The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

5: Supporting pupils: 'specialist' approaches

5.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, we saw that guidance/pupil support was 'embedded' in the case study primary and special schools and that staff within those schools accepted that they should support pupils as an integral part of their professional role. The evidence from four case study secondary schools is presented in this chapter. This is drawn from completed questionnaires (2208 from pupils; 31 from parents; and 88 from staff), seven group interviews with pupils, 18 individual interviews and two discussion groups with staff, and 10 interviews with other professionals. Finally, the various models of specialist provision to emerge from the case studies are discussed. Caution should be taken when interpreting Case Study G data as pupils may not have understood the term 'guidance' which the school points out is no longer used to describe its pupil support system.

5.2 Models of guidance/pupil support

This research was interested in exploring and assessing the different types of guidance/pupil support system being operated in Scottish schools. The secondary schools included in the study all operated with 'specialist' guidance/pupil support staff but there were variations between schools. The four schools are geographically dispersed, vary in size, serve quite different communities, and one was denominational: all factors which might influence the guidance/pupil support systems developed in each and each school's ethos and performance. Appendix Table A1.2 gives further details about the schools including: location, number of pupils on the roll, size of staff complement, percentage of pupils in receipt of free school meals and available absence, and attainment data. For three of the schools we have also been able to include selective relevant information from recent HMIE inspection reports.

5.2.1 Case study guidance systems

Secondary schools which took part in this study had developed three different approaches to Guidance:

i Full-time guidance team (Case Studies D and F)

ii Part-time guidance team with some full-time staff (Case Study E)

iii Integrated pastoral care and learning support team (Case Study G).

i The full-time Guidance team

Schools operating such a system have a core staff of trained guidance staff (four in Case Study D and five in Case Study F). In Case Study F the guidance team comprised three principal teachers, one acting principal teacher and a deputy headteacher with management responsibility. In Case Study D the team comprised two principal teachers and two depute headteachers (with shared managerial responsibilities). Full-time guidance staff did not have a subject teaching load although they were generally responsible for the delivery of Personal and Social Education (PSE). In both of the case study schools guidance staff were also responsible for careers, curricular and personal guidance as well as liaison with parents and other outside agencies. Guidance staff in Case Study F were not responsible for pupil discipline. In both schools older pupils were involved in providing a counselling and advice service for younger pupils.

ii A mixture of full-time and part-time Guidance staff

Schools operating this system (often regarded as the traditional guidance model) generally employed teachers of guidance on a part-time basis. Guidance teachers, often Principal teachers (and until recently Assistant Principal Teachers (APTs)) spend part of their time supporting pupils, but also teach their subject specialism part-time. In Case Study E the guidance team comprised a DHT with managerial responsibility and seven Principal or Acting Principal Teachers. However, the guidance system in operation was a hybrid of i and ii, and employed teachers of guidance on both a full-time and part-time basis (3 teachers had full-time and 4 part-time guidance posts). Guidance staff in school E, like their colleagues in schools D and F, had responsibility for the Social Education (PSE) programme, careers, curricular and personal guidance. At the time of the research the guidance system within the school was regarded (by staff) as in transition, the intention being to move towards a team which worked full-time for guidance.

iii Integrated team

Schools operating an integrated pupil support system seek to spread responsibility for guidance/pupil support across a larger group of staff rather than investing guidance functions in a smaller number of full-time guidance staff. Potentially many more teachers in a school would have a designated role in Guidance/pupil support, possibly having a small pupil case load or responsibility for delivering elements of the PSE curriculum. Case Study G operated a variation of this system, having developed its 'Pupil Support System' from the integration of pastoral care and learning support services. A group of 21 promoted and non-promoted teachers were organised into year group teams, each one led by a Depute Headteacher. A Depute Headteacher had overall responsibility for pupil support in the school.

5.3 Perceptions of secondary pupils

Two thousand two hundred and eight (2,208) pupils completed questionnaires (387 in Case Study D; 773 in Case Study E; 614 in Case Study F; and 434 in Case Study G). Forty-eight per cent (48%) were male and 52% were female. Their ages ranged from 11 to 18 years. (See Appendix Tables A1.3.1a and A1.3.1b for further details of pupil respondents.) Generally schools returned greater numbers of questionnaires from lower school years (45% from S1 and S2; 38% from S3 and S4; 17% from S5 and S6). Seventy-four pupils (40 females and 34 males) also took part in discussion groups. (See Appendix A1.3.2 for further details.)

5.3.1 Happiness with school

Overall pupils who responded to the questionnaire were positive about their lives and school experiences.Three-quarters of pupils (75%) in the four secondary schools indicated happiness with their lives. There was some variation across schools, ranging from 80% of Case Study F pupils to 70% of Case Study E pupils. Pupils in Case Study F were most likely to indicate being 'very happy' with their lives (Case Study F, 36%; Case Study G, 29%; Case Study D, 25%; and Case Study E, 21%).

Almost eight out of ten pupils (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'. Again there was some variation in this picture by school. Pupils in Case Study G were more likely than pupils in the other three schools to believe that their school encourages all of its pupils to do well (89% of Case Study G pupils; 82% of Case Study F; 76% of Case Study D; and 72% of Case Study E). This school was praised by HMIE in March 2001 for having a 'very good' ethos.

Pupils attending Case Study D were more likely than pupils at the other schools to view their school as either 'friendly' or 'very friendly' (94%, Case Study D; 92%, Case Study G; 87%, Case Study F; 85%, Case Study E). Case Study G pupils were, however, most likely to regard their school as 'very friendly' (28%, Case Study G; 25%, Case Study F; 22%, Case Study D, 12% Case Study E).

Pupils who took part in discussion groups generally regarded their school as friendly and the staff helpful. One pupil in Case Study F suggested that:

Staff would even give you your bus fare home if you were stuck.

A number of participants remarked that not all staff were equally friendly towards, or supportive of, pupils. A few pupils intimated that bullying had been a problem from time to time in their school but staff were felt to have responded quickly and efficiently to such incidents. Students also contrasted their experience of secondary school with that of their primary school, suggesting that the greater freedom accorded them in secondary school was much appreciated and resulted in a more relaxed atmosphere as well as giving them a greater sense of responsibility.

5.3.2 Pupil self esteem

Pupils who took part in the questionnaire survey also completed a self-esteem instrument. ² This was used to give an indication of any differences in the experiences of guidance and support for pupils with low self-esteem compared to pupils with high self-esteem. Across the four schools pupils with higher self-esteem scores were more likely to be male.

1. 57% of higher self-esteem pupils were male and 43% were female

As Figure 5.1 shows, there were also some differences in self-esteem by school. Pupils attending Case Study F had a greater proportion of pupils with higher self-esteem than the other schools (55%, Case Study F; 52%, Case Study D; 49%, Case Study G; and 41%, Case Study E). These variations cannot be explained in terms of any gender differences between the schools.

Figure 5.1: Pupil self-esteem by school and year group

5.4 Who do pupils take their problems to?

Pupils who took part in the questionnaire survey were presented with a list of potential problems and difficulties and asked to indicate who, if anyone, they would seek help from. Depending on the problem, pupils suggested that they would draw on a range of school staff, parents and others to help them address potential difficulties. Pupils in Case Studies D and F (schools operating full-time guidance teams) were, broadly speaking, more likely to turn to guidance staff for help than pupils in Case Study E (school with a traditional part-time guidance system) who were in turn more likely to seek help from guidance/pupil support staff than pupils in Case Study G (school operating an integrated pupil support system). In Case Study G (which had integrated guidance with other forms of pupil support) pupils were more likely to indicate seeking assistance from other staff members (registration teachers, subject teachers and members of the senior management team) than were pupils in the other schools. This is to be expected given that registration teachers and depute headteachers as well as some subject teachers were members of the school's/pupil support team.

Figure 5.2: Pupils seeking help from Guidance/pupil support

Across the four schools a small percentage of pupils reported that they would not seek help from anyone in respect of a number of potential problems/concerns. Pupils attending Case Studies D and F were less likely to indicate this than pupils attending Case Studies E and G. (See Figure 5.3.)

Figure 5.3: Pupils who would not seek help

5.4.1 Classwork and homework difficulties

Pupils in all four schools most frequently indicated that they would seek help from subject teachers to deal with either classwork or homework problems. Seventy-one per cent of pupils said they would approach a subject teacher with a classwork problem and 66% with a homework problem. Pupils in Case Study F were more likely than pupils in other schools to approach guidance staff with such problems. In Case Study G (operating an integrated Guidance system) pupils were more likely than their peers in the other three schools to seek assistance from subject and registration teachers (members of the pupil support team). Pupils in Case Studies G and E were more likely than the other two schools to have pupils indicating that they would talk to no one about such problems.

5.4.2 Problems with a teacher

Guidance/pupil support teachers were most frequently cited (58%) as a source of help in dealing with problems arising from a pupil's relationship with another teacher. Fifteen per cent of pupils also regarded the head or deputy headteacher as a source of help in such an instance. Again there were significant variations across schools. For example, 68% of pupils in Case Study F (the highest) compared to 44% of pupils in Case Study G (the lowest) would seek help from a guidance/pupil support team member. However, 15% of pupils attending Case Study G (the highest) would seek assistance from a registration teacher (who in this system is a member of the pupil support team) compared to 1% of pupils in Case Study F (the lowest). Overall, 7% of pupils indicated that they would have no one to help them if they had a problem with a teacher.

5.4.3 Problems at home

Guidance/pupil support teachers were most commonly cited as a help in relation to pupils having a problem at home. Again, there were marked variations between the schools. Pupils in Case Study F were more likely than pupils in the other schools to discuss home problems with a guidance/pupil support teacher (66% in Case Study F; 50% in Case Study E; 45% in Case Study D; 42% in Case Study G). However, pupils in Case Study G were more likely than pupils in other schools to cite registration teachers (members of the pupil support team) as sources of help (10%, Case Study G; 2%, Case Study D; 1%, Case Study E; <1%, Case Study F). Overall, 15% of pupils (range: 20% in Case Study G to 12% in Case Study F) reported that they would discuss such a problem with no one.

5.4.4 Bullying

Most frequently pupils indicated that they would talk to a member of the guidance/pupil support team if they were being bullied (60% of pupils). At the individual school level this varied from 74% in Case Study F to 42% in Case Study G. Again pupils in Case Study G were more likely to talk to members of the senior management team or their registration teachers (both members of the pupil support team) than were pupils in the other schools. Taking these percentages into account means that 73% of pupils in Case Study G would consult a member of the pupil support team about bullying. Eleven per cent (11%) of pupils would not talk to anyone about being bullied. This was most common in Case Studies G and E and least likely in Cases D and F.

5.4.5 Thinking about their future

Guidance/pupil support staff were again seen as important when pupils were considering their future, with 57% of pupils citing them as their source of advice. At school level the picture varied. While 64% of pupils in Case Study F, 61% in Case Study D and 59% in Case Study E said they would talk to guidance staff about their future, only 40% in Case Study G indicated this. Pupils here were again more likely to approach subject teachers, registration teachers and members of the senior management team than pupils elsewhere. In total 66% of pupils in Case Study G would approach a member of the pupil support team for advice about their future.

5.4.6 Worries about their health

Guidance/pupil support staff were regarded by pupils as less important sources of help on health issues. Although 29% of pupils said that they would seek advice from guidance/pupil support staff, 55% indicated that they would turn to 'someone else' (most commonly parents, siblings or health professionals). Only in Case Study F did similar numbers of pupils indicate guidance staff (41%) and someone else (47%) as sources of health information. Eleven per cent (11%) of pupils (range: 15% in Case Study G to 8% in Case Study D) reported talking to no one about health concerns.

5.4.7 Course choices

Sixty per cent (60%) of pupils would seek assistance from guidance/pupil support staff when making course choices. However, less than half of the pupils in Case Study G (44%) indicated that they would seek such help. In line with previous responses, Case Study G pupils were more likely to suggest seeking help from other members of the pupil support team, subject teachers (14%) and register teachers (13%), who are also members of the guidance team. Pupils in Case Study G were also most likely to indicate talking to no one about course choices (13%, Case Study G; 10%, Case Study E; 7%, Case Study F; 6%, Case Study D).

5.4.8 Drug worries

More than half of the pupils (56%) regarded guidance/pupil support staff as appropriate to approach when facing worries about drugs. Pupils in Case Study G were again more likely to approach their registration teacher or a member of the Senior Management Team, both members of the pupil support team. Pupils in this school were also most likely to indicate talking to no one (18%, Case Study G; 14%, Case Study E; 11%, Case Study D; 9%, Case Study F).

5.5 Access to guidance/pupil support

The great majority of pupils in the four case study schools were aware of having a designated guidance/pupil support person to whom they could turn for assistance. Pupils who took part in discussion groups across the four schools were able to identify and name the staff involved as well as describe their duties. For example, pupils in Case Study F identified the four guidance staff by name and described how they were responsible for PSE, careers advice, pupil attendance, behaviour and bullying problems, and counselling pupils with problems. Pupil participants in discussion groups in the three other schools gave very similar responses.

Ninety-one per cent (91%) of pupils taking part in the questionnaire survey agreed that they had a guidance/pupil support person to whom they could go. In each of the schools there was a small percentage of pupils (highest in Case Study G) who indicated that they didn't know if they had a guidance/pupil support person (8% of pupils in Case Study G, 6% in Case Study E, 4% in Case Study F, and 3% in Case Study D). These pupils were spread across year groups, rather than, as may have been expected, concentrated in the lower school.

Survey pupils also indicated (from a pre-coded list) what they perceived to be the duties of guidance/pupil support staff. The majority of pupils in the four schools agreed that guidance teachers were responsible for giving careers advice (75%), had a role in pupil discipline (65%), and also counselled pupils (60%). While the overwhelming majority of pupils in Case Studies D (97%), E (85%), and F (94%), identified guidance staff as responsible for teaching PSE, only 25% of pupils in Case Study G identified them as teachers of PSE. (See Figure 5.4.) In this school the majority of pupils (56%) indicated 'don't know' in response to this question. Overall, pupils in Case Study G were more likely than pupils in the other schools to indicate 'don't know' in response to the pre-coded roles of guidance staff. The school preferred to use the term 'pupil support' and pupils may have been unfamiliar with the term 'guidance'. However, focus group discussions indicated that pupils had no problem using the terms interchangeably.

Figure 5.4: Guidance/pupil support staff duties identified by pupils

5.6 Experience of guidance/pupil support

Just over a third of surveyed pupils (35%) reported having gone or been sent to see a guidance/pupil support teacher for help: this varied by school from 41% of pupils in Case Study D to 30% of pupils in Case Study G. There was no evidence that pupils in particular years were more or less likely to report having seen a guidance teacher. Moreover, in three of the four schools there was no evidence that gender was a significant factor. However, in Case Study E, female students were almost twice as likely as male students to report having been to see a guidance teacher (43%, females; 23% males).

Pupils who had been to see a member of the guidance/pupil support staff were generally satisfied with the help they received. (See Figure 5.5.) Ninety per cent (90%) of these pupils reported that the guidance teacher had been either 'helpful' or 'very helpful' (48% indicated 'very helpful'). Only 3% suggested that the encounter was 'very unhelpful'. Moreover, there was no evidence to suggest that pupil satisfaction was associated with their self-esteem, gender or year groups. Thus low self-esteem S1 males were as likely to be satisfied with the encounter as high self-esteem S5 females.

Figure 5.5: Pupil satisfaction with help from guidance/pupil support

Evidence from the discussion groups confirmed pupils' general satisfaction with their guidance/pupil support staff. Although there were one or two individuals who expressed dissatisfaction with the guidance staff, the majority of pupils intimated that they had good relationships with guidance staff and believed that the guidance staff were there to support the welfare of pupils. Across all the discussion groups, pupils identified their current guidance/pupil support teachers as the people most suitable to deliver guidance.

5.6.1 Talking to guidance/pupil support staff about personal matters

Although pupils were generally satisfied with the guidance/pupil support staff in their school, and those who reported having direct experience of guidance were overwhelmingly positive about the experience, they also identified limits to the relationship. The majority of surveyed pupils (56%) across the four schools said that they would be unwilling to talk to guidance/pupil support staff about very personal issues. (See Figure 5.6.) However, in Case Study F a majority of pupils (56%) reported that they would be willing to talk with guidance staff about such issues. This situation was largely the result of pupils in the lower years of the school being substantially more likely than pupils in the other years to discuss personal issues with guidance staff (70% of lower school pupils; 43% of middle school pupils; 44% of upper school pupils). Other than this particular year group difference, there was no evidence to suggest that year group, gender or self-esteem were associated with pupil willingness to discuss personal matters with guidance/pupil support staff in any of the schools.

Figure 5.6: Pupils who would talk to guidance/pupil support staff about a personal matter

In each of the four schools surveyed those pupils who reported having been helped by guidance/pupil support staff were significantly more likely than other pupils to report a willingness to discuss very personal issues with guidance staff. Ninety-eight per cent (98%) of pupils who reported their guidance teacher as 'helpful' or 'very helpful' were willing to talk with guidance staff about a personal matter. Conversely, 91% of pupils who reported their previous guidance encounter as either 'unhelpful' or 'very unhelpful' were unwilling to discuss personal matters with guidance/pupil support staff.

5.6.2 Supporting pupils

Pupils taking part in the survey were asked an open question about what the school could best do to support them. Sample responses from each school were analysed (50 per school, stratified by year group and sex). The most frequently suggested responses are listed in rank order in Table 5.1. Most commonly, pupils suggested that their schools should provide education of the highest standard and/or provide advice and support for careers. Bullying was identified as a problem among pupils below S4.

Table 5.1 Pupil suggestions for school support

* majority of responses from pupils in middle and upper school
** almost half of respondents in Case Study E
*** all respondents below S4

5.7 Perceptions of parents of secondary school pupils

Thirty-one (31) parents with children in the case study secondary schools returned completed questionnaires. In total they had 48 children (24 girls and 24 boys) in S1-S6, and aged between 12 and 17 years. Parents were unanimous in thinking that their children's school was welcoming (66% reporting that it was very warm and welcoming; and 34%, fairly welcoming). All indicated that they always attended parents' evenings and that they all knew whom their child's guidance teacher was. All thought that their child was happy in school (66%, very happy; 34%, happy). All who had reason to contact the school regarding their child's progress or behaviour, to give information to the school, to request information, to discuss subject choice, or regarding moving school, were either very satisfied or satisfied with this contact. No respondent reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their contact about any of the range of issues.

Looking specifically at contact with guidance/pupil support staff, most parents felt very involved (41%) or involved (31%) with decisions made by guidance/pupil support staff. Sixty-nine per cent (69%) believed that the school encouraged their child to do well, and 55% that the school was welcoming to pupils and to parents. Ninety-nine per cent (99%) reported that they were satisfied overall with the support for pupils available in the school (48%, very satisfied; and 51%, satisfied). As one parent explained:

I am very happy with the support my son has had all through secondary education. Communication is a major factor. (Parent 054, Case Study G)

This was confirmed by a parent from the same school who reported that:

I think pupil support works well. The kids know they can speak to support teachers about anything that's troubling them. (Parent 097, Case Study G)

There was also praise for an individual guidance teacher who had helped a child deal with family bereavement. As her mother described:

When my two sisters passed away, the help my daughter received from her guidance teacher was tremendous and helped my daughter through this very difficult time as it was for us all. I tried to be there as much as I could but without her G/T it would have been harder for me.

(Parent 053, Case Study F)

Seventy-nine per cent (79%) of parents had views about who should be providing guidance/pupil support for their child. These included:

Parents and teachers. (Parent 054, Case Study G)

Parents, teachers and pupils. (Parent 042, Case Study D)

Teachers, parents, guardians and any other relevant professional.

(Parent 048, Case Study E)

All staff. (Parent 099, Case Study G)

Guidance Teacher. (Parent 059, Case Study G)

Guidance teacher plus subject teachers, headteacher, assistant headteacher. (Parent 051, Case Study F)

Someone with appropriate guidance skills who consults regularly with those teachers directly involved with child's education.

(Parent 036, Case Study D)

Teachers who have chosen to go into guidance and have time and motivation to offer teenagers. (Parent 037, Case Study D)

Approachable and knows my children and can deal with problems quickly and efficiently. (Parent 038, Case Study D)

Someone who knows the child and has a good rapport with them.

(Parent 041, Case Study D)

A class teacher who will remain with them throughout their school years to provide continuity to both children and parents.

(Parent 049, Case Study E)

One well known staff member for the whole six years.

(Parent 044, Case Study E)

The local authority through the school. (Parent 098, Case Study G)

Despite the high level of parental satisfaction with the support their children were currently receiving, 59% of parents who responded to the survey suggested ways in which the support system could be improved in their child's school. Some proposed changes to the structure of guidance. A parent in a school which had full-time guidance staff commented that:

We agree you require a guidance teacher but feel that one guidance teacher for 1st, 2nd & 3rd years and another for 4th, 5th & 6th would be better, ie instead of having 3 guidance teachers there should be 10. One guidance teacher has up to 10 classes, so I don't think that they can give their best. (Parent 035, Case Study D)

A parent from a different school suggested:

As well as specified pupil support teacher, small tutor groups from S1-S6 allocated to one teacher and timetabled to accommodate tutor group time instead of registration slot. (Parent 098, Case Study G)

One parent (041, Case Study D) wanted children to be able to change guidance/support teachers, the implication being that this was not perceived to be an option in their child's school.

Other parents proposed ways of improving the systems which their children were currently experiencing by altering procedures or providing more information:

More interviews to check on children who do not come with behavioural problems. Their needs are just as relevant and they need encouragement to keep up motivation. (Parent 037, Case Study D)

As one of our children receives learning support, the only information we receive is on parent's night. We would prefer a monthly report so we could see how he is getting on. (Parent 031, Case Study D)

More contact between guidance and parent/child in positive environment, ie not just when issues arise. (Parent 036, Case Study D)

Encouraging more interaction of senior and younger pupils in small groups. (Parent 042, Case Study D)

A parent from a school with full-time guidance staff highlighted the need for further information about subject choice:

More information about access to information regarding subject choice and course entry subjects, when entering 3rd year, as the information provided is very sparse and confusing. (Parent 051, Case Study F)

This was echoed by a parent from a different school (Parent 059, Case Study G) who would like to see earlier consultation about choosing subjects for Standard Grade.

Another parent simply wanted to make sure the pupils are listened to (Parent 053, Case Study F). A parent from another school (Parent 049, Case Study E) just wanted guidance teachers to be more accessible. And another parent (Parent 046, Case Study E) identified a role for the pupil council and proposed that strong links with pupil council should be maintained. One parent (097, Case Study G) thought that pupils should make suggestions for improvement, as it's only the pupils who would know if anything could be improved.

5.8 Secondary school teachers' perceptions

Eighty-eight (88) staff from the four case study secondary schools returned completed questionnaires (4 headteachers/deputes, 81 teachers, 1 other member of staff, and 2 unstated). Sixty-one per cent (61%) were female, and 35% male (4% missing). Their ages ranged from under 25 to over 60, with most in the 45-49 (23%) and 50-54 (22%) age groups. Eighty-six per cent (86%) worked full-time and their length of employment in the same school ranged from 1 to over 21 years (36% had been in the school for 11-20 years). Seventy-nine per cent (79%) indicated that they were involved with guidance/pupil support (38%, frequently; and 41%, occasionally). The nature of this frequent involvement with special aspects of guidance included: discipline (56%), reporting/ communication (52%), pupil welfare (43%), and helping with transition (25%). Sixty-nine per cent (69%) reported that they were seldom (30%) or never (39%) involved with PSE: 96% believed PSE was a key function of guidance staff. Ninety-six per cent (96%) were either very satisfied (46%) or satisfied (50%) with the current pupil guidance/pastoral care available in their school. Ninety-six per cent (96%) believed that all teachers have a duty of care, but only 44% thought that all teachers should have a guidance function.

A teacher explained how s/he perceived the role of guidance in school:

Guidance staff are a fundamental part of the running of my school. They deal with PSE, careers, counselling and guidance. They try to keep everything running together, from information given to them by teachers.

(Teacher 046, Case Study D)

A depute headteacher believed that:

Guidance provision requires quality staff who have (1) the necessary skills, qualities, knowledge and training; and (2) the interest and desire to do guidance work well.

(DHT, Case Study F)

A principal teacher reported that:

With excellent pupil guidance and support, teachers' role in classroom can be more focused and recently I have noticed I am spending more time doing 'valuable teaching'. Pupils are aware that their contribution [is] important, and they communicate their feelings better - less frightened to ask for help, as they know their concerns will be listened to.

(PT 107, Case Study F)

And a Pupil Support Teacher attributed the success of pupil support to:

…because it does not intrude unnecessarily into school life, indeed, it enhances school life in an unobtrusive way.

(Teacher 155, Case Study G)

Some, however, criticised the way guidance staff currently work, believing too much emphasis was placed on it or that guidance staff did not share information with the rest of the staff.

[Guidance staff] too involved in social work relating to problems outside school which should be left to the outside agencies.

(Teacher 083, Case Study E)

Too much emphasis on guidance. It should be restricted to dealing with pupils' school based problems.

(PT 091, Case Study E)

Guidance is often not very transparent with information kept from staff not involved in guidance. Very often this information would help staff deal with pupils in a more caring sympathetic way but it seems we are not to be trusted with it.

(Teacher 087, Case Study E)

Sometimes guidance staff take too soft an approach to unruly pupils - appears at times to reward bad behaviour. Disruptive pupils offered anger management sessions, massages, outing and their behaviour does not improve and in some cases deteriorates. (Teacher 110, Case Study F )

Concerns that pupils do not value PSE classes and that the organisation of them appears haphazard and not well thought out. More imaginative timetabling needed. More involvement from home - schools/teachers often seen as the panacea of all of society's problems. Schools cannot do this! (PT 084, Case Study E)

That pupil support is seen as the answer to every problem in the school, that staff don't take their departmental positions and responsibilities seriously and also that too much support is given unnecessarily and pupils are unable to be independent learners.

(Teacher 157, Case Study G)

Numerous staff took the opportunity to elaborate their responses. Fifty-six (56) expressed concerns about the future of guidance in their school. Many focused on what they perceived to be the effects of job sizing on staff morale and the organisation of guidance. For example:

Morale of guidance teachers is low after job sizing exercise. I am concerned that the guidance role itself is being dangerously devalued. Guidance is the core of Scottish Education system's ethos and relative success. To lose guidance would be highly damaging.

(Teacher 043, Case Study D)

Guidance staff feel devalued as demonstrated in the result of their treatment in the job sizing exercise. (PT 045, Case Study D )

Post-McCrone, there are fears that Guidance is under threat. The job done by guidance staff could not be done by other staff in addition to their normal teaching load. They are a vital part of an effective learning environment. (DHT 052, Case Study D )

Many felt that it was essential for pupils and the rest of the staff that schools have specialist guidance staff. For example:

Guidance is a very important job as pupils have very diverse needs, especially with the move towards inclusion. Knowledge of family history, etc is very important. This job is far too specialised to be devolved to already busy subject teachers. However, support from school staff generally, is vital to a whole school approach.

(PT Support for learning teacher, Case Study D)

Having one teacher that they [pupils] can go to - especially in a large secondary [is essential]. (APT Teacher, 090, Case Study E)

And others expressed concern at the likely effects of changing the status of guidance staff:

Spreading the guidance role to all staff will dilute its effectiveness and communications will become a nightmare. We have lost only one guidance post and already the system is crumbling.

(Teacher 093, Case Study E)

No one in overall control. Many pupils who require specialist help will not have their needs met. (PT 080, Case Study E)

The positive ethos of the school would deteriorate if guidance input is withdrawn. Stress levels in pupils would increase if guidance time is reduced. Links with outside agencies would suffer. I feel it is better if guidance issues remain the sole responsibility of guidance trained teachers and should not become shared duties with a wider range of staff. Parents rely heavily on access to guidance staff. This point of contact is essential to developing good home/school partnerships.

(Teacher Behaviour Support 048, Case Study D)

The thought of no guidance department and only first line guidance is quite frightening. (PT 061, Case Study D)

Young staff who would be excellent as PT Guidance may not consider it because of job sizing. (PT Guidance, Case Study D )

Lack of time [for other teachers to be involved].

(Teacher 044, Case Study D; 049, Case Study D; PT Pupil Support, Case Study G)

Unless staff take on the more basic function of guidance under the new management structure, guidance teachers will not have the time to do a genuine pastoral/counselling role. (Teacher 079, Case Study E)

No time or expertise of non-guidance specialists in contact with outside agencies, ability to deal with pupil problems promptly, pupils knowing there is someone available to listen to their problems, filling forms for university etc. Specialist guidance staff vital to smooth running of school/welfare of pupils. (PT 051, Case Study D)

Frustration and burn-out. (Teacher 062, Case Study D)

They [guidance staff] may be snowed under by paperwork.

(APT 106, Case Study F)

Looking to the future, some staff had placed limits around their own involvement or potential involvement with guidance/pupil support. As one subject teacher explained:

I do not want to 'do' guidance. Issues that arise in class discussion during lessons are fine; obviously concerns about individual pupils or groups are passed on to the relevant guidance teacher. (PT 081, Case Study E)

Guidance staff should be full-time guidance, PSE etc not subject based. This would allow incidents [to be] better dealt with.

(Teacher 085, Case Study E)

In contrast, a few thought that other teachers should play, or were in some cases already playing, a larger role in guidance:

I think guidance teachers have a heavy case load. I think that class teachers need to play a greater part/could play a greater part in pastoral care. (Teacher 059, Case Study D)

Most staff already take on first front line guidance but are not equipped or suitable to work in the same way that guidance has worked.

(Teacher 088, Case Study E)

One member of the senior management team in a school with full-time guidance staff was a firm believer in the separation of guidance from subject teaching:

I strongly feel that pastoral care staff should be free of subject commitment. This allows continuity, at all times, for individual pupil support and eradicates any clash between subject and guidance which is always present where a subject commitment is involved.

(DHT 112, Case Study F)

However, the potential dangers of this approach were spelled out by another teacher in the same school who believed that if guidance is a full-time job it is becoming remote from realities of delivering the curriculum (PT 113, Case Study F). A second alluded to concerns over pupils' perceptions of the relationship between the pastoral care team and teaching staff relative hierarchies and remits, and lack of understanding and appreciation of the respective roles (PT 114, Case Study F). And a third was worried that pupils would run to guidance/pastoral care for the slightest reason (Teacher 116, Case Study F). A note of scepticism was raised by a teacher in a school with full-time guidance staff, who said I would like to know if it is effective and actually working? (PT 111, Case Study F).

5.9 Summary

Four main points emerge from the evidence from the case study secondary schools. These are summarised below.

Models of guidance

All four case study secondary school used a 'specialist' model to provide guidance/pupil support. Two had a small number of full-time guidance staff, a third had a mixture of full- and part-time guidance staff and the fourth had established a large team of 21 promoted and non promoted support teachers who provided an integrated pupil support service. Some schools had recently changed their guidance systems and one was in a process of transition. There is no evidence to show that one model is any more or less effective than any other. Employing more guidance/pupil support personnel appears to increase the number of staff whom pupils can approach without necessarily increasing the percentage of pupils willing to talk about their concerns to staff, or impacting on the self-confidence of pupils involved.

Pupil use of guidance

Pupils were well informed about guidance/pupil support in their schools. Most know the identify of guidance staff and their responsibilities. In three of the four schools boys and girls were equally likely to contact a member of the guidance team; in the fourth, girls were twice as likely as boys to have made contact. The majority of those who reported discussing issues with guidance staff were satisfied with their experience. Pupils appeared to be exercising choice, as far as this was possible, by taking particular problems/issues to different people. Most reported that they would not talk about personal issues with guidance/pupil support staff, preferring instead parents, siblings, friends and others. Some reported that they would talk to no one (range: 2% to 20%, depending on the nature of the problem).

Parents opinions on guidance

Overall, parents appeared to be satisfied with the ways in which their child was supported at school (48%, very satisfied; 51%, satisfied). They were unanimous in thinking that their child's school was welcoming (66% thought it was very welcoming; 34%, fairly welcoming). Most felt involved with decisions made by guidance/pupil support staff (41%, very involved; 31%, involved). They made few suggestions for how guidance/pupil support should be improved in their child's school: many respondents thought that support should be provided jointly by parents, teachers, and other pupils. In particular, parents wanted teachers who were approachable, appropriately skilled, could establish a rapport with young people, and had chosen to go into guidance/pupil support.

Teachers attitudes towards guidance/pupil support

Seventy-eight per cent (78%) of secondary school teacher respondents reported that they were involved with guidance/pupil support (36%, frequently; 42%, occasionally). Ninety-five per cent (95%) were satisfied with the current pupil guidance/pastoral care available in their school (44%, very satisfied; 51%, satisfied). Ninety-five per cent (95%) of teacher respondents believed that all teachers have a duty of care, but only 44% thought that all teachers should have a guidance function. Many individual respondents were, however, concerned about the future of guidance/pupil support and believed that the McCrone agreement and related job sizing exercise would affect the ability of schools to provide a guidance service.

Footnotes

1. Agreement has been reached with the teacher organisations and local authority employers to expand the criteria for salary placement to include the following factors: school roll; management responsibilities; policy development and monitoring; external liaison; whole school activities […] This work will be taken forward by the new national negotiating body, the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (SNCT), Career Structure, working group and will be referred to as "the job-sizing exercise".'
(Scottish Executive (2001) School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill:Policy Memorandum. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.)

2. Pupils were 'scored' on responses to a number of individual statements. These scores were then aggregated to give a measure of self-esteem. Using the median point, students were then divided into two groups; those with higher self-esteem and those with lower self-esteem. Self-esteem is associated with gender in that males are significantly more likely to record high self-esteem scores than their female peers. (This is a similar picture to one encountered in eight secondary schools in which the researchers have previously used this self-esteem scale. (Unpublished report to Greater Glasgow Health Board.))

« Previous | Contents | Next »