Gatekeeping in Social Work Education: Roles and Responsibilities

Introduction to Gatekeeping in Social Work Education

Part of the responsibilities of the social work educator is to evaluate student performance — a function better known as "gatekeeping." Educators must assess whether each student enrolled in their courses acquires the instruction necessary to function as a knowledgeable and ethical social work professional. Based on criteria established by the college or university, students are then passed or failed. Those who are unable to adequately complete the requirements for the degree, and those terminated from the program, may be considered unsuitable for the field. Although educators may differ on how wide the gate should be, every institution with a social work program is concerned that its graduates acquire the minimum competencies — given the expectations of agencies and their clients, state licensing boards, and the communities they serve.

The process of gatekeeping affects untenured or new counselor-faculty in a number of ways. In order to perform their job as well as possible, they need to learn gatekeeping best practices from those who have been in their position before them.

Gatekeeping has long been of special concern to social work field educators and students. It has become even more crucial as social work interns increasingly interface with seriously troubled clients whose challenges require significant skill and sensitivity from service providers. Research suggests that interns are being placed in field settings involving more serious, unresolved life issues, and therefore present additional concerns for field educators (Koerin & Miller, 1995; Regehr, Stalker, Jacobs, & Pelech, 2001).

Admission Standards and Legal Foundations

Colleges and universities have gatekeeping procedures in place even before an individual becomes a student. It is common for BSW programs to have admission standards — a minimum grade point average of 2.0, for example, is often required. Schools decide who to admit as well as whom to exclude from enrollment. Selection is not based purely on academic performance. A range of desirable nonacademic criteria — such as personal alignment with the social work profession's values, interpersonal competence, and ethical and diversity considerations — may all be evaluated at admission through vehicles such as individual and group interviews, reference letters, written statements, life experience, and volunteer and paid work experience (Cleak, McCormack, & Ryan, 2006, p. 67). On the other hand, it would be entirely reasonable, for example, to refuse admission to convicted felons — and perhaps an even stronger case could be made against admitting a convicted child molester (Blakely, 2000, p. 24).

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW, 1996) established professional mandates in order to "discourage, prevent, expose, and correct the unethical conduct of colleagues" (p. 18) and to "prevent the unauthorized and unqualified practice of social work" (p. 25). Thus, the NASW Code of Ethics requires gatekeeping before enrollment, during coursework, and whenever there is a violation of an ethical standard. Most educators, unfortunately, have had experience with a student who is not fit for graduation in a social work program. If such individuals were allowed to assume positions as counselors, considerable harm may be done to the most vulnerable clients.

However, the role of gatekeeper is precarious due to changing legal precedent. The landmark case Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) tightened the rules by which an institution may suspend a student. In Dixon, a college dismissed five students involved in civil rights demonstrations. The court overturned the dismissals, finding that the public institution was required to have adequate procedures to protect student rights. Since that ruling, courts have continued to acknowledge and extend due process safeguards to students facing disciplinary action.

Students who are dismissed from social work programs because of poor field performance are more likely to initiate lawsuits against their college or university than in the past. This change in attitudes results from two factors: rising tuition costs and the reality that, in today's marketplace, a graduate degree is often a crucial ingredient for a student's economic success. These factors have heightened the student's stake in completing a degree (Schweitzer, 1992). The subjective nature of educational field evaluations, combined with the consequences of academic failure, leaves field educators particularly vulnerable to student-initiated legal actions. Nevertheless, there is a "widely accepted assumption in social work education" that field placement offers the best opportunity to assess the relative fit of students with the profession, and it therefore continues to be used to identify unsuitable students (Gibbs, 1994, p. 71).

Gatekeepers must also be attentive to students who are physically or mentally challenged. With a long tradition of supporting individuals with special needs, social workers are at the forefront of advocacy movements (Lynch & Mitchell, 1995) and must lead in ensuring true access to the profession for persons with disabilities. "Social work programs that are committed to developing opportunities for all students model the type of inclusiveness and support that is the very essence of the profession" (Blakely, 2000, p. 210).