Gatekeeping Policies: Terminating Students for Nonacademic Reasons

Gate‐keeping for professional social work practice

“…In addition, the literature on suitability for social work practice examines issues such as dishonesty, criminal records, unethical behavior, immaturity, signs of mental illness, indications of substance abuse, a history of unsuccessful work experiences, limited intellectual capacity, and frequent career changes which need attention in the gate-keeping process (Miller & Koerin, 1998;Koerin & Miller, 1995;Moore & Unwin, 1990). While some of these factors may be detected during the admission process, or early in the student's educational experience, dealing with them can present some unique difficulties, especially in an era when individual rights require considerable sensitivity.…”

“…There is also a lack of consensus on what those actions should be, even in the presence of obvious questionable behavior. However, there is general agreement that terminating social work students whose difficulties are non-academic is a major challenge for educators and consequently for the profession as a whole (Koerin & Miller, 1995). Yet, given the reality that not all students will meet necessary professional standards, and in order to protect clients and the public at large, it is critical that social work programs 'do not avoid the difficult issue of failing inadequate students' (Cowburn et al, 2000, p. 635).…”

Issues and Challenges in Gatekeeping: A Framework for Implementation

“…Since personal hygiene and timeliness are expected behaviors of a practitioner (Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v Horowitz, 1977), should these behaviors be expected of a student preparing for that role? Are factors like ethics, mental health, substance abuse, illegal activities, and classroom behaviors non-academic factors when determining suitability for the profession (Koerin and Miller, 1995) or should these be considered academic components of competence? Can maturity, immaturity, naivety, entitlement, rigidity, lack of awareness, poor boundaries, and inflexibility move from a list of non-academic criteria (Miller and Koerin, 1998) into a category of expected behavioral indicators that when absent makes a student unsuitable for the profession?…”

“…Social work programs provide gatekeeping functions at admission (McClelland et al, 1991;GlenMaye and Oakes, 2002;Fortune, 2003), in field (Moore and Urwin, 1991;Weaver, 2000;Bogo et al, 2004;Furman et al, 2004;Wayne, 2004;Homonoff, 2008), and at graduation (Koerin and Miller, 1995;Miller and Koerin, 1998). Further, university admission standards, graduation criteria, and codes of student conduct impose an external and additional layer of gatekeeping (Cobb and Jordan, 1989;Cole andLewis, 1993, Urwin et al, 2006).…”

Gatekeeping in Family Science Programs

“…122-123) were primary reasons for counseling students out of a program. In a survey of social work graduate programs, 66 of 82 programs identified specific behaviors and situations warranting termination for non-academic reasons: unethical behavior, mental/emotional problems, criminal activities, and inappropriate field and classroom behavior (Koerin & Miller, 1995).…”