UIDANCE is high on the education agenda. National reports, articles in The TES Scotland and the implications of the McCrone agreement all point to the need to give serious consideration to its future development.

Much has changed since promoted guidance posts became part of the landscape in 1971. Thirty years on, such posts operate in a much more challenging environment, where the demands and pressures on young people, parents and staff have increased significantly.

Two developments since 1971 should be part of the discussion. The first is the growing understanding that guidance, in its support and development agenda for all pupils, has a central role to play in effective schools. The draft report from the General Teaching Council for Scotland on guidance in the primary school articulates this in its title At the Heart of Education.

The second development is the quest for whole-school guidance, the importance of which was signalled in More than Feelings of Concern (1986), and restated in Effective Learning and Teaching in Scottish Secondary Schools: Guidance (1996). Whole-school guidance challenges teachers of subjects to be teachers of pupils.

A quality guidance service will not happen by chance, or without some difficulty. But there is an agenda of hope. The recommendation for a “comprehensive review” of guidance in the discipline task group report, Better Behaviour - Better Learning, should provide an opportunity for teachers to become engaged in the debate. Key questions should include the following:

* How do we ensure that the potential for guidance to raise achievement is maintained and developed?

* How do we ensure that it continues to challenge and support young people in their learning, giving them hope that they have a real chance of achieving and succeeding?

One way forward could be to devolve aspects of the care of such pupils to other staff. Publication of the Better Behaviour - Better Learning report is thus a timely intervention. A “comprehensive review” should prevent any precipitate or unilateral action about future structures, and will allow guidance teachers and others interested in guidance to have a voice in a national debate.

Second, little progress will be made if guidance is viewed as a distraction from the “real” job of teaching. Opportunities exist, at present, in the 5-14 and Higher Still programmes to emphasise the connection between quality guidance provision and successful outcomes in these programmes. However, a sustained effort is required, which builds on current work in initial teacher education, the probationary period and continuing professional development.

There should also be encouragement for staff to act as pupil mentors or advisers in a voluntary capacity. The good practice which is present today in many schools requires to be extended. In reality, such encouragement will have greater impact if there is appropriate support, training and time for staff. Experience, based on many in-service courses, indicates that staff often show a real interest in undertaking a wider role. Training for senior managers in guidance policy and practice, an important recommendation in Making the Difference (GTC 1998), is a prerequisite of future development.

Finally, there needs to be a more cohesive view of pupil support and development, which seeks to harmonise the contribution of guidance, learning support and behaviour support.

These are challenging times, but they also bring opportunities to shape future practice for the benefit of the young people in our care.

Kevin Clancy is senior lecturer in guidance and chief adviser of studies in the faculty of education, Glasgow University.