 250 attendees, including some 80 IECA members. There was no NATSAP back then, Small Boarding School Conferences were intimate events, and The Association of Boarding Schools, just separating from NAIS, was years away from hosting its own conference. Today with more school conferences, therapeutic conferences, college conferences, plus LDA, CHADD, and more, I contemplated the role of IECA gatherings. I wondered if we are we simply duplicating efforts, and more importantly, whether IECA makes a significant contribution to the welfare of students.

To be sure the IECA conferences have grown. Upwards of 1,200 people have attended our conferences, including as many as 300 consultants. There has been a surge in college participation, while attendance from schools and special purpose programs grew rapidly in the first half of the decade and has stabilized. Even as the economy turned sour and where other associations reported 25 to 30 to even 35% percent drops in attendance, IECA has exceeded expectations with only minor declines. As a friend of mine, the director of another educational association, said to me recently, “The rest of us feel lucky to be hanging on…IECA is doing great and YOU’RE the one wondering how to change, improve, and redesign conferences? People come because there’s value to attending.” But again I wonder, with so many other choices out there, what IS the value? What makes IECA conferences unique and valued?

I recently asked a representative of Wintergreen Orchard House, a veteran of trade shows from coast-to-coast, about our conference. “The IECA Conference is a must-attend,” she told me. “It goes on my calendar first.” When I asked why, I was told “No where else can I meet people across disciplines: those in college placements, boarding school administrators, LD experts…it allows me to connect with all of the communities we want to reach.”

I asked an IECA member who has been around for years, someone who I’ll see at NACAC or other regional gathering from time to time. Her view was that IECA conferences provide something no one else does: a holistic view of adolescents. “We see teens as far more than a commodity to be placed or a potential student at a small private college. We know that to understand placement you need to understand the entire child: hopes, fears, learning style, anxieties, traits, and flaws. No where else do I get workshops on so wide a range of topics.”

While attending NATSAP last month I sat down and spoke with the head of a small emotional growth boarding school. He indicated that a few events each year are “musts.” This includes the two IECA conferences, because “…no where else can I speak to educational consultants who directly deal with students and families who are desperate and emotionally spent, and need a real professional to help them through a crisis; and then, turn around and talk to wilderness programs that could feed into my school, then traditional schools that we may feed into, and even colleges who want to understand better who we serve. Where else could I find that?”

And one more: a dean of admission from a college who jokingly told me many years ago that he would “never” tell his admission colleagues about IECA because it was one of the best kept secrets: “The last thing I want is more colleges to come. No where else do I get this wonderful opportunity to talk about my school with professionals who are MUCH more likely to work with students considering private colleges and MUCH more likely to explore colleges out of state. Why would I want my competitors to know about IECA?”

What then does IECA offer? First of all, the unique crowd that assembles: colleges, traditional boarding schools, gap year programs, emotional growth schools, therapeutic programs, and summer opportunities—all who believe in a holistic view of the student. Also, a schedule of workshops that range from NCAA rules to Asperger’s, and from learning communities to parent advocates. And we have worked in recent years to strengthen the academic offerings, even while expanding opportunities for networking in both formal and informal settings. As I look toward Toronto, I can say with confidence that “No Where Else” will such a gathering be possible.

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

A new national survey released yesterday by the non-profit research organization Public Agenda, and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, paints a depressing picture of college advising. In their survey of young adults who graduated from college, the researchers explored how helpful the respondents’ school-based counselor was in meeting their college search, application, and financial aid advisory needs. The respondents found little to cheer.

Two-thirds of those surveyed rated their counselor “poor or fair” at “helping you decide what school was right for you,” with 62% indicating a similar rating in the area of financial aid advice. Over 50% gave “poor or fair” evaluations to their counselors for “explaining and helping you with the application process,” while nearly half said that they were made to feel like little more than a “face in the crowd.”

The researchers were quick to note the conditions under which counselors typically work, including excessive caseloads often double or triple the national recommended number of students. In many school districts, college counseling is one aspect of a counselor’s duties that may include academic advising, crisis intervention, and lunchroom duty.

Little in the report came as a surprise, and one might suspect that as executive director of the professional association representing educational consultants working in private practice, we would greet the findings with some degree of pleasure. In fact, I am deeply disturbed by the findings and place the blame where it belongs: NOT on the backs of hard-working, overwhelmed school counselors, but squarely at the feet of school boards who have refused to recognize the importance of good, well-trained counseling staff.

So let me be clear in terms of the solution:

(1) What I believe is simple: every student deserves great college and career advising, not just those in private school or wealthy suburban districts—or those who can afford the services of an educational consultant. Every child.

(2) Counselor caseloads should not exceed the recommended maximum of 250, as set by the American School Counselors Association.

(3) Every counselor doing college placements should take coursework specific to college counseling—few actually have—like online classes offered through UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC Irvine.

(4) A member of the counseling team should be specifically trained to advise students with learning differences on their school search and application process, as well as offer advice on the transition to college.

(5) Schools should find the resources to ensure opportunities for professional development. Counselors must know the latest trends and changes to admission policies, financial aid, and more.

(6) School districts must release counselors to visit campuses regularly, to better understand the social, academic, and community aspects of the college and be better able to advise students and families.

These six recommendations would go a long way to improving counseling by supporting the training and professional development of college counselors and recognizing the limits to effective advice when one is over-worked and under-supported.

Because the educational consulting community supports great counseling for every child, we hope that these changes—which Independent Educational Consultant Association members already benefit from—are extended to school counselors, and we stand with our professional colleagues as they seek the resources they need to more effectively serve students in finding great college matches.

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 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

I had a brief e-mail exchange last week with Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Education. He called my attention to the Web site of a consulting firm that was meant to appeal to parents of one ethnic group. Scott was pretty sure that the owner of the site wasn’t an IECA member, and he was certainly correct. To me, everything about that site—and the approach taken by those charlatans—reflected the worst of private consulting.

What they were selling, versus what reputable, ethical consultants—those who are members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA)—provide to families is the difference between student success and parental failure.

The Web site Scott directed me to, and scores of others like it that I have seen in recent years, speak only to the narrow question of HOW TO GET IN. That is, no discussion of how to choose a school, what benefits come with a large vs. small school, public or private, urban or rural, cut throat or supportive, liberal-minded or conservative, diverse or not, close relationships with teaching staff or large lecture halls. None of that—or hundreds of other criteria—is ever mentioned. What is being sold: how to get into to a very exclusive school.

Whenever I explore such a site (knowing the services of a consultant are being offered to students, but with parents as the customer), I fear for the child. For the parent drawn in by such claims is seeking, I think, some level of prestige that they think they get for themselves when their child enrolls (or all too often is rejected from!). They are asking all the wrong questions: How do “we” get in? What do we have to do? What are the secrets?

Here are the questions I’d rather see parents asking:

What’s the best fit?

Where will my child thrive, mature, grow?

What will best suit her/his learning and motivational style?

Where will they be happy?

Where will my child be successful over the long haul?

What often makes this worse—and this was certainly true of the ad I was directed to last week: the admission process at elite schools was portrayed in an almost secretive, sinister light. The consultants promised that they knew the secrets, the language, the keys to use to fool the admission staff into accepting their child. How absurd! In this specific instance parents were warned that discrimination against their child’s ethnic group was rampant and only by using their secrets and their tricks could their child get in.

Once and for all let’s say what is the truth: admission staff members are hard-working, dedicated professionals seeking to create a freshman class reflective of the school’s overall mission and strategy in as fair a way as they can. They accept students who are the strongest candidates within that framework based on what they have achieved and their potential—both personally and what they’ll bring to campus. A good consultant succeeds when s/he understands a college, appreciate its strengths and weaknesses, and can pair this to what a student needs to thrive, succeed, and be happy.

The choice for parents is clear when they explore a consultant’s Web site or interview them by phone in order to determine if they are honest, capable, knowledgeable, and have your child—and your family’s—best interests at heart. What is the central focus of their “pitch”? The success of your child over the next four or five years at a school where he or she will grow and learn and mature—or just getting in? And which is it you really want for your child?

Or to be more stark, parents can ask themselves the following question: “Which is my priority: my child getting in, at all costs even to a school where they may not be happy or well-suited but will bring honor to me?” Or:  “Finding a great match where my child will shine and succeed?” And let’s again note: these firms promising to use smoke and mirrors are full of nonsense: they have no ability to “get your child in,” and despite their claims, no proven track record. Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times looked at the claims made by many of these companies and found them full of lies, distortions, and false claims. That’s why none of them can gain membership to a group like IECA.

I’m proud to represent the organization that has talked about and promoted the importance of the “match” for more than 20 years. We have fought the notion of tricks, gimmicks, and packaging of students. IECA believes that success is measured not by the thickness of the envelope but by the richness of the school experience. I hope you agree.

by Lisa Temkin (Illinois), IECA Member

I just thought some of you might be interested in hearing about a liberal arts presentation that Jill Burstein and I organized as a marketing event for our consulting practices.

We have three admissions people from three different liberal arts schools in the Midwest coming to speak on liberal arts curriculum—the flexibility, opportunities, how it’s different from the traditional university paradigm, what type of student it’s a fit for, etc.

Lake Forest College has generously offered a small auditorium and we’ll provide coffee, snacks and a variety of hand-outs. Just in case you know someone that might be interested the details are:

Sunday, January 31st, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.
Lake Forest College, Hotchkiss Hall, Meyer Auditorium
Lake Forest, IL

Speakers are Diane Kanney from Lake Forest College, Tony Bankston from Illinois Wesleyan University, and Mary Karen Villenes from The College of Wooster.

Should be very interesting; they are all dynamic speakers. If you have any questions about how we put this event together e-mail either Jill (collegefinderjb@aol.com) or myself (Lisa@GloEduCon.com).

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

I have spoken and written several times regarding the issue of international recruiters or agents. Such agents are used by colleges to find students overseas, paying the agent a per-head fee once the student enrolls. The practice has long been criticized on several fronts. Such agents typically conceal their business relationship from students and families. They pose as consultants, promising students to help them find a good college match and assist with applications. They never tell the family the truth: that they only refer students to one of the handful of colleges that pay them the bounty they demand. Colleges have begun to discover the downside as well: such students arrive on campus often without the skills necessary to succeed. Because the agent is only paid once a student enrolls, there is too much gamesmanship in the process that ensures students are registered, but all too often flunk out.

In a recent blog I noted that paying agents on a per-head basis is so clearly improper that it is actually illegal for colleges to have such a business relationship domestically. The Higher Education Act contains a provision that bars colleges from providing incentive compensation. While the law has not yet kept up internationally, I suspect it is just a matter of time before such actions are illegal everywhere. Even if not illegal, such methods of filling dorm beds have proven to be illusory as students drop out and return home.

Last week, in a historic decision, the University of Phoenix agreed to settle a case in which admission representatives claimed they were paid based on how many students they enrolled, a violation of the Higher Education Act. The settlement of more than $78 million dollars against the university demonstrates yet again that such behavior is simply wrong. While this was a domestic case, it is a reminder that scores of colleges engage in this same practice internationally. IECA believes strongly that colleges will be better served, and root themselves more firmly on ethical ground, by ending the practice of supporting fee-for-student agents.

Luckily, there are a growing number of independent educational consultants throughout the United States and the world. Affiliating with Independent Educational Consultants Association ensures families—and colleges—that these are educated, ethical professionals who do not accept any payment from colleges or schools, and who pledge to always put the students’ interests first.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Nearly 30 years ago IECA set the standard for the profession of educational consulting by establishing the first Principles of Good Practice. Major revisions several years ago made these ethics guidelines stricter and more demanding, setting limits on the value of gifts, articulating the limits on commercial activities, and places a firm prohibition against activities that heighten student or family anxieties. IECA became one of the first associations in the country that regularly reviewed the marketing materials of applicants to ensure these emphasize a “good fit” over “getting in.”

Now the Independent Educational Consultants Association has again raised the bar substantially by establishing new STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE for the practice of educational consulting. These new competencies (covering 14 pages of information) ensure that those in the field keep up with the ever-changing body of knowledge and practice in a professional and empathic way. The new document covers the major consulting areas of college advising, school advising, advising of students with learning disabilities, and advising students with special needs (emotional and behavioral problems). Within each advising specialty, competencies are articulated in the areas of assessments, working with the family, working with educational institutions, professional ethics, professional office management, and professional development.

Among the competencies:

• Consultants seeks to empower the student to take charge of the application process.

• Educate families and students about college ranking systems and media coverage in order to bring balance to decision-making and put this information in context.

• Recommend only schools that the consultant has visited except in highly unusual situations; make regular visits to campuses (spending up to 20% of one’s professional time doing so).

• Advise on the best alternatives for the child, regardless of parental desire or pressure. Consultants should seek to help parents understand why actions are recommended.

• Use intake procedures that insure the consultant develops an in-depth understanding of the unique characteristics of each student, i.e. unique abilities, academic learning style, personal characteristics, values, attitudes, feelings, interests, personal strengths and weaknesses, work ethic, aspirations, short-term and long-term goals.

• Prepare students and families for issues surrounding the transition from high school to college, i.e. self-advocacy skills.

• Understand the limitations of and appropriate uses of common assessment instruments.

• Be aware of accreditation, licensure and approval status of programs they recommend.

• Maintain knowledge of programs’ safety records, number of students, maintenance, administrative policies, education, therapy and emotional growth components, food service and quality, population description, confidentiality, and more.

• Respect the families’ and parents’ experience, history, values, religion, goals, and financial parameters in order to factor these in to the application and decision-making process.

The complete document, copyrighted by IECA, is available on the Association’s Web site: www.IECAonline.com.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Sometime this week the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is expected to formally launch an investigation into gender bias in the nation’s colleges. The charge is that college admission policies favor male applicants. Some colleges will respond to this charge with a hardy “yes, of course we do.”

The year I enrolled in college, males accounted for 57% of the undergraduate population. Today those numbers have reversed with women accounting for nearly 59%, as males are more likely to explore work, enlist in the military, or find themselves incarcerated. To many colleges, there is a benefit to a student body that is more evenly split between the sexes and some fear the results of an imbalance should female populations top the 2/3 mark…a figure not wholly unrealistic in smaller liberal arts colleges. College administrators, and educational consultants, fear that such a campus would become less and less appealing not only to some males, but many female candidates as well.

While the federal investigation may focus on a wider cross-section of schools, anti-discrimination laws apply only to public universities, as private schools have enjoyed the right to discriminate based on gender—a law that has allowed some institutions to remain single-sex. The investigators are likely to explore the grade point averages, test scores, and other details between admitted and rejected males and females.

Most colleges, public and private, will argue that they view all candidates as a whole: not only grades and scores, but personal and community-based experiences also. So, too, I suspect, they will note that colleges believe their students and their institutions are best served with a diverse student body. That said, when evaluating candidates for admission, schools likely look at a number of factors beyond scores and grades to ensure such diversity: race, religion, the state where the candidate was raised and educated, areas of interest and passion—and gender.

The Supreme Court, looking at the role of race in admissions, determined that colleges had the right to consider race among other factors, as colleges sought a diverse student body. In the case of the white student who brought the case claiming discrimination, the courts saw that providing some benefit to underrepresented minorities was an acceptable practice. Such actions, said the court, were designed in part to create a dynamic and diverse student body which benefited all students.

The question now is whether male undergraduates have become, in essence, an underrepresented minority deserving of some benefit in college admission. For me the more critical question is whether colleges retain the right to seek as diverse a student population as it wants, and does this extend to the right to favor some characteristics over others in order to achieve that aim. It is not, of course, as simple as it seems. For we should have no doubt that some small number of colleges, given permission to discriminate among applicants based on social characteristics, would do so for less noble purposes than a diverse student body.

For the time being I support colleges—and this from the father of two girls—because I do ascribe to the belief that all students benefit when the entering freshman class has students both urban and rural, American and foreign, Christian and not, female and male.