The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Supporting pupils: A study of guidance and pupil support in Scottish schools

Executive summary

Introduction

'Guidance'/pupil support in Scottish primary, secondary and special schools encompasses a wide range of activities. Although there is no unified system of guidance, traditionally it has been seen as consisting of three main parts - curricular, vocational and personal guidance - and may involve reactive work with pupils' problems, the proactive teaching of personal and social skills, and the orderly management of pupils' progress through education and beyond. It may also include working to maintain school discipline and ethos, and good communications with pupils' parents/carers and other relevant professionals. This report presents the findings from a study of 'guidance' in Scottish schools commissioned by the Scottish Executive Education Department. Information was gathered from 26 local authorities, 8 case study schools (3 primary, 4 secondary and 1 special school) and two Higher Education Institutions. In total 2,413 pupils/young people, 158 teachers and 100 parents completed questionnaires. In addition, 36 members of staff, 6 lecturers and 20 members of other professions were interviewed, and 10 pupil, 2 teacher, and 4 student, focus groups were held.

Key findings

• ' Guidance'/pupil support has a long history in Scottish schools: promoted posts for guidance were established in 1971. Traditionally guidance has included curricular, vocational and personal guidance.
• Most local authorities (69%) produce either a policy or guidelines for schools on pupil guidance. However, few prepared guidelines for use in primary or special schools
• All local authorities report that secondary schools had promoted guidance posts. These are at Principal Teacher (PT) level in 23 authorities (88%).
• Guidance structures in schools are changing. In at least six authorities, former Assistant Principal Teachers have been appointed to 'acting PT' posts pending decisions about the restructuring of guidance/pupil support and twenty-five local authorities (96%) reported that they were reviewing their guidance structures
• The term 'guidance' was rarely used by teachers, pupils and their parents in primary and special schools
• Primary pupils presented a very positive picture of their schools: 82% were happy, 98% liked their teacher and 91% liked themselves. They made very few suggestions for improving pupil support in their schools.
• Most special school pupils, who participated in a focus group, liked school and were satisfied with the support they received.
• Three-quarters (75%) of secondary school pupil respondents were happy; almost eight out of ten (79%) thought that their school promoted an inclusive ethos; 89% regarded their school as either friendly or very friendly and the majority of those who had seen a guidance teacher were satisfied with the experience.
• Pupils choose to talk to different people about different problems: a not insignificant percentage (range: 2% to 20%) across all case study schools report that they will talk to 'no one'.
• Overall, parents of primary school pupils were satisfied with the support their children received. Ninety per cent (90%) of parents of primary school pupils were satisfied with the support their children received (59%, very satisfied; 31%, satisfied) and all the parents of pupils in the special school were satisfied with the support their children had received (81%, very satisfied; 19%, satisfied).
• Parents of secondary school pupils thought that their child's school was welcoming (66% very welcoming; 34% fairly welcoming). All thought that their child was happy in school and 99% were satisfied overall with the support available to their child/children.
• Parents of secondary school pupils believed that pupil support should be provided by teachers and parents/carers. Some saw a role for peer group support and others preferred guidance staff or a member of staff who knew their child well.
• Most primary school teachers (88%) reported that they were involved with pupil support and perceived it to be an integral part of both the primary school and their profession. This view was shared by teachers in special school case study.
• In contrast, although 95% of secondary school teachers believed that all teachers have a duty to care for pupils, only 44% thought that all teachers should have a guidance function.
• Local authorities defined integrated working in different ways. The most frequently mentioned links were with the Careers Service (20 authorities; 76%) and 'Psychological Services' (18; 69%). Thirteen local authorities (50%) reported that they had structures in place to facilitate integrated working, but that it was too early to judge the success of these.
• Many teachers appreciated the need to work with members of other professions in order to provide effective guidance/pupil support but pointed out that these could be time-consuming. However, few pupils or parents commented on links with members of other professions.
• Members of other professions reported that inter-agency links worked well at a person level but confidentiality, sharing information amongst different professional services and systemic divisions could hinder integrated working.
• Students undergoing initial teacher education thought that their training in 'guidance/pupil support' was strong in elective subjects. Their lecturers in HEIs were aware of certain gaps in provision and had either begun the process of attempting to address these or suggested ways in which provision could be enhanced.
• Most local authorities (88%) provided some form of CPD, in-service or staff development in guidance/pupil support for teachers. Some opportunities were open to all teachers and not restricted to guidance staff.
• Case study primary school teachers pointed to the paucity of opportunities for them to develop their knowledge and skills in guidance/pupil support.
• Case study secondary school teachers highlighted the importance of personal qualities, motivation and experience for guidance/pupil support staff. Many were concerned that the agreement reached following the report A Teaching Profession for the 21 ^st Century (McCrone, 2000) had reduced the status of guidance and demoralised guidance staff.
• Some case study support staff wished to be included in in-service events with teachers so that they could learn how to play a more effective role in supporting pupils.

Summary of findings

A history of 'guidance'

In Scottish secondary schools 'guidance', in some form, can trace its origins back to the 1950s. It became formalised through the documents Guidance in Scottish Secondary Schools (SED, 1968), The Structure of Promoted Posts in Secondary Schools in Scotland (SED, 1971), and More Than Feelings of Concern (Scottish Central Committee on Guidance, 1986). There has traditionally been a tri-partite division of guidance into educational, vocational, and personal guidance. From 1971, guidance staff were appointed at assistant principal teacher, principal teacher, and assistant headteacher levels. Their numbers depended on the size of the school roll.

Current concerns with the provision of guidance arise from the agreement reached following the report A Teaching Profession for the 21 ^st Century (McCrone, 2000). This abolished assistant principal teacher, senior teacher and assistant headteacher posts - posts held by many guidance staff.

Other current concerns include the relationship between guidance, discipline, and counselling; guidance and learning and behaviour support; the management of guidance/pupil support and the place of guidance in the primary school.

The organisation of guidance/pupil support by Scottish local authorities

Most local authorities (69%) produced either a policy or guidelines on pupil guidance. However, there were few sets of guidelines for primary or special schools. Eight out of 26 local authorities (31%) employed a guidance adviser, and seven (27%) had made guidance part of the remit of some other post, such as Education Officer or Curriculum Development Officer. Most aspects of guidance were devolved to schools to at least some extent and in most authorities schools decided time allocations for aspects of guidance. Local authorities' estimates showed that the ratio of pupil to guidance staff averaged 198:1 but this ranged from 125:1 through to 270:1 across different authorities.

There is a mixed picture about what recommendations authorities make to schools about different aspects of guidance provision. Fifteen authorities (58%) recommend that pupils have the same guidance teacher throughout their school career. There is also a mixed picture about whether authorities have guidelines regarding involving parents. Most do have guidelines about communicating with parents but most such guidelines are for the whole school (or the whole authority) and not specifically for guidance staff.

All authorities have promoted guidance posts. These are at Principal Teacher (PT) level (23 authorities; 88%): in at least six authorities, former Assistant Principal Teachers have been appointed to 'acting PT' posts pending decisions about the restructuring of guidance/pupil support. Twenty-five (96%) reported that they were reviewing their structures.

The major challenges which authorities thought guidance provision faced are: adapting to the new structures post the McCrone agreement (88%); providing training and support for all staff (38%); maintaining the quality of provision (31%); maintaining staff morale (23%); the 'widening remit of guidance' (19%); tracking and monitoring pupil progress (19%); and extending 'guidance' to primary schools (12%).

Guidance/pupil support in primary and special schools

Teachers, pupils and their parents in primary and special schools rarely used the term 'guidance'. Typically, they considered 'pupil support' to be an integral part of the organisation of the school and teachers' professional role within it.

Primary pupils presented a very positive picture of their schools: 82% were happy, 98% liked their teacher and 91% liked themselves. They made very few suggestions for ways in which pupil support in their schools could be improved. In addition, most primary pupils reported that, faced with problems, they would tell 'someone', rather than 'keep it a secret'. They did, however, differentiate between school related and personal problems. Eight-six per cent (86%) would talk to teachers about problems with schoolwork, but 89% would talk to their mum and dad about health problems, and 80% if they were afraid of a teacher. Only 6% would talk to teachers about 'personal issues' and 19% of all primary pupil respondents indicated that they would talk to no one about 'personal things'. Most special school pupils, who participated in a focus group, liked school and were satisfied with the support they received.

Most primary school teachers (88%) reported that they were involved with pupil support. All were satisfied with the current pupil support available in their schools (80%, very satisfied; and 20%, satisfied). However, a number indicated that social inclusion policies were increasing the pupil support demands being made of staff.

Overall, parents of primary pupils appeared to be satisfied with the support their children received. Ninety per cent (90%) were satisfied with the support their children received (59%, very satisfied; 31%, satisfied) and all the parents of pupils in the special school were satisfied with the support their children had received (81%, very satisfied; 19%, satisfied). Some teachers and parents thought that parents could also benefit from the information/advice/support provided by staff in their children's schools.

Guidance/pupil support in secondary schools

Three-quarters of secondary school pupil respondents in all four case study schools were happy with their lives. Almost eight out of ten (79%) believed that their school promoted an inclusive ethos, encouraging all of its pupils to do as well as they could. Moreover, 89% of pupils regarded their school as either 'friendly' or 'very friendly'. Across all four schools, pupils with higher self-esteem scores were more likely to be male, but there was no association between pupil gender and their likelihood of talking with guidance/pupil support staff in three of the schools. Most pupils were satisfied with the guidance provision in their school, although, only a third reported having gone or been sent to see a guidance teacher. Their responses suggest that they would draw on a range of staff, parents and others for help with potential concerns. Those in schools with full-time guidance staff were more likely to approach them, whereas those in other schools approached a range of staff. Similar to primary pupils, secondary school respondents choose to take different issues to different people. Seventy-one per cent said they would approach subject teachers about class work or homework concerns. Guidance staff were more likely to be seen as a source of help for dealing with problems with another teacher (58%); problems at home (52%); bullying (60%); thinking about their future (57%) making subject choice (60%) and drug related issues (56%). However, only 29% would discuss their health problems with guidance staff and 56% said they would be unwilling to talk to guidance staff about 'personal issues'.

Parents of secondary school pupils were unanimous in thinking that their child's school was welcoming. All thought that their child/children was happy at school (66% very happy; 34% happy) and ninety-nine per cent were satisfied overall with the support for pupils available in the school (48% very satisfied; 51% satisfied).

Seventy-eight per cent (78%) of secondary school teacher respondents indicated that they were involved with guidance/pupil support (36% frequently; 42% occasionally). Ninety-five per cent (95%) were either very satisfied (44%) or satisfied (51%) with the current pupil guidance/pastoral care available in their school. Ninety-five per cent (95%) believed that all teachers had a duty of care but only 44% thought that all teachers should have a guidance function.

Inter-agency working

Nineteen local authorities (73%) provided information on the extent to which guidance/pupil support was supported by other services. Many defined this widely to encompass integrated working between different departments within the authority, within schools and with external agencies. The most frequently mentioned links were with the Careers Service (20 authorities; 76%) and 'Psychological Services' (18; 69%). Thirteen local authorities (50%) reported that they had structures in place to facilitate integrated working; eight (30%) mentioned Joint Action/Assessment Teams. Twelve local authorities (46%) judged that the growing inter-agency links were successful. However, six (23%) thought that it was too early to tell. Six (23%) cited staff shortages or staff changes as factors, which hindered successful inter-agency working.

Many teacher informants appreciated the need to work with members of other professions in order to provide an effective guidance/support service for pupils. Many reported that they already worked with a range of other professionals, especially those who taught in 'New Community Schools' where 'Joint Assessment Teams' had been established. Contacts were reported to be increasing as schools implemented social inclusion policies.

Most pupils appeared to be unaware of inter-agency working. Parents had few comments to make on inter-agency working.

Key informants from other professions thought that teachers should participate in inter-agency working but suggested that staff shortages, especially in Educational Psychology and Social Work Departments, might hinder progress. This echoed the views of other informants, namely teachers and local authorities. Members of other professions believed that inter-agency pupil support worked well at a personal level where members of different professions know each other and had established good communication. However, pupil confidentiality, sharing information amongst different professional services, and systematic divisions could be problematic.

Training for guidance/pupil support

Students undergoing initial teacher education thought that their training in 'guidance/pupil support' was strong in elective subjects, but needed to be addressed in more detail in the core programme for the benefit of all students.

Their lecturers in HEIs were aware of certain gaps in provision and had either begun the process of attempting to address these, or suggested specific ways in which the provision could be enhanced in the future.

Most local authorities (88%) provided some form of CPD, in-service or staff development in guidance/pupil support for the teachers whom they employed. Some opportunities were open to all teachers and not restricted to guidance staff. Thirteen local authorities (50%) supported staff who wished to undertake Post-Graduate Certificates or Diplomas in Guidance and Counselling.

Case study primary school teachers thought that guidance/pupil support was an integral part of being a teacher, but pointed to the paucity of opportunities for them to develop their knowledge and skills in this area. This lack of training became particularly acute when teachers had to cope with violent or disruptive pupils in schools sited in areas of multiple deprivation.

Case study secondary school teachers highlighted the importance of personal qualities, motivation and experience for guidance staff; they also believed that these could be complemented by appropriate training.

Some case study support staff wished to be included in in-service events with teachers so that they could learn how to play a more effective role in supporting pupils.

Members of other professions identified the ability to listen to children as the prime skill, which they thought that all teachers needed to develop: they thought that only some teachers were required to develop higher level counselling skills.

Implications

A number of important issues emerge from this study, which have implications for the way 'guidance'/pupil support is organised in Scottish schools. Our findings confirm the following points.

• Need for guidance/pupil support: All adult respondents (local authorities, headteachers, teachers and members of other professions) recognise the need for pupils/young people in schools to be effectively supported throughout their school careers. There was no general agreement amongst respondents about how this should be structured.
• Different models of guidance/pupil support: Primary, secondary and special schools have developed different structures/models for supporting pupils. These can be classified into two broad categories: 'embedded' support and 'specialist' guidance approaches. Evidence from the case studies shows that pupil support is more likely to be embedded in primary and special schools where staff perceived it to be an integral part of learning and teaching. In contrast, each secondary school case study deployed a variation of a specialist guidance model. One (Case Study G) had integrated pastoral care and learning support.
• Provision is changing: Guidance/pupil support concepts and systems were clearly changing. Respondents pointed out that social inclusion policies had brought more teachers into contact with members of other agencies. Secondary school respondents reported that their school's guidance system had either changed or were about to change following the teachers' agreement regarding their terms and conditions of employment (McCrone, 2000).
• Pupils' views: Most primary, secondary and special school pupils, who responded to our survey or were interviewed in focus groups, reported that they were happy at school, expressed a reasonable level of confidence and self-esteem and were largely satisfied with the support they were receiving. Rather perplexingly, their satisfaction levels appeared to be unrelated to the system of guidance/support offered by their school.
• A variety of strategies: Pupils tried, as far as was possible, to exercise choice within the various 'guidance'/pupil support systems. They wanted staff who provided them with support to know them, care about them, respect their confidences, and be someone with whom they could get along. They also chose to take school-related problems to teachers/guidance staff but reserved 'personal or health issues' for parents.
• An excluded group? Across all the case study schools, irrespective of the system of pupil support in place in the particular school, a percentage of pupils (ranging from 2% to 20%) reported that they would tell 'no one' if they had a problem. Further efforts should be made to ensure that pupils/young people are offered more choice of support person, so that the number of young people willing to talk to no one is reduced.
• A question of entitlement: Parents stressed that 'guidance'/pupil support has become associated almost exclusively with pupils with problems, leaving little time for others to see support staff. We believe that all pupils should have an entitlement to pupil support and schools should make this clear to pupils and their parents. This was also the unanimous view of students and lecturers in two HEIs.
• Specialist versus generalist: Teachers in different sectors expressed strong views about the organisation of guidance/pupil support into 'specialist' versus 'generalist' provision. However, we found no evidence to show that one approach is more effective than another. In schools with full-time guidance staff, pupils are more likely to approach them, whereas pupils in schools without full-time guidance are more likely to contact a range of teachers. Both sets of pupils were equally satisfied with the support they received.
• Role clarification: Given that more teachers are expected to contribute to guidance/pupil support, we think that morale might be improved if their employers clarified what is expected of teachers who work within these evolving guidance/pupil support systems.
• Training in pupil support: Currently students in training are introduced to pupil support as part of their initial teacher education and continuing professional development is available for existing teachers. Two gaps have emerged from this study: one, primary school teachers think there is a paucity of CPD in pupil support; and two, class/tutor group teachers want help in identifying the point at which they should pass problems/issues on to guidance staff.
• Multi-agency working is advocated: Local authorities and schools have already begun to work with members of other professions and other agencies in order to address the complex pupil support needs of some pupils. There are, however, tensions inherent in multi-agency working because each agency has its own priorities.
• Guidance/pupil support is costly: Although providing a cost and benefit analysis is beyond the scope of this current study, it is evident that many teachers believe that guidance/pupil support is making increasing demands on schools and teachers' time at the expense of 'valuable teaching time'. The value for money of alternative approaches to guidance/pupil support need exploring.
• A flexible system: There is insufficient evidence for us to be able to recommend one approach to the provision of guidance/pupil support. Much depends on the school, its ethos, the knowledge and commitment of staff, and the relationships which have been developed with pupils, parents and members of other professions.

« Previous | Contents | Next »