How to avoid conflict with teachers

Imagine a Venn diagram that shows the three key contributors to a successful university application: the university counsellor, the parents and the teachers. At the centre of the diagram, where all three overlap, is the student’s application. The diagram also illustrates the important interactions: teachers-parents, parents-counsellor and counsellor-teachers.

It is the last of these three that I will explore in more detail.

How involved teachers are in university applications depends on individual schools’ systems for subject choice, predicted grades or scores, references and recommendation letters – and on the requirements of the targeted universities.

It should go without saying that collaboration between the university counsellor and the teachers is an important factor in an application. But there are some aspects of this where conflict can arise, and so care is needed in maintaining communication and mutual appreciation of each of the roles.

The first hurdle: subject choice

The first hiccup can occur at the point where students choose their subjects for A level or IB. They would probably have already discussed the ramifications of these subject choices with their counsellor. Or they will have been guided towards university requirements – for example, choosing higher-level chemistry and biology for a medicine application, or maths A level for a computer-science degree. 

But then they are advised by subject teachers that these are not realistic options for them.

At this point, the school’s policy might determine the outcome. Some schools will have strict policies, guided by the subject teachers, on what individual students are allowed to choose. Whereas others allow free choice (albeit with suitable warnings about the feasibility of successful outcomes).

The role of the counsellor may well be to advise on alternative routes to the chosen career or simply to act as the go-between. In the two examples mentioned above, alternative routes might be a graduate-entry medicine programme or a more general IT-related degree, rather than computer science.

The second hurdle: predicted grades

The next potential point of conflict concerns students studying in programmes that rely on predicted grades or scores for applications. A university’s requirement for a particular course might, for example, be 35 points at IB with a minimum of 6 in two of the higher-level subjects, while the teachers’ predictions are 555 for these subjects.

Again, this will be governed by the school’s policy on predictions – in particular, whether or not they allow some flexibility for “optimistic” predictions.

For counsellors, keeping open as many options as possible for their students might be a priority. Lower grade or score predictions mean fewer offers, and fewer offers reduce the available options.

As a counsellor, it is easy to adopt a mindset of “my job is to get offers for my students, and it is then up to the teachers to ensure they achieve the right exam outcomes”. However, teachers are often judged by the accuracy of their predictions, and schools need to be careful to maintain the trust of universities by providing accurate information.

Communication between counsellors and teachers within the framework of the school’s policy on predictions is vital.

The third hurdle: letters of recommendation

And then we come to the issue of references and recommendation letters. For applications that require a school reference, it is common practice for the counsellor to compile a reference that incorporates individual contributions from the teachers. This gives us some flexibility in cherry-picking the positive comments that will support – or at least not harm – the application.

This becomes more complicated for university systems, such as the US, that require individual teacher recommendation letters. This can often lead to a situation where either the counsellor is excluded from the process and has little control over the content, or where a teacher nominated by the student is either unwilling or (through lack of experience) unable to provide a suitable recommendation letter.

It is here that the counsellor’s diplomacy skills come into play. These can range from gently steering the student to a different teacher through to running training sessions for teachers on how to write effective recommendations.

Working collaboratively with teachers

Counsellors can often feel isolated in a school environment, where most of the focus is, understandably, on the academic aspects of day-to-day school life. We can also be the subject of intense pressure from parents, who judge the success of their investment in the school only by the outcome of university applications.

For many counsellors, the most effective way of managing these issues is by attending conferences, joining online counsellor chat groups and generally sharing their experiences with others in the same situations.

From my own experience, the four main takeaways from conversations with other counsellors who work successfully and collaboratively with the teachers are:

1. Stakeholder education: the school needs to provide a clear guidance framework on the main aspects of university applications – subject choice, predictions, recommendations – and this needs to be shared with all of the stakeholders: parents, students, teachers and counsellors.

2. Valuing the counsellor’s role: the school needs to ensure that the role of the counsellor is seen by colleagues and parents as an important component of the machinery of the school, not as an add-on, independent of its academic and social responsibilities.

3. Having a fallback: having a Plan B and Plan C for students, which teachers can buy into, is the best way of getting everyone working positively together on behalf of our students.

4. Informal conversations: last, but certainly not least, casual conversations in the staffroom at break times, and ad hoc meetings over the water cooler with the teachers can create much smoother paths through the whole process of university applications.