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

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.

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

For several years there has been talk about governmental regulation of therapeutic schools and programs. During this time several states have created licensing procedures, often with the active participation of program leaders. The most controversial efforts have involved those by Representative George Miller (CA) who chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor. He has proposed legislation that regulates such programs by federal statute. Among those who have lobbied for very strict federal guidelines are CAFETY (Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth). While many therapeutic programs have endorsed the concept of regulation, most have voiced a concern that the specifics in the proposed legislation could destroy the existence of such programs and have argued for guidelines that they feel would improve the quality of care without decimating the field. The National Association for Therapeutic Schools and Programs has been in the forefront of this effort.

For the very first time at an IECA conference, we have scheduled a General Session topic that will bring in speakers with diverse opinions, explaining their point of view and answering questions from the audience. This promises to be a dynamic and informative session, open to all conference attendees starting at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, November 13, 2009 at the IECA Fall Conference in Charlotte. I will call on my skills as a former political science teacher in moderating a session that we expect will better illuminate all points of view than in creating tension.

The presenters for this general session are expected to include:

Dr. Jared Balmer, Executive Director, Aspen Institute for Behavioral Assessment

Grace Cole, Member, CAFETY

Dr. Robert Friedman, Professor, Department of Child and Family Studies, University of South Florida

Brian Lombrowski, President, CAFETY

Chris Noroski, Vice President, CAFETY

Dr. John Santa, Clinical Director and Founder, Montana Academy

Lon Woodbury, Founder, Woodbury Reports; Educational Consultant, IECA

Hopefully we will all leave the session with a better understanding of this complicated issue and an appreciation for the diversity of viewpoints.

I had a good meeting Wednesday with Jan Moss, outgoing executive director and Cliff Brownstein, the new NATSAP executive. We had a wide-ranging discussion about pending legislation, ethics, conferences, and parent inquiries. I am looking forward to discovering possibilities for our two organizations to work together in new and dynamic ways. I’m also thrilled that Jan will be at our gathering in San Francisco.

I will be taking some time away from the virtual college fair this Wednesday to join NATSAP’s outgoing (Jan Moss) and incoming (Cliff Brownstein) executive directors for lunch and a planning session.  With NATSAP moving its national office to the DC area it will certainly facilitate such opportunities and improve our ability to coordinate and enhance cooperation on a host of issues from ethics to the impact of the financial crisis on both our members and our organizations.