IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling Practice … FINAL Audit 4 REPORT - May 5-2.pdf · IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling Practice ... national audit of guidance counselling

INSTITUTE OF GUIDANCE COUNSELLORS

NATIONAL AUDIT

OF

GUIDANCE COUNSELLING PRACTICE

IN SECOND LEVEL SCHOOLS & COLLEGES OF

FURTHER EDUCATION

IN IRELAND

2011/12 – 2015/16

REPORT OF FINDINGS

AUDIT 4 – 2015/16

IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling Practice 2015/16 - Audit 4

2

FOREWARD

The Institute of Guidance Counsellors (IGC) is pleased to publish the results of its 2015/16

national audit of guidance counselling practice in second level schools and colleges of further

education in Ireland. This audit is the 4th in a series of audits commissioned by the National

Executive in February 2012. The audits arose from the Government Budget-2012 decision to

remove the ex-quota allocation of hours for guidance counselling delivery that operated in

Irish schools for forty-plus years, and the possible impact that the resulting change would

have in relation to the provision and nature of guidance counselling in schools going forward.

The decision to initiate national audits stemmed from the Institute’s concerns that many

students would not now receive the essential supports necessary to allow them to achieve

their potential and progress their educational goals, commensurate with their aptitudes and

abilities. The Institute feared that while all students would be affected by the change, the

disadvantaged and vulnerable students would suffer most. However, we had no hard

evidence to benchmark and substantiate our fears or concerns, hence the decision to

undertake national audits.

An important part of this audit was to ascertain evidence in quantitative terms of the amount

of practice time lost; the areas impacted by this loss; the effect on access to one-to-one

counselling; and the effect on the role of the guidance counsellor in terms of where these lost

hours are now spent. I would like to put on record our sincere thanks to Sheelagh Beatty,

LifeCare Psychological Services Limited, who undertook the analysis of the audit and

worked tirelessly to report the results to us as quickly as possible. I would also like to record

our thanks to all of our members who completed the questionnaire. Despite their very busy

work schedules, 376 schools and colleges of further education have taken part, which gives

great validity to the audit findings in research terms and insight into current practice.

While the 2012/13 academic year bore the initial brunt of the stark reduction in hours, and the

2013/14 audit revealed that this very worrying trend continued, the 2015/16 audit has found

the same downward impact. Many young people continue to remain unable to access the

assistance of guidance counsellors when they most need them.


3

Overall, weekly mean practice hours for the delivery of guidance counselling in second level

schools and colleges of further education has dropped from 24.54 hours in 2011/12 to 17.76

hours in 2015/16, a loss of 6.78 hours 27.6 per cent. What is of real concern is that this loss

is not equally felt between schools in the Free Education Scheme (FES) and fee-paying

schools; nor between DEIS and non-DEIS schools. This clearly highlights that there now

exists a very uneven and very disjointed service in our schools and colleges of further

education. Our fears and concerns are confirmed as many students currently do not receive

the essential supports necessary to achieve their potential and progress their educational

goals, commensurate with their aptitudes and abilities.

Guidance counsellors in schools across the country represent a unique network of skilled

professionals with direct access to young people whom they assist with both with guidance

and direction on their future career paths and in promoting positive mental health, while

dealing with issues such as bullying, stress, self-harm, low self-esteem, etc. on a daily basis.

A lot of counselling work is about prevention; about identifying and reducing potential

problems at source. Much of this ‘under the radar’ work by guidance counsellors is not now

taking place, resulting in unattended problems presenting in a more critical state later, and

requiring external resource-hungry supports, which are already experiencing long delays.

The guidance counselling service in Ireland today is in its worst state in the history of

education in this country. Decades of excellent work building up, developing and enhancing

the service, by both government policy and by professional qualified guidance counsellors,

has been eroded. Guidance counselling is the entitlement of all, and not a luxury for only

those who can afford it. Section 9C of the 1998 Education Act explicitly acknowledges this

entitlement; and it is the role of Government to support all children to achieve their potential

by providing a universal social entitlement to a fit-for-purpose guidance counselling support

to all students, no matter what their circumstances.

The Institute has indicated its willingness to engage government departments to examine how

these scarce resources can be best utilised for the benefit of all young people in our care.

Betty McLaughlin

President


4

FORWARD ......................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLE & FIGURES ......................................................................................... 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8

Background to the Audit ............................................................................................ 8

Purpose of the Audit .................................................................................................. 8

Profile of Second Level Schools & Colleges of Further Education ......................... 8

Audit Results ............................................................................................................ 9

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 15

Implications for Policy ............................................................................................. 16

Future Research ........................................................................................................ 17

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT .............................................................. 18

1.1 Aims .......................................................................................................................... 18

1.2 Context ..................................................................................................................... 19

1.3 Structure of Report .................................................................................................... 19

SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 20

SECTION 3: FINDINGS & ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 21

3.1 Respondent Characteristics ....................................................................................... 21

3.2 School Types ............................................................................................................ 21

3.3 Overall Guidance Counselling Provision in 2015/16 ............................................... 23

3.3.1 Fee-Paying and Non-Fee-Paying ................................................................. 24

3.4 Comparison of Overall Practice Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16 ..................................... 25

3.4.1 DEIS & Non-DEIS ……….......................................................................... 26

3.5 Impact of Loss in Allocation by School Type ......................................................... 26

3.6 Breakdown of Guidance Counselling Provision: 2015/16 ...................................... 28

3.7 Breakdown of Guidance Counselling Provision: 2011/12 - 2015/16 ….................. 29

3.8 Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2015/16 ................................................................ 31

3.9 Qualified Guidance Counsellors Employed & Practicing ....................................... 35

3.10 Unqualified Staff delivering Weekly Guidance Counselling .................................. 38

3.11 Use of External Providers of Guidance Counselling ............................................... 38

3.11.1 Guidance .................................................................................................... 38

3.11.2 One-to-One Counselling ............................................................................. 39


5

3.12 Attendance at Supervision & Continuous Professional Development .................... 41

3.12.1 Attendance at Supervision .......................................................................... 41

3.14.2 Attendance at Continuing Professional Development ............................... 41

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 43

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 45


6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Respondent schools in each Audit .................................................................... 21

Table 3.2: Schools by School Type ................................................................................... 21

Table 3.3: Overall Guidance Counselling Provision 2015/16 ........................................... 23

Table 3.4: Overall Practice Hours 2015/16: DEIS & Non-DEIS ...................................... 23

Table 3.5: Practice Hours from the GSA: DEIS and Non-DEIS ........................................24

Table 3.6 Schools NOT Providing GC Hours from GSA in 2015/16 .............................. 25

Table 3.7: Comparison of Overall Weekly Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16 .............................. 25

Table 3.8: Overall Practice Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16: DEIS & Non-DEIS ..................... 26

Table 3:9: Impact of Overall Loss by School Type: 2011/12 - 2015/16 ......................... 27

Table 3.10: Breakdown of Overall Weekly Provision: 2015/16 ......................................... 29

Table 3:11: Breakdown of Overall Weekly Provision: 2015/16: DEIS & Non-DEIS ........ 29

Table 3.12: Breakdown of Overall GC Provision 2011/12 to 2015/16 ............................... 30

Table 3.13: Breakdown of Types of Annual GC Activities: 2011/12 ................................. 31

Table 3:14: Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2015/16 ......................................................... 32

Table 3.15: Breakdown of Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2012/13 to 2015/16 ............... 33

Table 3.16: Breakdown of Weekly Time-Tabled Classes by Student Year ........................ 33

Table 3.17: Qualified Guidance Counselling Staff ............................................................. 34

Table 3.18: Qualified Practicing & Non-Practicing Guidance Counsellors ....................... 35

Table 3.19: Schools with Qualified & Practicing GC’s: 2011/12 - 2015/16 ...................... 36

Table 3.20: Unqualified Staff delivering Guidance Counselling: 2015/16 ........................ 34

Table 3.21: External Providers of Guidance Counselling Services: 2015/16 ................... 39

Table 3.22: External Providers of One-To-One Counselling ............................................. 40

Table 3.23: Free to Attend Supervision/CPD 2015/16 ....................................................... 41

Table 3.24: Analysis of Reasons for GC’s Non-Release .................................................... 42

Table 3.25: Analysis of Reasons for GC’s Non-Release .................................................... 42


7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: School Types ................................................................................................... 22

Figure 1.2: Breakdown of GC Weekly Mean Practice Hours 2015/16 ............................. 28

Figure 1.3: Breakdown of Time-Tabled Classroom Time ................................................ 32


8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

In Budget 2012, a decision was made at governmental level to remove the ex-quota allocation

for guidance counselling practice that operated in Irish second level schools and colleges of

further education. Hours for guidance counselling service would now be allocated by school

principals, based on “appropriate guidance” and taken from the general school allocation.

In February 2012, the National Executive of the IGC commissioned a series of national audits

to ascertain the possible impact, if any, that the resulting change would have both in relation

to the provision itself and nature of guidance counselling service in schools going forward.

The Institute’s fears and concerns centred around their belief that while all students would be

affected by the change, the disadvantaged and vulnerable students would suffer most.

However, they had no hard evidence to substantiate these concerns, hence the decision to

undertake a series of National audits. Four audits have taken place to-date: Audit 1

(2011/12); Audit 2 (2012/13); Audit 3 (2013/14); and Audit 4 (2015/16).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of Audit 4 is to provide an overview of guidance counselling practice for the

academic year 2015/16 and evaluate the impact of any changes in relation to the delivery of

guidance counselling practice since 2011/12. The audit addresses three main questions in

relation to the removal of the ex-quota allocation of hours for guidance counselling delivery:

1. Has the removal had an effect on the number of hours provided for guidance

counselling practice in 2015/16?

2. Where has the impact of the change, if any, been felt in 2015/16?

3. Has the removal of the ex-quota impacted how the guidance service is delivered in

2015/16?

PROFILE OF SCHOOLS & COLLEGES OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Schools were identified for inclusion in the audit, based on the guidance counsellor(s)

employed in second level schools and colleges of further education being members of the

IGC. Membership of the IGC is based on being accredited and qualified professional

guidance counsellors.


9

AUDIT RESULTS

Here are highlighted some of the important and concerning findings, based on analyses of

actual data from (n=376) respondent schools who completed questionnaires in the 2015/16

IGC national audit; and it should be noted that the use of the word ‘hours’ in this Executive

Summary refers to ‘weekly mean practice hours’, unless otherwise stated.

Overall the response was excellent, with 52.0 per cent of all second level schools and

colleges of further education completing and returning questionnaires. Of the total

respondents, 98 per cent fell into five categories: 44.1 per cent are voluntary secondary

schools; 27.1 per cent are ETB/community colleges; 17.8 per cent are community/

comprehensive schools; 4.8 per cent are fee-paying schools; and 4.3 per cent are colleges of

further education.

Practice Hours: 2011/12 – 2015/16

Of the total respondents, 94.4 per cent reported receiving hours from the general school

allocation, while 5.6 per cent (twenty-one schools) reported they are not. Overall, (n=376)

schools are providing 17.76 hours per week, down from 24.54 hours in 2011/12 – a loss of

27.6 per cent. DEIS schools report having 15.80 hours – a 30.0 per cent decline, while non-

DEIS report having 18.44 hours - a 26.7 per cent decline. There is a gap in the number of

hours provided, with DEIS schools reporting 2.64 hours less per week – a gap that existed in

2011/12. Given that actual hours in 2011/12 were 5.7 per cent below the actual DES ex-

quota allocation, this loss is even greater at 33.0 per cent. At the same time, fee-paying

schools have gained 1.9%, increasing from 23.54 hours in 2011/12 to 24.0 hours.

What is of real concern is the gap in provision between DEIS and non-DEIS schools, a gap

that existed in 2011/12. DEIS schools had previously been in receipt of additional guidance

resources through the Guidance Enhancement Initiative; and the ESRI had highlighted that its

abolition was likely to lead to even greater difficulties in combining the educational guidance

and personal counselling elements of the guidance counsellor role in the context of reduced

resources (Smyth et al., 2015).


10

Of the 94.4 per cent receiving hours from the general school allocation, DEIS schools are

receiving 16.14 hours, while non-DEIS schools are receiving 19.05 hours, a difference of

2.91 hours a week – 15.2 per cent less than non-DEIS schools.

Of the 5.6 per cent not receiving hours, 45 per cent are paying privately for the service and

are providing 21.25 hours, while the remaining 55 per cent are providing 0.00 hours – nine of

whom are voluntary secondary schools. Of the schools paying privately to provide the

service, four are fee-paying schools who are providing the greatest provision of 27.08 hours.

At the same time, 2.4 per cent of schools report they have no guidance counsellor at all; while

DEIS schools further report having 18.7 percent of guidance counsellors employed but not

practicing, while non-DEIS schools report 12.7 per cent.

It should be noted that 26 per cent of all post-primary schools fall under DEIS, and this

finding of a disproportionate impact of the removal of the ex-quota allocation between non-

DEIS and DEIS schools is in line with findings in the Economic & Social Research Institute

2015 Research Study “Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS”, where researchers found that

“while DEIS funding was largely ring-fenced during the reductions in public expenditure that

have taken place since 2008 … other changes in educational policy have impacted,

sometimes disproportionately, on disadvantaged schools. Such changes include the removal

of the ex-quota allowance for guidance counsellors” (Smyth et al., 2015).

Impact of Loss by School Types: 2015/16

When a comparison was made of which school types had the greatest loss in terms of hours

from 2011/12 to 2015/16, it was evident that not only was there a continuing trend of

increasing lost but also a change in school type between 2013/14 and 2015/16 as to where

this lost was felt most. Community/comprehensive schools now had the greatest loss at 32.7

per cent; voluntary secondary schools lost 29.6 per cent: ETB schools/community colleges

lost 27.0 per cent; colleges of further education a declining loss of 6.6 per cent; while fee-

paying schools gained 1.9 per cent, a possible reflect fact that guidance counselling is now

being privately purchased by 22.2 per cent of all fee-paying schools.


11

Harkin (2015), a doctoral research study, reported similar finding and suggesting three

possible reasons; firstly, that fee-paying schools are able to access additional sources of

finance and funding that are not available to schools in the FES; secondly, that parent power

had an impact on decision-making around guidance services, and thirdly, that both school

management and parents in fee-paying schools regarded guidance (particularly career

guidance) as important. Previous ESRI research found that young people attending

disadvantaged schools are significantly less likely to go on to higher education than those

attending middle-class or socially mixed schools (McCoy et al., 2014; DES, 2013). In more

middle-class schools, the focus is not on whether to go on to higher education but on which

college and which course (Smyth and Banks, 2012; McCoy et al., 2010); while in contrast,

students in disadvantaged schools, lack the ‘insider’ knowledge through the family networks

available to their middle-class peers and are more reliant on formal school-based guidance.

How Practice Hours Are Spent: 2011/12 - 2015/16

Of the overall 17.76 hours, 4.52 hours are spent teaching classroom guidance; 5.59 hours on

one-to-one student work (personal, career and educational); 1.46 hours on group work; and

6.17 hours on other guidance counsellors’ activities, including administration. When looked

in terms of overall loss between 2011/12 and 2015/16, one-to-one student work has dropped

from 12.0 hours to 5.59 hours per week, which represents a catastrophic decrease in service

of 53.5 per cent. DEIS schools report on spending on average 1 hour less on one-to-one

student work, 1 hour less on other guidance counsellor activities, including administration,

and the balance on classroom guidance – accounting for the overall difference of 2.64 hours

per week between DEIS and non-DEIS schools.

- One-to-One Student Work

The ESRI “Leaving School in Ireland” study found that young people valued the detailed

information offered and the personal qualities of the guidance counsellor, highlighting in

particular the importance of one-to-one sessions (McCoy et al., 2014); and concern was

expressed by students about the constraints on time for guidance, particularly for more

personalised one-to-one discussion, the absence of information on options other than higher

education, and the absence of information on the employment opportunities following on

from the courses in which they were interested. Harkin (2015) found that guidance


12

counsellors in FES schools are more focused on counselling than career guidance during the

year, while in fee-paying schools the opposite was the case. The demand for counselling was

also much greater in FES schools than in fee-charging schools.

- Other Guidance Counsellor Duties/Administration

At the same time as this is occurring, what is both significant and concerning is the change

that has taken place in the hours spent on other guidance counselling duties, including

administration, by guidance counsellors. There has been a decrease of 17.4 per cent in the

time guidance counsellors have to spend on this area of their work, which includes the

additional significant workload of the two new supplementary admission routes, HEAR and

DARE, introduced to widen access to third level education. While DEIS schools have

reported receiving 1 hour less on this aspect of their work, it may be compensated for by the

fact that DEIS schools receive additional resources for Special Needs, which would provide

support in this aspect of their work. This overall reduction in time is supported by written

narrative made by respondents on returned questionnaires highlighting an inability to separate

out hours spent on one-to-one student work and other guidance counselling duties, including

administration, where there was cross-over. Almost 40 per cent of respondents stated that all

administration was now performed and completed in their own personal time, over and above

their contracted hours and unpaid.

This switch between time spent on other guidance counselling duties, including

administration and one-to-one student work appears to be a conscious decision by guidance

counsellors, driven either by a need to provide to students a reactionary ‘fire-fighting’ one-to-

one personal counselling and/or one-to-one career or education counselling, or a combination

of all three, an area that needs to be explored and clarified, and thus warrants urgent further

investigation. Harkin (2015) found that the demand for personal counselling in FES schools

forced prioritisation, with preventative work disappearing, resulting in the guidance service

became a reactive crisis intervention one, while Dr. Eddie Murphy stated at the 2016

Psychological Society of Ireland’s Conference that “psychologists are seeing a surge in calls

from schoolchildren as a result of the reduction in school counsellor numbers” and that “the

removal of the school guidance counsellor has had a major impact … on the health and

wellness of children … and is resulting in additional presentation of distress”. The impact on


13

vocational/career and educational one-to-one counselling is strongly borne out by the CAO

statistics or 2016 whereby the number of students who registered and made no course choice

at all for third level actually increased by 20 per cent over 2015.

- Classroom Teaching

Guidance counsellors are spending on a weekly basis 4.53 hours time-tabled to teaching

guidance, and an additional 4.35 hours combining subject teaching, SPHE and other

classroom teaching/activity.

Providers of Guidance Counselling in Schools

- Qualified Guidance Counsellors

Overall, since 2011/12 the number of qualified guidance counsellors employed has dropped

by 8.4 per cent. In addition, only 85.9 per cent of those employed are practicing guidance

counsellors on a weekly basis; while 14.1 per cent are not, up from 6.1 per cent. Nine

schools report that no qualified guidance counsellor is employed, almost double the figure

reported in 2013/14.

In 2015/16, the overall mean number of qualified guidance counsellors employed is 1.53

(1.40 DEIS and 1.57 non-DEIS), down from 1.67 since 2011/12; while the mean number of

employed and practicing guidance counsellors is 1.31 (1.14 DEIS and 1.37 non-DEIS), down

from 1.57 in 2011/12. This evident gap between practice in DEIS and non-DEIS post-

primary schools is found at the same time as alleviation posts have been allocated to DEIS

post-primary schools through a lower pupil-teacher ratio of 18.25:1 (compared to the norm of

19:1) to compensate for the removal of ex quota guidance posts.

- Unqualified Staff Delivering Guidance Counselling

While it has emerged from Audit 4 that not only are all qualified guidance counsellors in

schools not practicing guidance counselling, of greater concern is that a substantial number of

schools are using unqualified staff to deliver the guidance counselling service. Sixty-three

schools report using 106 unqualified persons to deliver guidance on a weekly basis; 21.3 per

cent of whom are guidance counsellors in-training, delivering 6.81 hours, while 78.7 per cent

are unqualified staff in-situ, delivering 7.27 hours. It should be noted that these unqualified


14

staff are unlikely to have any specialist training in guidance counselling, and/or may not have

access to counselling supervision which is of critical importance.

- External Providers of Guidance Counselling

The use by schools of external providers of guidance counselling has grown again in

2015/16. Current, of the schools reporting the use of external providers, 6.1 per cent have

sourced for guidance, while 28.2 per cent have sourced for one-to-one counselling.

In terms of guidance, over three-quarters of these external providers are private/retired

guidance counsellors, of whom the vast majority are being paid for their services. Schools

recruiting externally report providers are working 6.86 hours per week, down from 9.25 in

2013/14, a decrease of 2.43 practice hours or 26.2 per cent.

In terms of one-to-one counselling, three main groups, counsellors/therapists/psychologists,

are recruited externally by 59.2 per cent of schools, while the remaining 40.8 per cent are

using the services of a diverse range of seventeen different groups/organisations. In total,

84.1 per cent stated the outside providers are paid, though not necessarily by the schools

themselves, similar to 2013/14. What is of concern, however, is that while the number of

schools using external providers of one-to-one counselling has increased, the number of

hours they provide has dropped from 7.21 to 6.47 over the same period.

As pointed out in the 2013/14 audit Report, it is evident that the use of external providers for

counselling is ad-hoc in nature and it appears that schools are placed in the position that they

will recruit both paid and voluntary providers, wherever they can be sourced, in order to

deliver a service. The figure has more than doubled since 2013/14, and while it is

acknowledged on behalf of the schools that this solution to the now evident gap in the

provision of service is with the best intent, what is been ignored is the concern expressed in

2013/14 about the absence of an overarching quality system to determine the qualification of

service providers, their service standard, and their Garda Clearance levels. The use of this

practice is high risk for students and there is a serious need to address it as a matter of

urgency.


15

Are Guidance Counsellors Free to Attend Supervision/CPD

- Attendance at Supervision

There was clear evidence in the 2013/14 audit of the recognition of the benefits and

importance of counselling supervision, which is funded by the DES, with 95.8 per cent

reporting they are free to attend scheduled counselling supervision on the designated

afternoon. What is concerning is that this figure has declined to 87.0 per cent in 2015/16,

with 5.8 per cent time-tabled to teach at the same time, though released when brought to the

attention of the school Principals. However, 12.5 per cent are not free to attend supervision,

which is a crucial service to maintaining the mental health of guidance counsellors. In

addition, almost half are time-tabled to subject teach at this time, and their absence would

negatively impact the learning of the same student group, each supervision afternoon.

- Attendance at Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

When asked a similar question about their availability to attend CPD, only 82.2 per cent of

qualified practicing guidance counsellors reported they are free to attend, with 4.2 per cent

time-tabled to teach at the same time. However, 18.8 per cent are not free to attend CPD.

As with attendance at Supervision, when this was brought to the attention of the school

Principals, they are released to attend

RECOMMENDATIONS

As the organisation representing professionally qualified guidance counsellors delivering

guidance counselling services in second level schools, colleges of further education and adult

education in Ireland, the IGC is unwavering in its position that delivery on the following

issues is central to securing the restoration of the dedicated responsive guidance counselling

service, removed in September 2012, with an improved future for all students:

Affirm the statutory commitment to the holistic model of guidance counselling,

delivered by a professionally qualified guidance counsellor, as envisaged under Section

9 (c) of the Education Act, 1998;

Restore and ring-fence pre-2012 ex-quota allocation hours under the pupil-teacher

ratio, so that the time lost to students for personal, vocation and educational one-to-one

counselling is reinstated;


16

Place the onus on school management and principals to deliver such a service in second

level schools, colleges of further education and adult education, with clear agreement

on minimum levels of service provision between the DES, Management Bodies, and the

IGC;

That the DES issue a mandatory document to all school Principals, ring-fencing the 10

hours/week granted in Budget 2016 for the sole purpose of part-restoring the dedicated

guidance counselling service;

Commitment towards fully restoring the dedicated responsive guidance counselling

services that collaborates with and intervenes on behalf of each student whose

immediate needs, concerns, or problems are distracting or impeding his or her

academic, career, and/or personal and social development;

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The results of Audit 4 confirm both the continuous erosion of and breakdown in the delivery

of the Guidance Counselling Service in second level schools and colleges of further

education. In order to rebuild and restore the service to students, a change in National

Government Policy is required, with a total restoration of the centralised, standardised system

of the ex-quota allocation of hours for guidance counselling delivery, based on student

enrolment, as existed in 2011/12, prior to the implementation of the changes of Budget 2012.

This policy change has been called for both by the Association of Secondary Teachers in

Ireland (ASTI) at their 2016 conference where Motion 51 stating “That the ASTI seek the full

restoration of guidance counselling hours in all second level schools” was adopted; and by

the National Centre for Guidance in Education (NCGE) in their published report, following a

review of guidance counselling provision in second level schools 2012-13, who

recommended that “The ex-quota allocation for guidance in schools should be restored as a

priority [and] Additional resource hours for guidance should be granted according to the

evidence-base”.


17

FUTURE RESEARCH

To examine one-to-one student work in terms of weekly hours spent on meeting the

educational, vocational/career, and personal and social development needs of students, either

separate future research or modification to future questionnaires should provide respondents

with the option to indicate this data, providing a clearer analysis for this area of practice.

To examine both non-release of guidance counsellors to attend Supervision and Continuous

Professional Development and release when time-tabled for classroom teaching/activity and

to ascertain the extent and implications of both.


18

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT

Audit 4 into the practice of guidance counselling in second level schools and colleges of

further education in Ireland was commissioned in 2016 by the Institute of Guidance &

Counselling (IGC) under the directions of its National Executive Committee, and carried out

by LifeCare Psychological Services Limited on their behalf. The purpose of Audit 4 was to

evaluate guidance counselling practice for the academic year 2015/16. Below are

summarised the aims, background methodology, as well as the main results of Audit 4. The

recommendations arising from the audit are also set out.

1.1 Aims

The audit aimed to explore the structure, scope and changes to the practice of guidance

counselling by guidance counsellors in second level schools and colleges of further education

in 2015/16, and to build on results already reported for the three previous academic years -

2013/14, 2012/13 and 2011/12. As the data reported for the 2011/12 academic year was prior

the removal of ex-quota allocation for the delivery of the guidance counselling service, this

data operates as ‘baseline’ data in this report. The report itself identifies:

1. The demographic structure of the schools, including school type, enrolment figures,

PLC status, and DEIS status;

2. The Department of Education and Skills (DES) 2011-12 allocation of hours by school

type and school status, prior to the removal of the ex-quota allocation;

3. Whether hours for guidance counselling are being provided from the general school

allocation for the academic year 2015/16 in DEIS and Non-DEIS schools;

4. Changes to service delivery in the 2015/16 academic year as against actual practice in

the 2013/14 and 2011/12 academic years;

5. The actual practice hours by school type and school status for 2015/16;

6. The number of qualified guidance counsellors employed;

7. The number of qualified guidance counsellors practicing;

8. The number of internal unqualified staff delivering guidance counselling;

8. The number of external providers of guidance;

9. The number of external providers of counselling;

10. The proportion of time guidance counsellors devoted to classroom teaching of non-

guidance subjects;


19

11. The proportion of time guidance counsellors devote to classroom guidance delivery

by student year;

12. Whether guidance counsellors are free to attend Supervision on the designated

afternoon, and reasons for non-release;

14. Whether guidance counsellors are free to attend Continuing Professional

Development (CPD), and reasons for non-release;

1.2 Context

The design of the audit was guided firstly by a policy change by the Government that

involved the removal of the ex-quota allocation for guidance counselling granted to second

level schools and colleges of further education from the 2012/13 academic year forward; and

secondly, because of the concern of the IGC to the potential serious consequences of this

decision for students in these schools. Building on previously reported finding, an important

part of this audit was to ascertain additional evidence in quantitative terms about the

continuing amount of time loss, the areas of guidance and counselling impacted by school

type, and how any loss may have altered how the role of the guidance counsellor was carried

out in terms of the numbers of guidance counsellors practicing on a daily basis.

1.3 Structure of the Report

The structure of this report is as follows

Methodology

Findings & Analysis Audit 4, with comparisons against 2011/12, as applicable

Recommendations arising from the research


20

SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY

The aim of the audit was to establish as far as possible the extent of the impact of the removal

of the ex-quota allocation for guidance counselling. To this end, it was decided to use a

quantitative techniques approach and concepts.

Four audits have been carried out to-date:

1. A nationwide survey of all guidance counsellors in second level schools and colleges

of further education in March 2012 to collect data on actual guidance counselling

practice during the 2011/12 academic year;


of further education in October 2012 to collect data on scheduled guidance

counselling practice for the 2012/13 academic year.


of further education in October 2013 to collect data on scheduled guidance

counselling practice for the 2013/14 academic year;


of further education in January 2016 to collect data on actual guidance counselling

practice for the 2016/16 academic year.

These questionnaires collected information on school type and status, enrolment, number of

qualified and practicing guidance counsellors, guidance counselling practice hours from the

general schools’ allocation, actual practice hours, classroom delivery of guidance, subject

teaching, SPHE, and other teaching by student year, the use of external providers of guidance

and counselling, and practice hours lost as a result of the removal of the ex-quota allocation

for guidance counselling in Budget 2012.


21

SECTION 3: FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

3.1. Respondent Characteristics

Seven hundred and twenty-three second level schools and colleges of further education were

invited to participate in the 2015/16 IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling (GC)

practice. (N=376) 52.0 per cent of respondent schools, representing 574 guidance

counsellors, returned completed questionnaires and reported data on GC practice for the

2015/16 academic year, and all returned questionnaires were included. Of these (n=376)

respondent schools, (n=149) 39.6 per cent are participating for the first time; and (n=140)

37.2 per cent had participated in both the 2011/12 and 2015/16 audits. A breakdown of the

total numbers of respondents to all four audits is shown in table 3.1 below. Unless otherwise

stated, results reflect the finding from the (n=376) respondent schools. However, certain

questions that require comparative analyses will be identified within the body of this section.

All reference to ‘hours’ refers to ‘weekly mean practice hours’, unless otherwise stated.

Table 3.1: Respondent schools in each Audit

Audits N N %

Response

Schools & CFE’s invited to participate in 2015/16 723

Total Audit 1 respondents – 2011/12 271 36.4%




3.2 School Types

As shown in figure 1.1 and table 3.2, of the (n=376) respondent schools, voluntary secondary

schools represented 44.1 per cent, ETB schools/colleges 27.1 per cent, community/

comprehensive schools 17.8 per cent, fee-paying schools 4.8 per cent, and colleges of further

education 4.3 per cent. In addition, 24.2 per cent held PLC status, while 25.8 per cent held

DEIS status.


22

Figure 1.1: School Types

Table 3.2: Schools Types

School Type N %

Voluntary Secondary School 166 44.1

ETB Schools/Colleges 102 27.1

Community/Comprehensive School 67 17.8

Fee-Paying Secondary School 18 4.8

College of Further Education 16 4.3

Youthreach 1 .3

VTOS/Second Chance 1 .3

Voluntary Secondary School + CFE 2 .5

ETB School/College + CFE 2 .5

Community/Comprehensive School + CFE 1 .3

Total 376 100.0

44.1%

27.1%

17.8%

4.8%

4.3%1.9%

School Types

Voluntary Secondary School

ETB School/College

Community/ComprehensiveSchool

Fee-Paying SecondarySchool

College of Further Education

Others


23

3.3 Overall Guidance Counselling Provision in 2015/16

In 2015/16, respondent schools (n=376) reported overall weekly mean practice hours of

17.76. Of the (n=376) respondent schools, (n=355) 94.4 per cent stated they are provided

hours from the general school allocation (GSA), and are receiving 18.27 hours; while (n=21)

5.6 per cent reported they are not, and are receiving 9.11 hours, as shown in table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3: Schools Receiving Practice Hours from the General School

Allocation: 2015/16

When the overall provision of 17.76 hours was further analysed, DEIS schools (n=97) were

found to have 15.80 hours, while non-DEIS schools (n=279) provide 18.44 hours, a

difference of 2.64 hours per week, as shown in table 3.4 below. A more detailed breakdown

by schools receiving practice hours from the general school allocation is shown in table 3.5

below.

Table 3.4: Overall Practice Hours: DEIS and Non-DEIS

Overall Practice Hours 2015/16:

DEIS and Non-DEIS

Response N Mean S. D.

Yes Total practice hours 376 17.763 10.099

- Non-DEIS Schools 279 18.443 10.440

- DEIS Schools 97 15.807 8.809

Schools Receiving Practice Hours from the

General School Allocation: 2015/16

Response N % Mean S.D.

Yes 355 94.4 18.275 9.760

No 21 5.6 9.111 11.959

Total 376 100.0 17.763 10.099


24

Table 3.5: Practice Hours from the GSA: DEIS and Non-DEIS

School Practice Hours from the

General School Allocation (GSA): DEIS and Non-DEIS

School Type DEIS GSA N Mean S.D.

Voluntary Secondary School Yes

Yes 20 16.034 7.470

No 2 0.000 0.000

No

Yes 133 18.632 8.432

No 11 6.182 8.784

ETC School/College Yes Yes 56 15.261 8.988

No

Yes 44 13.457 9.262

No 2 7.500 10.607

Community/Comprehensive School Yes Yes 15 19.866 8.970

No

Yes 51 21.989 12.013

No 1 0.000

Fee-Paying Secondary School No

Yes 14 23.121 10.534

No 4 27.083 9.180

College of Further Education No Yes 16 25.381 10.753

Youthreach No Yes 1 16.000

VTOS/Second Chance No No 1 0.000

Voluntary Secondary School + CFE Yes Yes 2 18.500 2.121

ETB School/College + CFE Yes Yes 2 11.500 0.707

Community/Compre. School + CFE No Yes 1 17.000

3.3.1 Fee-Paying and Non-Fee-Paying

However, only (n=9) 42.8 per cent of the (n-21) who are not receiving hours from the general

school allocation are paying privately to provide the service and overall are providing 21.26

hours, while the remaining respondents (n=12) or 55 per cent are providing 0.00 hours. Of

the (n=9) respondent schools paying privately to provide the service, (n=4) are fee-paying

schools providing 27.08 hours, (n=4) are voluntary secondary schools providing 17.0 hours,

and (n=1) was a ETB school/college providing 15.0 hours. Of the (n=12) 55 per cent who

are receiving 0.00 hours, 9 are voluntary secondary schools, as shown in table 3.6 below.


25

Table 3.6 Schools NOT Providing GC Hours from GSA in 2015/16

Schools NOT Providing GC Hours from GSA in 2015/16

School Type – No Hours N Mean S. D.

Voluntary Secondary School 9 0.000 0.000

ETB School/College 1 0.000

Community/Comprehensive School 1 0.000

VTOS/Second Chance 1 0.000

School Type – Paying Privately N Mean S. D.

Voluntary Secondary School 4 17.000 3.464

ETB School/Community College 1 15.000

Fee-Paying Secondary School 4 27.083 9.180

Total 21 9.111 11.959

3.4 Comparison of Overall Practice Hours 2011/12 to 2015/16

When the overall 17.76 hours reported by the (n=376) respondent schools in 2015/16 were

analysed and compared against ex-quota allocation data returned by the (n=226) respondent

schools in 2011/12, a continuing trend of the further erosion of guidance counselling hours is

evident. Results found that there was an overall loss of 6.78 hours, down from 24.54 hours in

2011/12 to 17.76 hours in 2015/16, a percentage decrease of 27.6 per cent as shown in table

3.7 below. Given that actual mean practice hours in 2011/12 were 5.7 per cent below the

actual DES ex-quota allocation, the loss is even greater at 33.0 per cent.

Table 3.7: Comparison of Overall Mean Weekly Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16

Comparison of Overall Mean Weekly Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16

Category Actual

2011/12

Sched.

2012/13

Sched.

2013/14

% +/-

2013/14

over

2011/12

Actual

2015/16

%+/-

2015/16

over

2013/14

%+/-

2015/16

over

2011/12

Total Practice Hours 24.541 19.281 18.716 (23.7%) 17.763 (5.09%) (27.62%)


26

3.4.1. DEIS & Non-DEIS

When analysed further and a comparison was sought between hours in 2011/12 and 2015/16

in DEIS and non-DEIS schools, it was found that in 2011/12 DEIS respondents reported

22.56 hours, while non-DEIS respondents reported 25.16 hours. For 2015/16, DEIS

respondents reported 15.80 hours, while non-DEIS respondents reported 18.44 hours.

Overall, DEIS schools report a 30.0 per cent decline in provision, which represents a loss of

6.76 hours, while non-DEIS schools report a 26.7 per cent decline in provision, which

represents a loss of 6.72 hours, as shown in table 3.8 below – a gap in provision of 2.64 hours

per week.

Table 3.8 Overall Practice Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16: DEIS & Non-DEIS

DEIS Status N Mean S. D.

Yes Practice hours 2011-2012 53 22.56 11.788

Practice hours 2013-2014 44 17.19 8.603

Practice hours 2015-2016 97 15.80 8.810

No Practice hours 2011-2012 166 25.16 13.176

Practice hours 2013-2014 139 18.86 10.231

Practice hours 2015-2016 279 18.44 10.440

3.5 Impact of Loss in Allocation by School Type

When the overall practice figures for the four audits were analysed, the impact by school type

can been seen. Table 3.9 below shows that community/comprehensive schools lost 32.7 per

cent, voluntary secondary schools lost 29.5 per cent, ETB schools/colleges lost 27.0 per cent,

colleges of further education 6.6 per cent, while fee-paying schools gained 1.9 per cent.


27

When a comparison was made of which school types had the greatest loss in terms of hours

from 2011/12 to 2015/16, community/comprehensive schools had the greatest practice loss at

10.62 hours, voluntary secondary schools lost 7.25 hours, ETB schools/colleges lost 5.3

hours; colleges of further education lost 1.8 hours, while fee-paying schools gained .46 hours,

as shown in table 3.9 below. The gain by fee-paying respondent schools may be a reflection

of the fact that guidance counselling is now being privately purchased by (n=4) 22.2 per cent

of the (n=18) respondent fee-paying schools.

Table 3:9: Impact of Overall Loss by School Type: 2011/12 - 2015/16

Impact of Weekly Mean Practice Hours Lost by School Type

2011/12 - 2015/16

School type N

Mean

Hours

2011/2012

Mean

Hours

2012/13

Mean

Hours

2013/14

Mean

Hours

2015/16

2013/14

over

2011/12

2015/16

over

2011/12

Voluntary Secondary School 166 24.51 18.88 18.50 17.26 (24.5%) (29.6%)

ETB School/College 102 19.63 14.43 14.62 14.33 (25.5%) (27.0%)

Community/Comprehensive School 67 32.47 26.93 25.07 21.85 (22.8%) (32.7%)

Fee-Paying Secondary School 18 23.54 19.40 20.22 24.00 (14.1%) + 1.9%

College of Further Education 16 27.18 26.09 20.66 25.38 (24.0%) (6.6%)

Youthreach 1 10.00 9.30 9.00 16.00 (10.0%) +60.0%

VTOS/Second Chance 1 8.00 3.33 5.67 0.00 (29.1%) (100.0%)

Voluntary Secondary School + CFE 2 32.33 29.50 17.00 18.50 (47.4%) (42.8%)

ETB School/College + CFE 2 11.00 8.00 8.67 11.50 (21.2%) +4.55%

Comm./Compre. School + CFE 1 8.50 17.00 18.00 17.00 +211.8% +100.0%

Total 376


28

3.6 Breakdown of GC Provision: 2015/16

In addition to submitting their total weekly guidance counselling hours’ provision, schools

were asked to indicate how these hours were spent. All (n=376) respondent schools provided

data. Classroom delivery of guidance accounted for 4.52 hours; one-to-one student work for

5.59 hours; group work for 1.46 hours; and other guidance counsellor duties, including

administration, for 6.17 hours, as shown in figure 1.2 and table 3.10 below. While the

majority of respondents were specific about the total weekly hours provided for guidance

counselling delivery and, to a slightly lesser extent, the portion allocated to classroom

delivery, they were much less specific about how the balance is utilised. A substantial

number of respondents indicated an inability to separate out one-to-one, group work and

other guidance counselling duties, including administration, with the vast majority providing

written comment that other guidance counsellor duties, including administration, were now

performed outside school hours and in their own personal time.

Fig. 1.2: Breakdown of Weekly Mean Practice Hours 2015/16

When the comparison is made between DEIS and non-DEIS schools, the overall gap of 2.64

hours between the two can be accounted for. DEIS school overall report spending on average

1 hour less per week on one-to-one student work, and 1 hour less on other guidance

counsellor duties/administration, with the balance in classroom teaching, as shown in table

3.11 below.

4.52

5.591.46

6.17

Breakdown of GC Weekly Mean Practice Hours 2015/16

Classroom

1:1 Student Work

Group Work

Other duties/Admin


29

Table 3.10: Breakdown of Overall GC Provision: 2015/16

Breakdown of Overall GC Practice 2015/16

Total GC

Hours

Classroom

Delivery

1:1 Student

Work

Group

Work

‘Other’

Work

Total Hours 6678.95 1701.12 2103.34 551.03 2323.16

Mean Hours 17.763 4.524 5.594 1.465 6.178

Std. Deviation 10.099 3.487 4.296 1.868 4.478

% Breakdown 100% 25.47% 31.49% 8.25% 34.78%

Total N 376 376 376 376 376

Table 3.11:

Breakdown of Overall Practice Hours 2015/16:

DEIS & Non-DEIS

DEIS Status N Mean S.D.

DEIS Classroom delivery 97 3.993 3.225

One-to-One student work 97 4.876 3.502

Group work 97 1.514 2.132

Other/Admin. hours 97 5.423 3.845

Total 97 15.807 8.809

Non-DEIS Classroom delivery 279 4.708 3.560

One-to-One student work 279 5.842 4.514

Group work 279 1.449 1.770

Other/Admin. hours 279 6.441 4.656

Total 279 18.443 10.440

3.7 Breakdown of Overall GC Provision: 2011/12 - 2015/16

When the 2015/16 breakdown of the 17.76 hours was compared against the figures reported

in reported for 2011/12 and 2013/14, an increase in time spent on one-to-one student work

was evident, at the expense of other guidance counsellor duties/administration. Respondents

reported that while the 12.02 hours for one-to-one student work in 2011/12 had dropped to

4.95 hours in 2013/14, they increased slightly to 5.59 hours in 2015/16, as show in table 3.12

below. Overall, there has been a mammoth decrease of 53.5 per cent since the 2011/12.


30

At the same time, what is significant and concerning is that the 7.16 hours in 2011/12 spent

on other guidance counselling duties, including administration, which had more or less

sustained itself at 7.47 in 2013/14, had now been substantially reduced to 6.18 hours by

2015/16, a reduction of 1.30 hours or 17.3 per cent. This implies that guidance counsellors

are working unpaid hours, over and above their contracted hours. This switch between

administration and one-to-one student work between 2013/14 and 2015/16 appears to be a

conscious decision by guidance counsellors, driven either by a need to provide to students a

reactionary ‘fire-fighting’ one-to-one personal counselling service or one-to-one vocational

counselling service, or a combination of both, an area that warrants further investigation.

Table 3:12: Breakdown of Overall Provision 2011/12 to 2015/16

Breakdown of Overall Mean Weekly Hours 2011/12 – 2015/16

Category Actual

2011/12

Sched.

2012/13

Sched.

2013/14

% +/-

2013/14

over

2011/12

Actual

2015/16

%+/-

2015/16

over

2013/14

%+/-

2015/16

over

2011/12

Total Practice Hours 24.541 19.281 18.716 (23.7%) 17.763 (5.09%) (27.62%)

- classroom delivery 4.271 5.118 4.816 +12.8% 4.524 (6.06%) + 5.93%

- 1:1 student work 12.023 5.843 4.956 (58.8%) 5.594 +12.87% (53.47%)

- group work 1.082 1.151 1.473 +36.1% 1.465 (0.54%) +35.4%

- other duties/admin 7.165 7.170 7.470 +4.3% 6.178 (17.30%) (13.78%)

An evaluation of what constitutes ‘other duties/administration’ was undertaken in the

2011/12 audit, where participants were asked to report on how they spent their time annually

classified as ‘Other GC duties/Administration’. Of the (n=271) respondents, (n=254) 93.7

per cent reported data on their annual GC activities, as shown in table 3.13 below.


31

Table 3.13: Breakdown of Annual GC Activities: 2011/12

Annual Guidance Counselling Activities: 2011/12

Activity Mean S.D. %

Consulting/Networking Externally 28.3 33.221 8.47%

Collaborating/Consulting Externally 21.5 30.761 6.43%

Collaborating Internally 51.0 56.438 15.26%

Attending Open Days, etc. 27.6 20.285 8.26%

Continuing Professional Development 28.4 26.762 8.50%

Testing (Administration) 20.1 22.728 6.01%

Liaising with parents 41.2 46.513 12.33%

Presenting 15.8 30.002 4.73%

Administration/Record Keeping 79.3 93.228 23.73%

Amt. of hours Supervision 13.9 12.565 4.16%

Organising/Planning SPHE with others 7.1 16.631 2.12%

3.8 Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2015/16

Schools were asked to provide a breakdown of the number of hours per week time-tabled to

be spent in the classroom. Analyses were undertaken and found that guidance counselling

time-tabled hours only represented 51.0 per cent of total time-tabled classroom hours for

guidance counsellors, which equated to 4.53 hours per week. In addition, guidance

counsellors are spending 2.61 hours subject teaching; 1.14 hours teaching SPHE; and 0.59

hours on other classroom related teaching, as shown in figure 1.3 and table 3.14 below.


32

Fig. 1.3: Breakdown of Time-Table Classroom Time 2015/16

Table 3.14: Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2015/16

Classroom Teaching N Mean S.D. %

Guidance Counselling 376 4.536 3.486 51.0%

Subject Teaching 376 2.615 4.446 29.4%

S.P.H.E. 376 1.140 2.147 12.8%

Other 376 0.595 1.840 6.7%

Total 376 8.886 6.770 100%

Further analyses were undertaken to determine if there was a shift in the pattern of time-

tabled classroom teaching between the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2015/16 academic years.

Results found that classroom teaching overall decreased by 8.3 per cent; guidance

counselling by 10.8 per cent and subject teaching by 7.9 per cent, as shown in table 3.15

below. A breakdown of all classroom teaching by student year is provided in table 3.16.

4.54

2.62

1.14

0.59

Breakdown of GC Time-Tabled Classroom Hours 2015/16

Guidance Counselling

Subject Teaching

S.P.H.E.

'Other' Classroom


33

Table 3:15: Breakdown of Time-Tabled Classroom Hours: 2012/13 to 2015/16

Classroom Teaching N Scheduled

2012/13

Scheduled

2013/14

Actual

2015/16

% +/-

2015/16

0ver

2013/14

% +/-

2015/16

0ver

2012/13

Total Time-Tabled Hours 376 9.731 10.015 8.886 (11.2%) (8.3%)

Total Time-Tabled

Guidance Counselling

376 5.118 4.816 4.563 (5.2%) (10.8%)

Total Time-Tabled

Subject Teaching

376 2.842 3.255 2.616 (19.6%) (7.9%)

Total Time-Tabled

S.P.H.E.

376 1.251 1.237 1.140 (7.8%) (8.8%)

Total Time-Tabled

‘Other’

376 0.520 0.707 0.595 (15.7%) +14.4%


34

The (n=376) respondent schools reported a breakdown of their time-tabled classroom hours by student year and these are shown in tables 3.16

below. When compared against 2013/14, 75.2 per cent of guidance hours are time-tabled for Years 5–6 class groups – up from 67.5 per cent, 6.7

per cent for Years 1–3 class groups - down from 9.7 per cent, while 18.0 per cent was spent on transition year – down from 22.8 per cent. While

subject teaching and ‘other’ appear to be spread more-or-less across the board, 74.6 per cent of classroom S.P.H.E. is delivered to Junior Cycle.

Table 3.16: Breakdown of Weekly Time-Tabled Classes by Student Year (excluding Modular)

Guidance Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 LCA1

Year 5 LCVP

Year 6 Year 6 LCA2

Year 6 LCVP

Year 6 PLC

Mean Hours - 2013/14 4.4729 .133 .079 .220 1.019 .940 .223 .200 1.253 .180 .186 .036

n=219 100.00% 2.99% 1.76% 4.94% 22.79% 21.01% 4.99% 4.47% 28.03% 4.04% 4.17% 0.82%

Mean Hours - 2015/16 5.404 .122 .062 .178 .975 1.772 .239 .163 1.288 .218 .195 .192

n=376 100.00% 2.26% 1.15% 3.29% 18.04% 32.79% 4.42% 3.02% 23.83% 4.03% 3.61% 3.55%

Subject Teaching Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 LCA1

Year 5 LCVP

Year 6 Year 6 LCA2

Year 6 LCVP

Year 6 PLC

Mean Hours 2.704 .375 .410 .311 .274 .292 .073 .142 .353 .079 .094 .297

n=219 100.00% 13.89% 15.16% 11.53% 10.15% 10.82% 2.70% 5.27% 13.07% 2.92% 3.49% 11.00%

Mean Hours - 2015/16 2.689 .433 .257 .339 .287 .334 .084 .118 .443 .094 .104 .196

n=376 100.00% 16.10% 9.56% 12.61% 10.67% 12.42% 3.12% 4.39% 16.47% 3.50% 3.87% 7.29%

S.P.H.E Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 LCA1

Year 5 LCVP

Year 6 Year 6 LCA2

Year 6 LCVP

Year 6 PLC

Mean Hours 1.0827 .351 .224 .248 .100 .050 .012 .033 .041 .012 .005 .002

n=219 100.00% 32.47% 20.77% 22.93% 9.27% 4.66% 1.13% 3.04% 3.86% 1.13% 0.53% 0.21%

Mean Hours - 2015/16 1.217 0.364 0.253 0.291 0.099 0.065 0.012 0.02 0.077 0.019 0.017 0

n=376 100.00% 29.91% 20.79% 23.91% 8.13% 5.34% 0.99% 1.64% 6.33% 1.56% 1.40% 0.00%

Other Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Year 5 LCA1

Year 5 LCVP

Year 6 Year 6 LCA2

Year 6 LCVP

Year 6 PLC

Mean Hours .6469 .130 .108 .057 .119 .052 .030 .051 .059 .009 .015 .012

n=219 100.00% 20.1% 16.8% 8.9% 18.5% 8.2% 4.7% 8.0% 9.2% 1.4% 2.4% 1.9%

Mean Hours - 2015/16 0.592 0.117 0.066 0.068 0.096 0.074 0.01 0.049 0.052 0.027 0.026 0.007

n=376 100.00% 19.76% 11.15% 11.49% 16.22% 12.50% 1.69% 8.28% 8.78% 4.56% 4.39% 1.18%


3.9 Qualified Guidance Counsellors Employed & Practicing

The (n=376) respondent schools reported employing (n=574) qualified guidance

counselling staff, of which (n=493) 85.9 per cent are practicing during the 2015/16

academic year – 87.2 per cent in non-DEIS schools and 81.6 per cent in DEIS schools, as

per table 3.17 below. Overall, the percentage of guidance counsellors not practicing

increased to 14.1 per cent in 2015/16, up from 6.1 per cent in 2011/12.

Table 3.17: Qualified Practicing & Non-Practicing Guidance Counsellors

Guidance Counsellors – Qualified (Q) & Practicing (P): 2011/12 to 2015/16

N Q P % Not

Practicing

Mean

No. Q

Mean

No. P

S.D.

Q

S.D.

P

2011/12 271 280 263 6.10% 1.67 1.57 0.755 0.655

2012/13 282 273 242 11.30% 1.63 1.44 0.743 0.46

2013/14 219 265 234 11.70% 1.58 1.39 0.720 0.634

2015/16 376 574 493 14.10% 1.53 1.31 0.751 0.629

In order to determine if the reduction in the number of qualified guidance counsellors not

delivering guidance on a daily basis across the four academic periods was significant,

paired samples t-tests were undertaken. When 2015/16 and 2011/12 were compared, the

results of the analyses found a statistically significant difference [t(187)=6.193, p=.001.

These results indicate that employed non-practicing guidance counsellors is statistically

negatively impacting the overall delivery of the guidance counselling service in second

level schools and colleges of further education.

In 2015/16, the overall mean number of qualified guidance counsellors employed is 1.53

(1.57 non-DEIS and 1.40 DEIS), down from 1.67 since 2011/12; while the mean number

of practicing guidance counsellors is 1.31 (1.37 non-DEIS and 1.14 DEIS), down from

1.57 in 2011/12, as shown in table 3.18 below. Overall, since 2011/12 the number of

qualified guidance counsellors employed has dropped by 8.4 per cent; the number of

qualified guidance counsellors employed but not practicing has increased by +131.1 per

cent; and 14.1 per cent of all qualified guidance counsellors employed are not practicing

at all.


36

Table 3.18: Qualified Guidance Counsellors Employed

Qualified GC Staff in Schools 2015/16

Guidance Counsellors N GC’s Mean S.D.

All Qualified 376 574 1.53 0.751

- Non-DEIS 279 438 1.57 0.778

- DEIS 97 136 1.40 0.656

All Qualified & Practicing 376 493 1.31 0.629

- Non-DEIS 279 382 1.37 0.665

- DEIS 97 111 1.14 0.478

All Qualified & Non-Practicing 376 81

- Non-DEIS 279 56

- DEIS 97 25

% Qualified & Non-Practicing 14.1%

The number of employed qualified guidance counsellors who are not practicing continues

to rise, while the number of hours provided for the delivery of the guidance service

continues to declines at the same time. Of the (n=376) respondent schools (n=9) report

that no qualified guidance counsellor is employed, up from (n=5) in 2013/14. Of the

(n=78) 20.7 per cent of schools where 2 guidance counsellors are employed and only one

is practicing, practice hours have dropped by 6.53 hours or 29.8 per cent; and of the

(n=13) schools where 3 guidance counsellors are employed and only 1 practicing,

practice hours have dropped by 9.12 hours or 34.0 per cent, as shown in table 3.19 below.

What is evident is that, where possible, the cuts to GC hours is achieved by school

principals by reducing the number of guidance counsellors practicing in schools where

more than one guidance counsellor is employed. In schools where only one guidance

counsellor is employed (n=204) 54.4 per cent, the cut is achieved purely through a 29.7

per cent cut to hours.


37

Of particular concern is that the larger the school, in enrolment terms, the greater the

impact, such as in the (n=4) schools where four guidance counsellors are employed and

all four practicing, hours have dropped by a staggering 8.48 hours or 39.7 per cent. All

(n=4) schools have non-DEIS status, while 2 have PLC status.

Table 3.19: Schools with Qualified & Practicing GC’s: 2011/12 - 2015/16

Schools with Qualified & Practicing GC’s: 2011/12 - 2015/16

Schools +

Qualified

Total

Practicing Period N Mean S.D.

%

Change

0 0

2011-2012 7 24.42 15.328

2013-2014 5 15.26 12.402 -37.50%

2015-2016 9 8.18 13.958 -66.49%

1

0

2011-2012 1 16.00

2013-2014 1 22.00 37.50%

2015-2016 2 9.33 13.201 -41.66%

1

2011-2012 119 19.41 8.047

2013-2014 94 14.37 6.207 -25.95%

2015-2016 204 13.63 6.010 -29.78%

2

1

2011-2012 27 21.89 9.327

2013-2014 24 14.99 6.510 -31.50%

2015-2016 41 15.36 6.164 -29.81%

2

2011-2012 52 31.03 11.417

2013-2014 43 25.75 10.088 -17.01%

2015-2016 78 25.66 9.577 -17.30%

3

0

2011-2012 0

2013-2014 0

2015-2016 1 0.00

1

2011-2012 5 26.80 12.397

2013-2014 3 17.11 7.782 -36.14%

2015-2016 9 17.68 5.930 -34.02%

2

2011-2012 8 33.18 11.420

2013-2014 6 28.44 8.851 -14.30%

2015-2016 15 28.47 10.332 -14.19%

3

2011-2012 6 40.18 17.854

2013-2014 5 30.09 14.251 -25.09%

2015-2016 13 33.82 10.845 -15.83%

4

2

2011-2012 0

2013-2014 0

2015-2016 1 25.34

4

2011-2012 2 67.40 29.132

2013-2014 2 44.66 9.425 -33.73%

2015-2016 3 40.61 20.653 -39.75%


38

3.10 Unqualified Staff delivering Weekly Guidance Counselling

(N=63) schools further reported that (n=103) unqualified staff are delivering guidance

counselling, with 7.13 weekly mean practice hours, as per table 1.13 below, a figure that

remains unchanged from that reported in 2013/14. Only (n=22) 21.3 per cent are

guidance counsellors in-training, as shown in table 3.20 below. These unqualified staff

are practicing guidance counselling at the same time as 81 qualified guidance counsellors

in-situ are not.

Table 3.20: Unqualified Staff delivering Guidance Counselling: 2015/16

Unqualified Staff Providing Guidance Counselling 2015/16

Unqualified N N

Practicing

Mean

Hours S.D.

Total Respondent Schools 376 103 1.21 4.60

Schools Using Unqualified 63 103 7.13 9.219

- GC in Training 19 22 6.81 5.373

- Staff in-situ 44 81 7.27 10.393

3.11 Use of External Providers of Guidance Counselling

3.11.1 Guidance

As shown in table 3.21 below, in addition to the above, (n=23) 6.1 per cent of respondent

schools (n=376) reported that they are using the services of external individuals to deliver

guidance, up from 3.6 per cent in 2013/14. Of these schools, (n=18) 78.2 per cent of the

providers are private/retired guidance counsellors, of which (n=16) are paid. In total,

these (n=23) external providers provide 6.86 week mean practice hours.


39

3.11.2 One-to-One Counselling

In addition, of the (n=376) respondent schools, (n=125) 28.2 per cent reported that their

school sourced external providers to deliver one-to-one counselling to students, up from

25.1 per cent in 2013/14. Three groups, counsellors/therapists/psychologists, are

employed by (n=74) 59.2 per cent of schools, while the remaining (n=51) 40.8 per cent

used the services of a diverse range of seventeen different groups/organisations. A

breakdown of these groups/organisations is provided in table 3.22 below. Of the (n=125)

schools, 84.1 per cent are paying for the service, similar to 2013/14. What is of concern,

however, is that while the number of schools using external providers of one-to-one

counselling has increased from 25.1 per cent to 28.2 per cent, the number of hours

dropped from 7.21 to 6.47 over the same period, a cut of 0.74 hours, or drop of 10.2 per

cent.

The ad-hoc nature of the use of external providers of one-to-one counselling, coupled

with the absence of an overarching quality system to determine the qualification of

service providers, their service standard, and their Garda Clearance levels, means the use

of this method is high risk for students and the need to address it as a matter of urgency.

Table 3.21: External Providers of Guidance Counselling Services: 2015/16

External Providers of Guidance Counselling Services: 2015/16

External

Providers Period N Mean S.D.

- Guidance

2012-2013 21 7.73 5.629

2013-2014 8 9.25 4.216

2015-2016 23 6.86 6.188

- Counselling

2012-2013 70 6.57 6.139

2013-2014 55 7.21 5.980

2015-2016 106 6.47 6.810


40

Table 3.22: External Providers of One-To-One Counselling

External Providers of One-to-One Counselling

Providers N %

Counsellor 42 11.2

Therapist 26 6.9

Psychologist 6 1.6

Counsellor with SCP 12 3.2

Chaplin 7 1.9

ETB Psychological Service 6 1.6

CIT students 5 1.3

JIGSAW 2 .5

TULSA DEIS 2 .5

NEPS 2 .5

Pieta House 1 .3

ISPCC 1 .3

Home/School Liaison 1 .3

Youthwork Ireland. 1 .3

Trainee Art therapist 1 .3

Retired GC 1 .3

Blue Box 1 .3

Mental Health Nurse HSE 1 .3

Rainbows 1 .3

Organisation 1 .3


41

3.12 Attendance at Supervision & Continuous Professional Development

3.12.1 Attendance at Supervision

In the 2013/14 audit, there was clear evidence of the recognition of the benefits and

importance of counselling supervision, which is funded by the DES, with 95.8 per cent of

qualified practicing guidance counsellors reporting they are free to attend scheduled

counselling supervision/CPD on the designated afternoon, as shown in table 3.23 below.

However, what is now concerning is that this figure has declined to 87.0 per cent in

2015/16, with (n=19) 5.8 per cent reporting they were time-tabled to teach at the same

time. When this was brought to the attention of the school Principals, they were released

to attend. However, (n=49) 13.0 per cent were not free to attend supervision, due to time-

table commitments, where (n=28) 42.8 per cent were time-tabled to subject teach and

continuous absence from class would seriously impact the learning of the same class

group, as shown in table 3.24 below.

3.12.2 Attendance at Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

When asked a similar question about their availability to attend CPD, only (n=309) 82.2

per cent qualified practicing guidance counsellors reported they were free to attend, with

(n=13) 4.2 per cent time-tabled to teach at the same time. As with attendance at

Supervision, when this was brought to the attention of the school Principals, they were

released to attend. However, (n=67) 17.8 per cent were not free to attend CPD due to

time-table commitments. A total of (n=37) 44.7 per cent report that they were time-

tabled to subject teach, and, as a result, leaving to attend CPD would impact the same

student group continuously, seriously impacting the quality of their learning. Details are

shown in tables 3.23 and 3.25 below.

Table 3.23: Free to Attend Supervision/CPD 2015/16

Free to Attend Supervision/CPD 2015/16

Free to Attend

Supervision/CPD

N Yes % No %

- Supervision 376 327 87.0% 49 13.0%

- CPD 376 309 82.2% 67 17.8%


42

Table 3.24: Analysis of Reasons for GC’s Non-Release

Free to Attend Supervision

Free to Attend Supervision N %

Yes 308 94.2

Subject Teaching 8 2.4

Guidance 7 2.1

School-based Activities 2 .6

Job Sharing 2 .6

Total 327 100.0

No 2 4.1


Guidance 12 24.5

Job-sharing 5 10.2

Substitution/GC/Other 1 2.0

School-based Activities 1 2.0

Job Sharing 49 100.0

Table 3.25: Analysis of Reasons for GC’s Non-Release

Free to Attend Continuing Professional Development

Free to Attend CPD N %

Yes 296 95.8


Guidance 7 2.1

Job Sharing 2 .6

Total 309 100.0

No 2 3.0


Guidance 15 22.4

School-based Activities 8 11.9

Substitution/GC/Other 5 7.5

Total 67 100.0


43

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. That the Minister reviews the current guidance counselling provision in

schools as indicated by the figure revealed in the audit; and services to

students and schools most in need must be prioritised.

The uneven and disjointed service provision revealed in the audit demonstrates that

the vulnerable and disadvantaged students are hurt most by the cuts. This has major

implications for stated Government commitment to reduce social and economic

inequality and promote social inclusion.

4.2 That the Minister affirms the statutory commitment to the holistic model of

guidance counselling, delivered by a professionally qualified guidance

counsellor.

Students having access to educational, vocational and personal counselling reduces

any possible stigma associated with meeting the Guidance Counsellor about mental

health issues (c.f Guidelines for second level schools on the implications of Section

9(c) of the Education Act, 1998 relating to students’ access to appropriate guidance,

p.4).

4.3 Ensure access as envisaged under Section 9 (c) of the Education Act, 1998.

“Counselling is a key part of the school guidance programme … Counselling in

schools may include personal counselling, educational counselling, career

counselling or combinations of these”. The effect on students presenting with

personal issues is immediate; the effects on educational and career planning is

progressive and developmental.

4.4 That the pre-2012 allocation for Guidance Counselling be restored and ring-

fenced under the pupil-teacher ratio, so that the time lost to Guidance

Counsellors, since the cutbacks, for the practice of one-to-one counselling be

restored. The DES must take cognisance of the NCGE 2011 recommendation

“That the DES maintain and strengthen the guidance counsellors’ practice of

counselling through additional supports such as reducing the ratio of students to

guidance counsellor, providing regular supervision and Continuing Professional


44

Development, and acknowledging and formally rewarding the additional training”.

This will allow for the timetabling of all guidance counselling activities, including

time for one-to-one counselling.

Supervision of counselling practice is a necessity, on a number of counts: for safe,

ethical quality counselling practice, and for ensuring the health and safety of

students. Counselling supervision is also an essential safeguard against possible

legal action being brought against the DES, school management, and practitioners.

4.5 There needs to be clear agreement on minimum levels of service provision in

schools and colleges of further education between the DES, Management

Bodies, and the Institute of Guidance Counsellors.

We believe that the relevant DES circular needs to be strengthened to address the

inequalities in service provision and to ensure that there is equality of access and

opportunity for all students. We are concerned about the trend on the part of some

schools to source funding from some external sources and query whether this is in

conformity with good strategic planning. We require that Guidance Counselling is

delivered by a fully qualified professional guidance counsellor, and that annual

school returns to the DES must ensure that the Guidance allocation is fully

delivered for the purpose it is intended.


45

REFERENCES

Department of Education and Skills (2013). School Completers - What Next? Report on

School Completers from Post-Primary Schools - pupils enrolled in 2009/2010 and not

in 2010/2011, Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

Harkin, L. (2015). A Doctoral Research Thesis. “From ex-quota to in-quota: An analysis

of guidance counsellors’ perceptions of the impact of 2012 budgetary cutbacks on their

care work across different school types”.

McCoy, S., Byrne, D., O’Connell, P.J., Kelly, E. and Doherty, C. (2010). Hidden

Disadvantage? A Study on the Low Participation in Higher Education by the Non-

Manual Group, Dublin: HEA

McCoy, S., Smyth, E., Watson, D. and Darmody, M. (2014). Leaving School in Ireland:

A Longitudinal Study of Post-School Transitions, Dublin: ESRI Research Series No.

36.

National Centre for Guidance in Education (2013). Review of Guidance Counselling

provision in second level schools 2012-2013.

Smyth, E. and Banks, J. (2012). “There Was Never Really Any Question of Anything

Else”: Young People’s Agency, Institutional Habitus and the Transition to Higher

Education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33 (2): 263-281.

Smyth, E, McCoy, S. and Kingston, G. (2015). Learning from the evaluation of DEIS,

Dublin: ESRI Research Series No. 39.

Documents

IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling Practice … FINAL Audit 4 REPORT - May 5-2.pdf · IGC National Audit of Guidance Counselling Practice ... national audit of guidance counselling