Department of Education rules militate against highly trained counsellorsusing their skills to best advantage in our schools, argues Brian Mooney
The recent public debate on a number of education issues provides an insight into the health of the system.
The Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, raised the issue of reform of the Leaving Certificate to reduce student stress. A report was issued by the council of directors of the Institutes of Technology, which surveyed 1,300 first-year National Certificate students, showing a 42 per cent drop-out rate prior to course completion. Finally, Mr Dempsey announced a rise of 70 per cent in college charges from €396 to €670.
As president of the Institute of Guidance Counsellors, I believe Mr Dempsey made the right decision to increase third-level college charges rather than impose cuts on either first- or second-level education. If hard choices have to be made, then let those who have most to gain bear the cost. Their future earning power will far outweigh the cost of any increase.
The role of the guidance counsellor is central to all the other issues raised above. Members of the institute are highly trained professionals, capable of dealing with both personal and career counselling. Given a client base of 250 students each, the rate that applied in1983 prior to cutbacks implemented at that time, they could provide a comprehensive service across the range demanded. At present, one counsellor can be responsible for up to 799 students.
Are the skills acquired by guidance counsellors in their training being fully used in the service of our young people? The Department of Education and Science rules dictate that if a school has fewer than 500 students, the guidance counsellor is only allowed to spend half his/her working week, using their skills. The other half must be spent on teaching duties. Furthermore, if a qualified counsellor does not also have the qualification to teach a school subject to Leaving Certificate level, the Department will not employ them. At a time of great need, some fully qualified guidance counsellors cannot be employed in our schools.
In what other situation, where the need for a service is so manifest, and the cost of its absence so high, as seen by the tragic deaths of so many young people, and the unacceptably high drop-out rates at third-level, would you not fully use the trained personnel available? It defies logic to have a guidance counsellor engaged in classroom teaching, when their skills are so obviously needed in their specialist area.
Guidance counselling is a legal entitlement of all students under the 1998 Education Act. Section 9 (c) obliges every school to ensure students have access to appropriate guidance to assist them in their educational and career choices. Section 9 (d) obliges schools to promote the personal development of students.
The fact that 3,400 students drop out of school each year, some of them as young as 11 years of age, is indicative of a total failure to deliver this right to the most vulnerable children in our educational system. Youthreach, an excellent programme, organised by FÁS to draw young children who have dropped out of school back into education and training, cannot accept any child less than 16 years of age. Where does this leave the 3,400 children under 14 years of age? It leaves them drifting in a world where the temptation to involve themselves in the abuse of drugs and alcohol is so powerful.
The Education Welfare Act, which is due to be implemented this coming September, places an obligations on schools to hold each child in full-time education until 16 years of age. The schools have no resources in place to support these children, which is why they have been dropping out in the first place.
To successfully implement the Act, and begin to reduce the rate of school drop-out, we have to put in place a comprehensive guidance and counselling service for all students. At present the limited resources available are concentrated ocollege applications for 5th- and 6th-year students.
Such a service should be available at primary level where needed, and at second-level from the moment a child enters the system. It should inform early subject choice, evaluate aptitudes and interest, and deal with the personal crises that may affect any child. As it is, under the present provision, many students do not see a counsellor on a one-to-one basis, until their final two years in school. I would urge the Government to reflect on the false economics, which believes that skimping on guidance provision at second-level somehow saves money. The long-term cost far outweighs any short-term savings.
Finally, let me contribute to the debate on reform of the Leaving Certificate. I believe it would be preferable, if a student could take their Leaving Certificate over four modules in January and June of their final two school years. It would reduce stress, enable a student to evaluate their progress, balance the workload across two years, reduce the temptation to engage in large-scale part-time working, enable their guidance counsellor to guide them in the direction of realisable choices, as their cumulative result gradually unfolded over the final two years.
Brian Mooney is president of the Institute of Guidance Counsellors