Reverse guidance counsellor cuts, say delegates
According to the motion, which was vigorously debated, cutting the guidance counsellor allocation “not only adversely affects a vital service in schools but also the pupil-teacher ratio”.
One delegate, Noel Buckley, said that in the minds of the public, guidance counsellors’ sole function was to fill out CAO forms with pupils.
However, that in their wider counselling role, the guidance counsellors “provided a safety net for vulnerable students” and that this “allowed teachers to teach in a calm classroom” as students’ emotional needs were being met through the onsite counselling.
He said this measure would adversely impact upon the more deprived and that the “rich and privileged” would be able to pay for career guidance and psychological counselling outside of school.
Fintan O’Mahony re-iterated these concerns, saying “those most in need will suffer” from the cuts and that “guidance counselling provides a safe haven in school for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties”.
Gretta Harrison, another delegate, spoke of parents’ poor understanding of the role of the counsellor and urging that “career” be dropped from the title.
Instead, she said, such staff should be described as school counsellors as they deal with alcohol and drug abuse, bullying, and mental health as much as with career guidance.
Maeve Kerins told the conference the counsellor cuts had to be seen as another increase in the teacher-pupil ratio and that it now stood at “19.8 to 1” now rather than the official “19:1”.
ASTI president Brendan Broderick said the union’s Millward Brown survey had shown schools were now faced with “the stark choice of either curtailing guidance and counselling services to students or dropping subjects or a combination of both”.
