HAVE argued before in these pages in favour of a thorough review of guidance. The McCrone agreement lends a keener edge to that argument. The major changes it brings, in particular the removal of the post of assistant principal teacher (APT), makes an imperative of what was previously an opportunity.

At first sight I was concerned that no recognition was taken of the fact that the delayering, which will effectively remove 50 per cent of the workforce, will have a dramatic effect on schools’ ability to deliver effective guidance. On reflection, this was perhaps the push we needed to make necessary and fundamental changes.

As a defender of guidance, may I be allowed to be uncharacteristically negative? Current structures were established in the 1970s and the rationale was never crystal clear from the outset; we have never satisfactorily differentiated between the role of the principal teacher and APT; we have never treated the PT as a principal teacher in the fullest sense; we have treated the APT like a PT on the cheap - expecting them to carry a full case load but not always giving them the time to do the job; we remind guidance staff that their foremost duty is to teach, but wouldn’t accept it if they neglected their guidance duties.

This last point concerns me most. Guidance teachers might have extremely challenging and highly sensitive work to do with vulnerable children and parents, but they will do that work after they have taught their classes, finished their preparation and correction and contributed to departmental duties. Guidance teachers carry with them like an albatross the guilt of knowing that they are stealing time from subject duties to see pupils and parents and get their guidance work done. Occasionally, this tension comes to the surface and they are found not to have pulled their weight within their subject.

It is not just the structure but the infrastructure of guidance that is worthy of review. We have failed to resource guidance as a professional service. There is no systematic, agreed training requirement. Those who undertake professional training do so in their own time and often at their own expense.

And what about “first-level guidance”, the fond notion that unpromoted teachers will develop skills and devote time to getting to know pupils and offering personal support? Can we really be surprised that it’s a concept that hasn’t quite taken off? We seem to have forgotten that the primary sector exists. Our structures are predicated on the assumption that pupils develop personal needs when they go to secondary school. Any problems before that are the responsibility of the teacher, failing which a referral to the psychologist should sort them out.

We expect guidance teachers to cure the ills, not just of the school but of society. We expect them to pick up any task or initiative that doesn’t fit anyone else’s remit: if in doubt, give it to guidance. At its worst (and, ironically, at its best), guidance has become a sticking plaster service.

So where does guidance go from here? If nothing else, Professor Gavin McCrone’s recommendations have been the impetus for a root-and-branch review of how we support pupils. The status quo is not an option. Now is a time of real opportunity: we have the chance to restructure pupil support and to address at least some of the anomalies I mentioned earlier.

The Government has identified five national priorities for education. Guidance, or pupil support in a wider sense, has an essential contribution to make to each of these areas. We need a more holistic approach to meeting pupils’ needs. Inter-agency collaboration needs to progress to a real integration of provision with the needs of the young person at its heart.

The new community school concept has shown the way. However, it will be important in the future for the new community school to break its perceived link with poverty, deprivation and social disadvantage and become instead the model for school education and lifelong learning for every community.

e need to redefine the role of guidance and, perhaps, to bring to an end the parallel but separate existence of guidance and support for learning. Because of the impending changes, there is a need to redefine the role of those staff with management responsibilities in the area of pastoral care. It is time to try to resolve the tension I spoke of earlier between pastoral duties and teaching duties. Pastoral leaders at principal teacher level should in future be dedicated to pastoral duties: full-time specialists with their only teaching duties in the area of PSE. This, more than anything, would help to professionalise the service in a way never before possible.

McCrone clearly redefines the responsibilities of every teacher in supporting pupils. But writing them into teachers’ contracts is not enough. This has to be taken seriously as part of initial teacher education. It has to be built upon by authorities as part of the probationer’s induction year and it has to be an integral part of every teacher’s continuing professional development.

Now is the time to put pastoral care and pupil support on to a new footing. We have to think radically. We have to invest. We have to get the message across that pupil support is just as vital in raising standards of pupil attainment and in ensuring that social justice becomes a reality, as good teaching and an appropriate curriculum.

The message has to be that happy, balanced pupils, whose affective needs are met in equal balance with their cognitive needs, will be best placed to benefit to the full from their time at school.

Loretta Scott is adviser in guidance with Glasgow City Council.