As part of the PCACAC AP
Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out
monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we will offer a situation and discuss
whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s
Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). The basis for this month’s
case was submitted anonymously by a PCACAC member. All questions and
allegations are treated as confidential; therefore, this case has been adapted
to protect the identity of the professional who called seeking advice. If you
have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP
Committee.
August Case: The Director
of Counseling at Prepared Institute, a regional magnet program, is meeting with
the Director of Recruitment and Director of Communication to discuss updating
the school profile. Even though it is a counseling office publication with the
primary audience being college admission offices, the Recruitment Office uses
the profile to attract students and the Communications Office supplies it to
the School Board and other interested groups. The counselor has run the numbers
and plans to simply update the class statistics. However, in the meeting, the
other Directors ask, “Can we drop out some ‘special groups’ of students from
the averages-- test scores, grade distribution, college list, etc. As you know,
we have some populations—athletes, international students, etc.-- here and do
not think they represent our typical students.” At first, the counselor feels
that not including all students might be disingenuous; but, upon further
consideration, thinks that “finessing” the statistics might actually help
future applicants to college as well as to recruit future families. The
counselor is torn about what to do and has called the AP Committee to ask for
advice.
Does the NACAC SPGP provide
guidance in this situation?
Discussion: Over the past
few years, the media reported on several colleges where the student profile had
incorrect statistics—ranging from deflated admission rates to inflated test
scores. But, the pressure to make a profile look better is not just directed at
college admission offices; counseling offices and independent counselors might
feel pressure to “finesse” their statistics for various reasons.
Luckily, as a professional
organization, NACAC provides direction for such ethical quandaries. In this
situation, there are two pertinent SPGP sections that can help the counselor
determine how she might proceed. The more direct statement addresses test
scores. According to SPGP Mandatory Practice III B 7, “All counseling members
will report on all students within a distinct class (freshman, sophomore,
junior, and senior) and subgroups, including non-native speakers, in the
reporting of standardized test scores.”
Furthermore, Mandatory SPGP
Mandatory Practice III B 1 states, “All counseling members agree that they will
provide colleges and universities with a description of the school’s marking
system, if available, that will provide some indication of grade distribution
that may include the rank in class and/or grade point average.” Dropping select
students from the profile may affect the rank in class and/or grade
distribution (if reported) for a school.
While this case relates to a
school profile, NACAC’s SPGP provides similar guidance to post-secondary
professionals, too. According to NACAC’s
SPGP Mandatory Practice II B 11, “All postsecondary members agree they will
initially report on all first-year admitted or enrolled students, including
subgroups in the reporting of test scores. If data on subgroup populations are
also provided, clear explanations of who is included in the subgroup population
will be made.” Furthermore, in the Interpretations Section, the SPGP expands,
“a. Postsecondary members will furnish data describing the currently enrolled
freshman class and will describe in published profiles all members of the
enrolling freshman class; b. subgroups within the profile may be presented
separately because of their unique character or special circumstances.”
Conclusion: So what can
the counselor do? She could use the SPGP as a guiding document to discuss the
issues with her colleagues. Many people think of contacting the Admissions
Practices Committee when they encounter a violation. However, the Committee’s
purpose includes serving as an educational resource. The counselor could contact
the AP Committee to discuss the proposed situation and possible SPGP issues.
Such conversations, similar to complaints, are treated confidentially by the AP
Committee. Not only could the AP
Committee be a sounding board for the issues, the Committee could support the
counselor by providing additional resources (for example, copies of the SPGP or
in-office training) for the counselor to provide her colleagues.
If you wish to file a complaint,
please complete a NACAC
Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept
confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate
affiliate AP committee. This committee will follow up on the issue.
Want to review previous case
studies?
View all of the Admissions
Practices Case Studies on The Anchor here.
Want to submit a case for
consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at
jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org
No comments:
Post a Comment