The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

4: Supporting pupils: 'embedded' approaches

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter provided an overview of the policies and practices which Scottish local authorities have developed for guidance/pupil support structures and procedures. In the next two chapters, we present the findings from eight case study schools to show what teachers, pupils, and their parents thought about guidance/pupil support at school level. In this chapter, evidence is drawn from three primary schools and one special school to show how guidance/pupil support is 'embedded' into school as an integral part of learning and teaching in those schools. It is based upon questionnaires completed by teachers, pupils and parents, individual interviews with teachers and group interviews with pupils. (See Appendix 1 for a detailed breakdown of schools and respondents.)

4.2 Guidance in primary schools

4.2.1 Pupils' perceptions of school

Two hundred and four (204) pupils completed questionnaires (19 in Case Study A; 123 in Case Study B; and 62 in Case Study C). This total included pupils in Primary 5 (34%), Primary 6 (35%) and Primary 7 (32%). Forty-nine per cent (49%) were boys and 51% girls. Their ages ranged from 8 to 11 years (7% and 24% respectively).

Overall, primary school pupils presented a positive picture of school life in the three case study schools. Most reported that they were happy, thought their school was friendly, liked their class teacher and their headteacher and also liked themselves. The overwhelming majority were happy in school (50%, very happy; and 32%, happy). Those reporting that they were very happy ranged from 42% in Case Study A (a small rural primary school) to 53% in Case Study C (a large urban primary school). Almost all pupils (97%) thought that their school was friendly.

Ninety-nine per cent (99%) of primary pupils reported liking their class teacher, either a lot (80%) or a little (19%), and 98% liked their headteacher (68%, a lot; and 29%, a little). Few pupils admitted to disliking either their class teacher (1%) or their headteacher (2%). In Case Study A, pupils believed that the fact that the headteacher taught made her more approachable. As one boy explained: it makes her more even [with the other teachers] … she could be more scary if she didn't teach. Ninety-one per cent (91%) of pupils who responded to the survey also liked themselves either a lot (71%) or a little (20%), which indicates a high level of self-esteem and self-confidence amongst pupils.

Focus group pupils had firm views about what support they expected of teachers. Case Study A pupils wanted teachers to be friendly, nice to you, smile and look happy, qualities which they believed teachers in their school demonstrated. By way of example, Case Study C pupils highlighted a teacher whom they though was particularly good because she understands you and makes learning enjoyable. They also wanted teachers who were well-trained, understand pupils, don't panic in an emergency and deal with things calmly and properly. Their favourite teacher was one who:

• Cares about your feelings
• Gives good advice about life
• Explains what to do
• Respects your confidence
• Helps a lot and explain
• Rips up pink [discipline] slip if she thinks they are unfair
• Is helpful
• Keeps control
• Is generous
• Just gives a look to stop [other pupils] shouting.

One Primary 6/7 pupil in Case Study C described his ideal teacher as:

Mine's a man. He would like to have a good giggle and tries to get along with us. [We] would learn better if we are not scared.

Some pupils from Case Study C were, however, critical of supply teachers whom they thought can't teach, shout, and are not good at discipline, in contrast to the permanent staff in their school who know who the angels and troublemakers are.

4.2.2 Seeking help for problems and worries

The majority of pupils reported that they would tell someone if they had a problem rather than 'keep it a secret': 96%, about bullying; 97%, about difficulties with school work; 94%, about a health problem; and 94%, if they were frightened of a teacher. This was confirmed by some interview informants. For example, the headteacher, teachers and pupil informants in Case Study A, all stressed that their school was a 'telling school' in which pupils were encouraged to share their concerns with staff. This is reflected by the fact that all pupil respondents in that particular school reported that they would tell someone about bullying and difficulties with schoolwork.

Presented with a range of potential problems, pupils reported that they would seek help from a number of sources. Faced with bullying the majority (75%) would tell their class teacher (83% in School A, 52% in School B, and 85% in School C). Although significant, this is not as high as those who indicated that they would tell their mum or dad (82% overall; range, 75% to 94%). Most pupils (86%) reported that they would talk to their teacher if they were having difficulty with schoolwork (89% in School A, 79% in School B, and 90% in School C). Interestingly, pupils in the small primary school were more likely to talk to their mum and dad if they were experiencing problems with schoolwork (94% of pupils).

Eighty-nine per cent (89%) of all primary pupil respondents indicated that they would talk to their mum and dad about health problems (83% in School A, 87% in School B and 90% in School C) and 80%, if they were afraid of a teacher (89% of School A, 81% of School B, and 78% of School C). Fifty-three per cent of pupils (53% in School A, 33% in School B, and 64% in School C) indicted that they would talk to a teacher if something worried them. However, it is clear that pupils differentiate between 'school worries' and 'personal things': only 6% of pupils would talk to teachers about personal things. Parents were the largest single group to whom pupils would talk about their personal concerns (40% of pupils: (57% in School A, 38% in School B, and 34% in School C).

It is clear from both the questionnaire responses and focus group discussions with primary school pupils that pupils were divided as to whom they would like to listen to their concerns. There was general agreement that they wanted someone who understands you, listens, and is thinking about you, but who that person should be seemed to vary according to the nature of the problem and pupils' individual preferences. Some focus group pupils indicated that they would talk with a close friend, while others indicated a teacher because she keeps quiet, keeps it in, keeps a secret and won't discuss [the problem] with others.

Of greater concern is the fact that 20% of pupils responding to the questionnaire reported that they would talk to no one about personal things (6% of School A, 19% of School B, and 22% of School C). This was confirmed in focus group discussion in Case Study C in which some pupils said they wouldn't talk at all about personal things.

Pupils made 157 suggestions for how their schools could be improved. However, most were unrelated to guidance/pupil support and referred to a range of things which pupils perceived to be of more immediate concern. For example, pupils in Case Study A wanted to be allowed to eat crisps in the school playground. Others were relevant: Case Study B pupils would like more golden time activities , more time to read, more art and science, no bullying or fighting and more playtime or time outside. Pupil Council members in Case Study C liked Circle Time. There were pupil councils in all three schools and members of the pupil council in Case Study B indicated that they liked being involved and felt that they helped to get things done. Younger pupils in the same school appreciated the support they received from older pupils, who were prefects, and older pupils in Case Study C highlighted their support for a 'buddy system' which linked P7 pupils with P1 on a one-to-one basis. All focus group pupils in Case Study B felt that they had someone to whom they could relate if they had personal problems.

4.2.3 Primary school staff's perceptions

Forty-one (41) staff members from the case study primary schools returned completed questionnaires (3 headteachers, 22 teachers, and 16 other members of staff). Forty (98%) were female and one (2%) was male. Their ages ranged from under 25 to 60, with the largest single group (27%) in the 45-49 age group. Thirty-one (31) reported working full-time and five (5) part-time. Their length of service in the school ranged from 1 to over 20 years. Only two (2) reported that they had overall responsibility for guidance/pupil support: the largest single group (18) indicated that they undertook general pupil welfare/pastoral care within their remit. Thirty-six (88%) reported that overall they had frequent involvement with pupil guidance and pupil support. Their level of involvement in specific aspects of pupil support included: 85% of these in pupil welfare; 71% in discipline; 61% in PSE; 59% in reporting/communication with parents; 54% in helping pupil transition; and 42% in liaison with learning/behaviour support. None indicated that they were never involved with pupil welfare. Respondents were unanimous in their belief that 'all teachers should have a duty of care', and 90% thought that 'all teachers should have a guidance function'. Ninety-three per cent (93%) associated the key function of guidance with counselling; 90%, with PSE; and 90%, with discipline. All were satisfied with the current pupil guidance/pastoral care support available in their school (80%, very satisfied; 20%, satisfied).

Thirty-six (88%) identified their current priorities for guidance/pupil support as shown in Table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1: Primary school staff's current priorities for pupil support (N=36)

A very strong sense that guidance/pupil support is an integral part of primary school teachers' professional role emerged from the open responses to the questionnaires. (It was also the unanimous view of students interviewed in focus groups in HEIs.) For example, one teacher (002, Case Study A) reported that if a child is happy/content they are more able to learn - makes for a happier school. The Headteacher of the same school was more explicit. She explained: my concern is that pastoral care is seen as separate from general pupil care and is therefore not seen as responsibility of all teachers which it is in primary schools (Headteacher 003, Case Study A). A teacher in another school simply stated that 'it [pupil support] is part of a teacher's role' (Teacher 009, Case Study B).

Although most respondents accepted that pupil welfare and support were part of being a member of staff in a primary school, this does not imply that they viewed this role as unproblematic. Respondents identified a number of issues which gave them concern. Some focused on what they perceived to be inadequate time and resources:

Finding time and space to talk to pupils in confidence.

(Classroom Assistant 018, Case Study C)

Time. (Teacher 002, Case Study A)

Time allocation. (Teacher 004, Case Study A)

Fitting it into timetable in already busy schedule.

(Classroom Assistant 020, Case Study C)

Fitting it into the teacher's busy day. (Teacher 025, Case Study C)

We need more time and resources for children with additional needs .

(Teacher 007, Case Study B)

It can be very difficulty for class teachers to be given time out to deal with guidance work and they usually have to rely on the goodwill of others or going without their lunch. (Nursery teacher 006, Case Study B)

Some identified changing or increasing demands being made of teachers resulting from policy changes, curricular changes and raised parental expectations.

Inclusion policy is adding to guidance workload - the majority may loose out. (Nursery Teacher 006, Case Study B)

We are expected to contain children in school who have social and behavioural problems without any additional support.

(Teacher 009, Case Study B)

There are increasing demands on the time of all staff to provide guidance to pupils. Parents are often reliant on the school to help with strategies for them [parents] to use at home. Parents do not, on the whole, engage with school's efforts to help their children.

(Acting Headteacher 005, Case Study B)

Increasing demands of teacher time on curriculum maths. Pressure to achieve targets. (Learning Support Teacher 008, Case Study B)

These changes could give rise to additional training needs: one teacher (022, Case Study C) indicated that she needed knowledge of severe behavioural problems.

Staff also highlighted how inter-agency working could impact on teacher's time. They thought it produced:

Escalation of Social Work involvement relating to the timescale.

(Clerical Assistant 017, Case Study C)

Social work involvement is ever increasing and a large percentage of my time is spent at Social Work reviews and Children's Panel hearings. I am finding myself 'out' of school, more often than 'in' school but I do feel it is a very important part of school life.

(Headteacher 039, Case Study C)

The same headteacher was the only respondent who wanted specialist guidance input in the primary or special school case studies. S/he proposed that one person should be allocated to each school under the auspices of 'guidance' teacher - most helpful solution but most expensive.

4.2.4 Perceptions of parents of primary school pupils

Thirty-two parents of children in the three case study primary schools returned completed questionnaires. In total they had 46 children (27 girls and 19 boys) currently in Primary 1-7. The age of their children ranged from 4 to 11.5 years. Some also indicated that they had older children, who had previously attended the same school. Overall this group of parents expressed an active interest in their child's primary school: 91% indicated that they always attended parents evening; 6%, sometimes. None reported that they never attended. Seventy-five per cent (75%) found their child's school to be 'very warm and welcoming', and 18%, 'fairly welcoming. Only 6% thought the school was 'not very friendly'.

Faced with a range of reasons why they might contact their child's school, parents indicated their level of satisfaction for each occasion. Eighty-four per cent (84%) were either very satisfied (50%) or satisfied (34%) with the contact they had had about their child's progress; 54% were either very satisfied or satisfied with any contact about their child's behaviour. (It should be noted here that 41% reported that they had had no reason to contact the school about their child's behaviour, and 50% had not made a complaint about any issue.) Seventy-five per cent (75%) were either very satisfied or satisfied when they contacted the school to pass on information about their child, and 44% when requesting additional information. (Again, 47% reported that they had had no cause to request additional information.)

During their involvement with staff, 85% of parents who responded to the survey felt a high degree of involvement in decisions which staff made (69%, very involved; 16%, a bit involved). Overall, 90% were satisfied with the support their children had received (59%, very satisfied; 31%, satisfied). Ninety-seven per cent (97%) thought that their children were happy in the school (53%, very happy; 44%, happy); 94% believed that the school encouraged their children to do well, and 87% that the staff work hard to meet the needs of all children.

Twelve parents of primary school children in the three case study schools made suggestions for school improvement, not all related directly to guidance/pupil support. Two parents in Case Study A thought that the school ethos should be changed and a third from the same school proposed that:

Involving more community volunteers as classroom assistants on a one-to-one basis. Parents would be more involved if their ideas were taken on board as a team.

(Parent 003, Case Study A)

Another parent from the same school wanted to see a revision of the first aid procedures because I am unhappy with current policy regarding the non use of antiseptic in care of wounds (Parent 004, Case Study A). (Interestingly, the care of children who had accidents in school was raised by a pupil in Case Study C.) One parent (Parent 016, Case Study B) thought it would be good for boys to have some male teachers in the school and might improve their behaviour. Another parent in the same school (Parent 017, Case Study B) which was located in an area of multiple deprivation, proposed more supervision and security during break-time and also at the end of the school day. And one parent (023, Case Study B) thought that more teaching and medical, ie a nurse visiting the school once per month would help pupil support and welfare. A parent (026, Case Study C) referred the research team to a recent HMIE report without elaborating further and another (028) reported that:

My children only joined this school two years ago and have found this an excellent environment for their education.

This view was supported by another parent (029, Case Study C), who reported that I think the staff do a good enough job.

4.3 Guidance in special schools

4.3.1 Pupils' perceptions

Case Study H is a special school which draws pupils from a number of local authority areas. Pupils/young people have a range of special needs and all have severe learning difficulties. Many also have additional barriers to learning, such as autism, physical disability, sensory impairment and behavioural difficulties. Eight pupils (3 girls and 5 boys) aged between 16 and 18 years participated in a focus group interview. They were able to engage in limited discussion with aid of a signing interpreter. The majority of the group enjoyed school and thought that their teachers were very supportive. Only one, a girl who also attended a local further education college, was in any way critical of the school: she preferred the time she spent in college. All agreed that the school was a friendly place and most thought that the teachers were helpful: only one pupil thought that the teachers were not helpful, and another felt that the support could be better. Regarding their worries or concerns, all agreed that they would talk to a teacher or other member of staff who would listen to you. They also indicated that they would talk to their mum and dad. In the future they expected to continue to take their concerns to teachers.

4.3.2 Special school teachers' perceptions

Twenty-nine (29) members of staff from Case Study H returned completed questionnaire. (1 each from the Headteacher and Depute Head, 14 from teachers, 10 from other members of staff, and 3 did not indicate their role). The majority were female (25 female, 1 male, and 3 unreported). Their ages ranged from under 25 (7%) to 60+ (7%) with the largest single number either 25-29 or 45-49 (17% each). Twenty-three (23) worked full-time and most (12) had been in the school for 3-5 years. The Headteacher indicated that she had overall responsibility for guidance/pupil support. She explained that pastoral care and safety of pupils are of paramount importance to all staff, particularly given pupils' many and varied medical conditions. Targets were set for self-help and social skills in order to equip pupils/young people for life in the community. Staff continually challenged pupils to become as independent as possible in self-help activities, within a supportive environment. From the earliest stage, targets were set for toileting, feeding and dressing. The school sought to nurture pupils' confidence and self-esteem by providing opportunities for success with appropriate praise and reward. The Headteacher reported that our pupils continually surprise us by their individual achievements in all areas. School policies had been developed to support staff in areas of intimate care and the development of personal and social skills.

Ninety per cent (90%) of special school staff responding to the questionnaire indicated that they were involved in pupil guidance/support (83%, frequently; 7%, occasionally). The nature of the frequent involvement of these staff included: 79% each in PSE, reporting/communicating with parents, and discipline; 76% in pupil welfare; and 62% in liaison with learning/behaviour support. Seven per cent (7%) reported that they were frequently engaged in careers guidance. Only one member of staff indicated that s/he was never involved with pupil welfare. Almost all (with only one exception) believed that all teachers have a duty of care for pupils and the same number thought that all teachers should have a guidance/pupil support function. As one teacher explained: guidance/pupil support is an integral part of my job as a classroom teacher (Teacher 143, Case Study H).

Ninety-seven per cent (97%) associated guidance with discipline, 93% with PSE, and 55% with counselling. All were satisfied with the current pupil guidance/pastoral care available in the school (81%, very satisfied; 19%, satisfied). Ninety-seven per cent (97%) of staff agreed that pupils were adequately helped with transitions across stages within the school and from primary to secondary school, although this latter is probably easier given that the school caters for pupils of all ages. Just over half of staff (52%) highlighted certain aspects of guidance/pupil support within the school which they believed were making the most important contribution. Most of these comments make it clear that staff perceived guidance/pupil support to be an integral part of learning and teaching in the school. They believed that pupil support contributed to:

Raising of self-esteem in pupils; encouraging care and respect for others.

(Teacher 143, Case Study H)

Esteem, ethos, relationships with pupils and parents.

(Teacher 146, Case Study H)

Continued learning and support. (Instructor 135, Case Study H)

Transferable life skills. (Depute Headteacher 139, Case Study H)

Skills for life. (Teacher 140, Case Study H)

Making sure the child feels comfortable and happy and part of school life.

(Classroom Assistant 149, Case Study H)

Their views were confirmed by the Headteacher who described how pupil support helped:

Development of pupils' confidence and self-esteem; development of independence; transition to post-school placement; home support programme. (Headteacher 138, Case Study H)

Some pointed out that guidance/pupil support did not just benefit pupils but also helped parents as well. It aimed:

To help parents dealing with difficult behaviours, help them to come to terms with their child's disability and sometimes just to listen. Often guidance (especially of younger end) is geared to parents as opposed to children themselves. (Teacher 127, Case Study H)

and it offered:

Liaison with home/counselling and discipline.

(Visiting Specialist 136, Case Study H)

One staff member simply described how any problems/issues that pupils may have are listened to by caring school staff (Instructor 134, Case Study H).

Staff respondents identified their current priorities for guidance as shown in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Special school staff's current priorities for pupil support (N=29)

Staff also reported that a high level of involvement existed between the school and other support services (90% were aware of the involvement of Educational Psychological Services; and 86%, Social Work Services). (This will be considered further in Chapter 6 which looks at integrated working.)

As can be seen overall staff expressed a very high level of satisfaction with the way guidance/pupil support was organised in the school, and only the Headteacher expressed any concerns for the future of pupil support. As she explained:

As I consider 'guidance' to be a fundamental part of the teacher's role in this school, I am concerned that we are asking too much of staff.

(Headteacher 138, Case Study H)

No other staff member reported any concern about the future of pupil support. For example:

None. CPD [is] well established. Staff meetings and regular updated information available.

(Instructor 135, Case Study H)

None. We all have a role and are well supported.

(Teacher 146, Case Study H)

4.3.3 Perceptions of parents of special school pupils

The headteacher indicated that the school has sought to develop a positive and supportive ethos and perceives itself as very much part of the community. Not only are pupils engaged in a range of community activities but members of the community are encouraged to visit the school regularly. Regular surveys are conducted by the school to identify parental expectations. Thirty-seven parents with children in the case study special school responded to our questionnaire. They had 39 children in the school (19 girls and 20 boys), aged from 5 to 18 years. It should be noted that the number of parents who responded from Case Study H was more than for any other case study school. The parental level of satisfaction with the school was very high: 100% of parents found the school to be very warm and welcoming; 100% of parents thought their child was happy in the school (95%, very happy; 5%, happy); 100% of parents either strongly agreed (92%) or agreed (8%) that the school encouraged children to do well, and 100% of parents agreed that staff worked hard to meet the needs of all children (95%, agreed strongly, and 5%, agreed). All parents were satisfied with the support available in the school for their child (81%, very satisfied; 19%, satisfied). Ninety-seven per cent (97%) felt involved in the decisions staff made (92%; very involved; 5%, involved). Only three parents (8%) reported that they had been very unsatisfied when they had contacted staff to discuss their child's progress or behaviour.

When asked to make suggestions for improving pupil support and welfare, 20 parents (54%) praised the support which the school provided. One parent (067) typical of many had no suggestions for improvement to make because s/he thought the school is very well run. Parent 069 felt that the school was an excellent school and has involved me and our family in every decision regarding my son, while a third (Parent 070) explained how her daughter had been in the school for 10 years and I've not had one problem, and a fourth described him/herself as totally satisfied. Another believed that:

Any support and welfare would not be possible without the great staff and donations from everybody that believes in the great work being done, not only for my son but for all the children, who without it would suffer so much … I can't praise the school enough.

(Parent 075, Case Study H)

Parent 068 summed up the experience as:

There is always supposed to be room for improvement but I'm not sure what else [School H] could do. [I have] dealt with two other primary schools and although have always been treated well, there is a very warm bond at [School H] between staff, pupils and parents. I am happy to send my daughter here to such a happy caring environment.

(Parent 068, Case Study H)

Parent 083 explained how s/he was:

Extremely happy with support my child received and her welfare is their first concern. Excellent school! I was delighted when I finally managed to transfer my daughter to the school and the quality of life improved greatly and she was more content at home too! Well done to the staff.

(Parent 083, Case Study H)

Only four parents made suggestions for improving pupil support in the school One pointed out that although our children are very well supported but the speech therapist needs an assistant to make things easier (Parent 061, Case Study H). A second would like more home visits and video home behaviour and more play schemes during holidays (Parent 086). A third thought that a full-time [State Registered] Nurse would be an advantage. And another suggested more training for classroom assistants and bus escorts and careful selection of transport facilities, ie not only related to budget but to standards of service (Parent 094, Case Study H).

4.4 Summary

• The term 'guidance' was rarely used by teacher, pupil or parent respondents/informants in the case study primary and special schools.
• The case study primary and special schools had all developed, what can be described as an 'embedded' approach to guidance/pupil support in which teachers accepted that pupil support was an integral part of their professional role.
• Most staff respondents/interviewees were content with this role. However, some (especially teachers in Case Study B, located in an area of multiple deprivation) were concerned that the emphasis on social inclusion was placing increasing pressure on all staff. The headteacher of the special school also wondered whether, by embedding pupil support in the role of the teacher, too much was being asked of staff.
• Most primary school pupils who responded to the questionnaire or took part in focus group discussions reported being happy or very happy at school and also liked themselves.
• Only limited feedback was received from special school pupils because of their severe learning difficulties. However, almost all indicated that they were happy with their school and the support they received from staff.
• Most primary pupil respondents liked school, their class teacher and their headteacher either a lot or a little. Few made suggestions about how they thought school could be improved.
• Most primary school respondents would tell someone if they had a problem but would choose different people according to the nature of the problem. They preferred to contact teachers about school-related problems and parents about personal issues.
• Rather worryingly, 20% of primary school respondents reported that they would tell no one about 'personal things': this ranged from 6% in School A to 22% in School C).
• Overall the majority of parents were satisfied with the support their children received. (84% of primary parents were either very satisfied or satisfied, as were 100% of special school parents). Most believed that their child's school was welcoming and that their children were happy in the school. They made very few suggestions for ways in which pupil support in the schools could be improved.
• A number of informants (teachers and parents) pointed out that schools often provided advice/support for parents which enabled them to deal with problems which may affect their children.

« Previous | Contents | Next »