Student support teams: perceptions of the nature, scope and function in post-primary education

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the personal, social and emotional development of students has become a priority area in post primary education. This has been further accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a case study design, this naturalistic study set out to explore perceptions of the function of a Student Support Team (SST), and its role in the provision of a whole school guidance programme in one post-primary school. Semi-structured interviews were completed with members of the SST (n = 6). Findings from this particular case study school suggest that the SST plays an integral role in the whole school guidance programme. However, the delivery of this programme in post-primary education requires a high level of commitment from senior management and a greater understanding from the wider school community. The findings also highlight the need for a more structured approach to the formation and implementation of SSTs within the school. The paper considers some of the implications for policy and practice in the post-primary sector.

KEYWORDS:

• Student support team (SST)
• students' personal, social and emotional development‌
• whole school guidance programme
• post-primary education

Introduction

With an increased emphasis on young people’s wellbeing and mental health, social and emotional learning (Hearne et al. 2018; CASEL 2015; Corcoran et al. 2018; Department for Education 2018; Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education 2018; Dooley, Fitzgerald, and O’Reilly 2019), post-primary schools should have ‘well established systems and processes for promoting the personal, social and emotional wellbeing of their students’ (NICE 2009, 36). Building upon a number of recent policy documents that sought to support students’ wellbeing, access to appropriate guidance counselling, mental health, and social and emotional learning (DES 2013; NEPS 2010a; NCGE 2004), the Irish National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) devised a guide for establishing or reviewing Student Support Teams (SSTs) in post primary schools (DES 2014). More recently, A Whole School Guidance Framework (NCGE 2017) advocated the role of whole school guidance to support and promote the wellbeing of young people. The Department of Education and Skills wellbeing policy statement and framework for practice aimed ‘to promote wellbeing in our school communities to support success in school and life’ (DES 2018, 1). Furthermore, in its recent publication, Supporting the Wellbeing of Students: Guidance for Post-Primary Schools & Student Support Teams the Department of Education and Skills acknowledges the unprecedented challenge of the global COVID-19 pandemic suggesting that ‘a crisis like this affects the wellbeing of everyone’ (DES 2020, 2). Carroll and McCoy (2021, 176) go further suggesting the COVID-19 pandemic has ‘laid bare the fault lines underneath our education system … fault lines [that] have primarily been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic, rather than created by it’.

With such a concerted policy and legislative focus on whole school guidance, wellbeing, and social and emotional learning, it would appear that SSTs have been positioned as playing a significant role within the school to support this work. While the remit of SSTs has been articulated and further updated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic (DES 2014, 2020), there remains a paucity of research exploring the actual positionality and implementation of SSTs in Irish post-primary schools. It is within this context that this qualitative study set out to explore the perceived nature, scope and function of an SST in one post-primary school and its role within the delivery of a whole school guidance programme from the perspective of SST members. In the next sections, we discuss the broad context for this study in terms of the development of SSTs, their role and function; and the role of SSTs within whole school guidance provision and the promotion of student wellbeing. The single case-study research design will be described. This case study was framed by the following research questions: what is the perceived nature, scope and function of the SST in one post-primary school?; and what is the role of the SST, if any, in the provision of a whole school guidance programme? Findings will be presented and finally some considerations or implications for practice will be discussed.

Student support teams

It is important to situate SSTs within the broader international literature in terms of purpose, scope, and structure. The U.S. Department of Education (2017) conceptualised the purpose of SSTs from the perspective of supporting at-risk students (students who are at risk of not graduating school), suggesting that despite strategies employed to support youth at risk, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year (U.S. Department of Education 2015). In the U.S. SSTs are mandated by law ‘to support students’ educational functioning through systematic group problem solving, and intervention’ (Lee-Tarver 2006, 525). Against this context SSTs are defined as ‘a team of high school staff dedicated to identifying and supporting students who exhibit academic or behavioral problems by providing early systematic assistance to students and to connect them to appropriate interventions and supports’ (U.S. Department of Education 2017, 1). SSTs conceptualised in this way focus on supporting individual students, or implementing school wide strategies including ‘monitoring student progress, developing intervention plans, referring students to intervention services and implementing increasing tiers of school-based intervention service’ (U.S. Department of Education 2017, 1). These perspectives are replicated across Europe and Scandinavia (Anvik and Waldahl 2017, 2018; OECD 2012, 2016).

However, some societal challenges, for example ensuring the welfare of vulnerable groups, may be too complex for individual actors to solve on their own, and may therefore require collaborative solutions and responses (Anvik and Waldahl 2018; Lagreid and Rykkja 2015; Morris and Miller-Stevens 2015; Rittel and Webber 1973). Prior research has indicated that collation of indicators of student progress (for example, behaviour, performance and attendance) can act as predictors of high school completion (Bruce et al. 2011; Dynarski et al. 2008). SSTs having access to such data could aid in identifying, monitoring and providing targeted supports for persistence in school. Equally, the use of evidence-based interventions can support student outcomes of interest including academic achievement, social and emotional learning (Flannery et al. 2014; Corcoran et al. 2018; OECD 2012; Powers 2001). Findings from the National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS) (U.S. Department of Education 2017, 5) reported that in 2014/15, 71% of U.S. high schools had SSTs to support at least some students, with urban or large schools more likely than rural or small schools to have them. The SSTs comprised school administrators, classroom teachers, school counsellors, special education teachers, school psychologists, intervention specialists and social workers. The majority of SSTs (37%) suggested they met weekly, 18% met fortnightly and 25% met monthly (U.S. Department of Education 2017, 6). While 17% of high school students accessed direct assistance from the SST, the most commonly reported supports included: ‘monitoring student progress … creating tailored intervention plans for students … refer[ing] students to intervention services such as reading or math specialists or case managers … and provid[ing] increasing tiers of school-based intervention services’ (U.S. Department of Education 2017, 5).

Lee-Tarver (2006) explored teacher participation and perception of the function and effectiveness of SSTs and reported that the majority of respondents (56.1%, n = 65) did not receive training prior to serving on the SST. In terms of membership, many participants (47%, n = 58) suggested SST membership was the result of appointment by a school administrator, with 5.7% (n = 7) suggesting that members volunteered for the SST (Lee-Tarver 2006, 530). Logan et al. (2001) reported that according to the 24 general education elementary teachers interviewed, SSTs are not functioning as designed. Rather, participants suggested that teachers believed that the primary purpose of SST was to test and place students into special education programs rather than to ‘solve student learning and behavior problems’ (Logan et al. 2001, 280). This finding is echoed by Powers (2001) suggesting that often perceptions of the function and quality of the SSTs varies. Notwithstanding the particular role and function of SSTs as articulated in the U.S., Europe and Scandinavia, it is important to explore their emergence and development in Ireland where this study is set.

Student support teams in Ireland

Within the Irish context, an SST is defined as being ‘part of the student support system in the school and encompasses a range of supports that cater for the learning, social, emotional and behavioural needs of students’ (DES 2014, 6). The overarching aims of the SST include:

co-ordinate the support available for students in the school, facilitate links to the community and other non-school support services, enable students with support needs to continue to access a full education, assist staff to manage those students effectively, ensure new staff members are briefed about policies and procedures relating to student wellbeing and support [and] advise school management on the development and review of effective student support policies and structures. (DES 2014, 6)

Framed from the perspective of a continuum of support, the SST was positioned as providing ‘for the educational, social, emotional, behavioural and learning needs of All, Some and Few students to ensure their ongoing wellbeing’ (DES 2020, 3). This remit was further developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, where SSTs were positioned as having responsibility for responding to ‘the ongoing and additional wellbeing needs of all, some [and] a few brought about by this current crisis’ (DES 2020, 2). The membership of an SST can vary but usually includes coordinator (member of management either principal or vice-principal), guidance counsellor, Social Personal Health Education (SPHE) co-ordinator, Special Education Needs (SEN) Co-ordinator, and Year Head (if deemed necessary) (DES 2014). Other members of the team, where these posts exist, can include Chaplin, School Completion Officer, Home School Community Liaison teacher (HSCLT) and Behaviour Support Teacher. Additional participants can be invited to SST meetings as necessary including staff members with a specialist role, parent/guardian, students and professionals from external agencies. Depending on the school, the principal appoints a senior member of staff or the guidance counsellor to co-ordinate the SST (DES 2014). The co-ordinator is tasked with organising and preparing for weekly meetings, liaising with participants, circulating documents, allocating tasks to attendees or making appropriate referrals, keeping staff informed of decisions and developing criteria for monitoring the operation of the SST (DES 2014).

Referrals to the SST may be verbal to a team member or more formal using a referral from teachers, year heads or school management. Students who have been identified by external services or parents/guardians may be referred through senior management (DES 2014). Referrals for example may reflect behavioural issues, absenteeism and child neglect situations. Students who have experienced developmental trauma can experience increased absenteeism, difficulty adjusting to school life and lower academic achievement (Treisman 2016). Similarly, any form of neglect during childhood can lead to trust issues, anger outbursts and lack of personal responsibility (Gordon 2013). This may lead to acting-out behaviours such as defiance, verbal abuse, angry outbursts or indeed acting-in behaviours such as extreme shyness, low mood, anxious or withdrawn (NEPS 2010a).

As the role of the SST involves processing personal and highly confidential information, members must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Issues of neglect or abuse that arise should be followed up by the Designated Liaison Person (DLP), usually the principal, and follow procedures pertaining to the Children First Act (Tusla 2017). Some referrals may require more intense and/or long-term support, which may involve in-school interventions or referral to specialist services such as the designated school psychologist from NEPS, TUSLA The Child and Family Agency or the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) (DES 2014, 2018). While the Department of Education and Skills sets out clear aims for the establishment of SSTs, with a focus on supporting students’ academic, social, and emotional needs, this policy focus has been further accentuated with the advent of the NCGE Whole School Guidance Framework (NCGE 2017) and the Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (2018–2023) (DES 2018).

Whole school guidance, wellbeing and the role of SSTs

While the construct of whole school guidance has gained momentum, some countries have advanced this agenda more than others have (Hearne and Neary 2020; ; Everitt et al. 2018; Foxx, Baker, and Gerler 2017). In Ireland, a holistic and integrated approach to the delivery of guidance counselling in post-primary schools has been advocated for the last 40 years. The holistic approach incorporates the three areas of personal and social, educational and career guidance, and the integrated element advocates the involvement of the ‘whole’ school community (DES 2005; Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; Hearne et al. 2018; NCGE 2004, 2017). Thus, the entire school community has direct responsibility for delivering the guidance programme across the curriculum, with the school guidance counsellor in a leadership role (Hearne et al. 2018; Hearne and Neary 2020). This involves the inclusion of career learning and development within the curriculum, while also addressing the individual social and personal needs of students (Bassot, Barnes, and Chant 2014).

Whole school guidance delivery is viewed as a proactive and preventative measure to support students holistically during their time in school, and especially from the personal and social aspect. However, the reality is that its delivery is quite often reactive and primarily based on available resources and the presence of suitably trained staff within the school (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; Hearne and Neary 2020). The research evidence points to the variable nature of guidance and funding provision, particularly during the period after the Irish Budget 2012 when the reallocation of guidance hours impacted on the quality of its delivery in schools (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; Hearne et al. 2018). The provision of guidance is at the discretion of school management and although the DES has introduced policies to address wellbeing and mental health amongst students placing guidance counsellors as a core resource (DES 2013; NCCA 2017), resources to support guidance have been less than adequate (Hearne and Galvin 2014; Leahy, O'Flaherty, and Hearne 2017; Hearne et al. 2018).

Set against this context, the NGCE published the Whole School Guidance Framework (NCGE 2017) to assist with regularising a coherent type of provision linked to the Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (2018–2023) (DES 2018). The Whole School Guidance Framework was specifically developed to ‘support schools in the planning and provision of a whole school approach to guidance’ at the discretion of schools themselves (NCGE 2017, 3). The Framework sets out three areas of learning to be delivered by the whole school community to facilitate students’ development: personal/social, educational and career development. Personal and social development encompasses skills crucial to students’ overall health and wellbeing. Educational development includes areas such as subject choice and level, study skills, psychometric testing and course information. Career development includes career research and information, and vocational education and training (NCGE 2017). In accordance with the Framework, at school level, the whole school guidance programme, which involves a range of school staff, aims to meet the needs of students along a continuum ranging from group to individuals ‘guidance for all, guidance for some, guidance for a few’ (NCGE 2017, 14). A key part of the whole school guidance programme is the development of a whole school guidance plan that sets out ‘an outline of the student support structure and how it operates’ within the school (DES 2018, 12). In the Plan, the three areas of guidance are to be delivered through a combination of one-to-one sessions and classroom or group-based guidance activities (Hearne and Neary 2020). The qualified guidance counsellor has direct responsibility for the three areas of guidance, although school staff may be involved in some elements of classroom, group or one-to-one guidance, such as the wellbeing subject or pastoral care (Hearne and Neary 2020). However, one-to-one personal guidance is the responsibility of the guidance counsellor. Personal guidance supports students with their decision-making, coping mechanisms, problem-solving and particular difficulties in their personal or social life. Additionally, the guidance counsellor has a broad range of other responsibilities in relation to guidelines for wellbeing, suicide prevention, SST, timetabled classes, providing support to teachers and students and acting as a contact point for outside agencies and parents (DES 2013, 2014; NCCA 2017). This suggests that overlap of responsibilities may occur amongst staff members within the context of student wellbeing. Thus, clarity is required on the roles and responsibilities of key staff involved in whole school guidance delivery, including school management, guidance counsellors, teachers and SST members (Hearne and Neary 2020).

The rhetoric of ‘whole school responsibility’ is not exclusive to guidance, as policies on wellbeing have also emerged in the Irish education landscape (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016). One of the main goals of the Action Plan for Education is to increase the resources and improve the services that promote wellbeing in post primary schools, which in turn leads to success in school and life (DES 2019). The Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (2018–2023) (DES 2018) establishes SSTs as the ‘overarching team concerned with providing for the welfare and wellbeing of all students’ (DES 2020, 3). Corcoran et al. (2018) suggest that focusing on the development of social and emotional competences are predictive of better academic outcomes as well as supporting students to connect with others and learn in ways that are more effective. These indicators reflect markers of positive mental health, resilience and thriving during teenage years and set the stage for positive developmental trajectories throughout adolescence and success in school and life (Thomson, Schonert-Reichl, and Oberle 2015). A study of 19,000 young Irish people suggests that teachers are the most common source of formal support accessed by adolescents for information about mental health and wellbeing (Dooley, Fitzgerald, and O’Reilly 2019). Post-primary schools have a clear role to play in promoting personal, social and emotional wellbeing amongst its student body (Corcoran and O'Flaherty 2022; Bjornsen et al. 2018; CASEL 2015; Corcoran et al. 2018; DES 2020; Indecon 2019; Morrish, Rickard, and Chin 2018; O’Reilly et al. 2018; Rothi, Leavey, and Best 2007). The successful delivery of a wellbeing programme (400 hours of timetabled engagement in lower post-primary education) is dependent on coherent policy and planning at a whole school level. The four areas of wellbeing promotion in a whole school approach are culture and environment, curriculum, policy and planning, relationships and partnerships (NCCA 2017). The SST, sometimes known as a care team or pastoral team, is reflected in the fourth category, which concerns itself with student and staff relationships, peer relationships, student voice and external support. The role and function of SSTs is clearly reflected in successive policy documents (DES 2014, 2018, 2020) with a focus on student support, whole school guidance and student wellbeing. Nevertheless, what is less clear, is the positionality and operationalisation of SSTs, hence the focus of this study, which aims to explore the perceptions of SST members in terms of their role and function in the particular case school of this study within the context of whole school guidance provision.

Methodology

This study set out to explore the perceived nature, scope and function of an SST in one large, co-educational post-primary school from the perspective of the members of the SST. The study was framed by the following research questions: What is the perceived nature, scope and function of a SST in one post-primary school? What is the role, if any, of the SST in the provision of a whole school guidance programme? This study was embedded within the interpretivist paradigm and employed a case study design to explore the two research questions. Interpretivist or qualitative research is ‘conducted in naturalistic settings that generate data largely from observations and interviews’ (Thomas 2017, 31). While many definitions of case study exist, Bryman (2016, 64) suggests, ‘the basic case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case’. Yin (2009, 18) describes case study as an in-depth exploration ‘of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project policy, institution program or system in a real-life context’. By using a singular case-study design, the research concentrated on the unique features of the case in order to develop a genuine understanding of the case being researched, i.e. the perceived nature, scope and function of an SST within one school site (Abma and Stake 2014; Hearne et al. 2018; Bryman 2016; McLeod 2013). Ethical approval was granted by the relevant academic institution’s Research Ethics Committee. Participant informed consent was obtained and in order to preserve the anonymity of participants, pseudonyms have been applied throughout (Hearne 2013).

Participants and methods of data collection and analysis

All members of the SST in the case school were invited to participate through the circulation of an information sheet and consent form. Purposeful sampling was used to gather the insights of SST members (n = 6). The school is co-educational with over 1000 students and two full-time and one part-time guidance counsellors employed on staff. The volunteer interviewees (n = 6, three males, 3 females), varied in role, experience (mean 17 years) and number of years working on the SST (mean 5 years). Three interviewees occupied the role of guidance counsellor in the case school. Semi-structured interviews were selected and open-ended questions were employed to facilitate flexibility, thus allowing participants to explore issues as they occurred during the interviews (Bell 2010; Braun and Clarke 2013, 2019; Thomas 2017). In line with COVID-19 restrictions, interviews were conducted on-line using MS Teams. The duration of the interviews was 30–40 min and included questions regarding participants’ understanding of the role of the SST, structures and strategies in place to support the work of the SST, student’s personal development, and participants’ understanding of a whole school approach to guidance counselling. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The interview data was analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2013) six-phase inductive thematic data analysis framework, which includes familiarisation with the data, generation of initial codes, search for themes, review of themes, definition and naming of themes and final report writing. The constant comparative method was utilised for data analysis and meaning making purposes (Merriam and Tisdell 2016). This involved moving back and forth over the data repeatedly comparing elements with other gathered data in the transcripts (Thomas 2017), identifying emerging themes and patterns and coding to identify and note aspects that related to the research questions (Braun and Clarke 2013).

Limitations

While examining the perceptions of SST members on the perceived nature, scope and function of an SST in one large, co-educational post-primary serves to improve our understanding of SSTs in post-primary education, some caution is required when interpreting the findings from this case study. Firstly, the sample recruited was small, that is, six members of an SST in one post-primary school, therefore, caution is needed when generalising to the wider population of SSTs in Ireland. A wider data collection method drawing upon multiple methods may provide more rigorous generalisable data. The voice of other stakeholders (non-SST school staff, students, parents/guardians) also needs to be reflected. Second, the study included semi-structured interviews with participant members of the SST. Respondents may engage with interviews in ways that are socially desirable rather than reveal their true response to each question. As the researcher proceeded with each interview, a reflection process was adhered to which helped yield a deeper understanding of what was held in the data. This enhanced the validity of the process as well as carrying out an accuracy check with the respondents (Silverman 2014). In order to mediate for researcher bias, the primary researcher kept a reflective journal (using Driscoll’s reflective model) to record thoughts and observations while conducting interviews and analysing responses (Bassot 2013). While this research provides a contribution to the literature in the Irish context, larger studies on SSTs across multiple populations and school types is prudent for more in depth analysis. Finally, the sample was recruited from one post-primary school in Ireland. Further replication studies with rigorous designs are needed to build our understanding of SSTs in Irish post-primary education.

Findings

Findings are presented framed by the two research questions: what is the perceived nature, scope and function of a SST in one post-primary school? What is the role, if any, of the SST in the provision of a whole school guidance programme? The structure and membership of the SST in the case-study school are presented first. Two themes emerged in response to research question one: the role of the SST; and structures and strategies to support the SST. One key theme emerged in terms of research question two: knowledge of the whole school guidance programme and the role of the SST in supporting the delivery of the guidance programme.

Structure and membership of the SST

The structure of the SST is the case-study school is as follows. The SST comprises the following membership: three guidance counsellors (two full-time rolls and one part-time roll); the deputy principal of the school and two post-primary classroom teachers. SST meetings are scheduled once a week for a duration of forty minutes. The meetings are chaired by the deputy principal. ‘We meet weekly and the meeting is part of the timetable … it’s an indication of the value and the worth we place in our Pastoral Care Team and the extremely valuable work that they do’ (Isabel). With regards membership of the SST, the guidance counsellors automatically become members of the team, but the selection of the remaining members is executed in a somewhat ad-hoc manner. Notably, if the principal or other team members felt a certain teacher possessed the necessary attributes, they would be asked to join the team. Liz suggests that ‘as one of the guidance counsellors in the school, it was automatic, I became a member of the team’. As Gary had prior experience as an SST member in his previous school where he ‘covered for a guidance counsellor, Home School Liaison Officer and School Completion Officer’, he was asked to be part of the team when he joined the case school. Ada was asked to join the SST as the principal noticed that ‘she was very approachable and had an awareness of students in her class that were in some kind of difficulty’. Isabel stated that ‘teachers who express an interest in joining the team are usually facilitated or if a team member suggests somebody they might feel possesses the necessary skills or attributes, they are invited to join’. Larry provided a divergent perspective stating, ‘in the present context the team is preordained by management and it is somewhat concerning … year-heads should be involved and there should be a voluntary basis for teachers who see themselves enjoying the role of working this way with students outside of the classroom.’ These responses suggest a lack of clarity amongst the interviewees as to the nature of membership selection of the SST in the case school.

Additionally, from the team member’s perspective, a forty-minute class at the end of a school day was insufficient to adequately deal with the number of vulnerable students in a large school. Some interviewees alluded to the need for ‘two Student Support Teams, one for Junior and one for Senior Cycle students’ (Ada), to deal with increasing demand on the service. Furthermore, there is an increased reticence amongst team members to approach vulnerable students because of GDPR, with Ada suggesting, ‘a casual chat almost needs to be documented’ thus highlighting the increased bureaucracy resulting in some students not accessing the support structures they require.

Role of the SST

In discussing the role of the SST, interviewees noted the holistic but complex nature of the work given the range of issues presented by students in schools. Interviewees noted the expectation that teachers respond to the more complex personal, social and emotional needs of students as well as academic outcomes. Victor noted, ‘if you go back a number of years, it would have been solely down to marks and grades and what you’re doing in class, teachers have to be more aware of what’s going on with their students on a personal level’. This perspective was echoed by Isabel stating ‘society has changed so much, when I started as a young teacher, my main focus was my subject area, now there’s much more awareness around the individual you’re teaching, the class you’re teaching rather than your subject area and that is a big change mainly due to the pressures and stresses in society’. Liz suggested, ‘there are more personal and societal issues experienced by students and families nowadays’. In general, there was consensus amongst the members of the SST that the role of the team was to help and support a small cohort of students experiencing personal, social or emotional challenges. Liz explained that the SST plays a ‘vital role in the support structures in place for our students’ and the fact that a member of the team will ‘meet with a particular student who is experiencing personal difficulties or challenges in their present situation and works with them is huge.’

All interviewees acknowledged the distinctive role of the SST with regards to supporting students’ social and emotional learning:

… help students “deal with emotional and anxiety issues and how they’ve occurred, and trying to help the student find the root of the problem” (Gary).

… a support system for students who are identified with personal difficulties or challenges and appropriate and supportive interventions are identified and applied (Liz).

… to support students and help them at times in which they find themselves in distress (Victor).

Interviewees indicated that referrals to the SST in the case school were usually made by a teacher, tutor or year head, who identified students displaying acting in or out behaviours in class, or students who exhibited radical changes in mood or academic achievement from previous years. Three interviewees identified the targeted nature of the SST, as support for all, some and a few.

… identify and help a small group of students (Ada).

… addressing the urgent needs of a small group of students (Isabel).

… all students are in the green, amber or red category with regard to wellbeing and the students in red need support and early intervention (Larry).

Some interviewees acknowledged the increased workload for SST members as they respond to individual student needs, with Gary suggesting that to be an effective teacher ‘you have to respond to the individual needs of each and every single student which can be exhausting at times.’ Larry felt ‘schools are seen more and more as a place where students can learn every kind of social, public and social skill they may need … [the] presumption that schools and teachers could do this is detrimental to student wellbeing’. This response implies there is a difference of opinion between what is seen as the responsibility of the school versus the responsibility of the home pertaining to students’ personal, social and emotional development. While Ada expressed concern that the SST can only deal with a small number of students as the school has a large student population, ‘we don’t have the time because realistically you can only deal with a few students at a time’.

However, a strong consensus emerged amongst the interviewees that the SST plays an important role in supporting students through a more formalised system in the case school; ‘I know that Student Support Teams can be a fantastic resource for students particularly in the red category’ (Larry). Liz echoed this perspective explaining that the SST plays a

vital role in the support structures in place for our students … [the fact that a member of the team will] meet with a particular student who is experiencing personal difficulties or challenges in their present situation and works with them is huge.

Another participant stated that the SST gives students ‘a sense of belonging and that they are being looked after and there is somebody looking out for them, that contact and connectivity is really important for vulnerable students’ (Ada).

Two interviewees acknowledged the value of the SST in supporting students to remain in education,

I think it’s of huge benefit to the students, providing a safe space in which they can express their opinions or their concerns. It is on a one to one basis with a trusted adult and it can be the difference between a child remaining in school. (Isabel)

Gary reported ‘students who were close to dropping out of school, they had school refusal and we brought them back and they completed their [final exams] so I suppose I know we have truly helped those individuals’. Interviewees also generally agreed that the wellbeing programme (400 hours of timetabled engagement in lower post-primary education) was beneficial in supporting students’ personal, social and emotional development, with Isabel suggesting a ‘commitment to wellbeing permeates all our school policies, plans and schemes.’ Gary believed that it plays an important role in student’s personal development as it ‘gives them the tools to be able to identify stressors and how to cope with those stressors.’ Ada concurred suggesting the ‘wellbeing programme was very important in the school’, but explained ‘that some teachers do not have adequate training and do not want to teach it … they hate to see it on their timetable … .and it can be very challenging for subject teachers’.

Structures and strategies to support the SST

This theme relates to the structures and strategies in place within the case school to support the SST. Notwithstanding the co-opted nature of STT membership, in the case school, a number of interviewees highlighted the crucial role of school management in supporting the work of the SST. Liz reported that the school has a ‘well established pastoral care system that includes representation from senior management’. Ada noted that having a member of school management on the team served to strength the position and role of the SST in the school. On the other hand, Gary observed, ‘in terms of supports, it has changed a lot over the years, some people have stepped down, and maybe they were finding it a bit difficult’. This highlights the importance of having sufficiently trained members on the SST as the work evolves and can be demanding. In terms of accessing relevant continuous professional development (CPD) opportunities, interviewees offered divergent perspectives. Some suggested access was both available and supported in the school, ‘all members of the team have access to continuous professional development, in particular in areas that support their work on the care team, it’s encouraged and supported by management’ (Liz). Gary outlined ‘any in-service I’ve ever wanted to go to I’ve been allowed especially in an area that I have been interested in’. Isabel recognised the importance of access to CPD by the SST and articulated, ‘our members are actively encouraged to upskill and this is very much in keeping with the spirit of our school and that is something that we place a very high value on’. Conversely, some of the interviewees indicated that ‘access to professional development was limited’ (Victor). Ada suggested,

as a teacher, it is difficult to go out on CPD for a day especially if you have [exam] classes … it is difficult for a subject teacher to be part of the Pastoral Care team [SST] compared to somebody who has ongoing pastoral care training, because that is kind of their role, subject teachers don’t have that continuous training.

This interviewee viewed the role of subject teacher as very different to the SST role and felt that she did not have adequate training to deal with the vulnerable students in the case school.

Knowledge of the whole school guidance programme and the role of the SST

Regarding the final theme, there was some divergence amongst interviewees regarding their understanding of the whole school guidance programme in the case school, particularly between guidance counsellor SST members and other members. All three guidance counsellors, who were also members of the SST, offered a clear articulation of both the programme and the subsequent role of the SST. Liz viewed guidance counselling provision as a whole school responsibility, ‘all teachers and staff can assist in this process … the purpose of guidance and counselling services is to assist pupils in self-examination, self-evaluation so that each pupil can benefit fully from his or her education and life experiences’. Victor argued that ‘guidance is absolutely a whole school system because it is broken down into the three areas of social/personal, educational and vocational and by default that includes the various teachers and staff involved with students’. He explained that teachers who teach students several times a week, and perhaps even from first to sixth year ‘could have invaluable insight into individual students, how they are getting on, their home life etc.’. The third guidance counsellor Larry was succinct in his understanding of the whole school approach to guidance counselling stating, ‘essentially, everybody is involved in the personal, vocational and academic aspect of a student’s life’. He described the SST in terms of the social and personal aspect of guidance provision, using the analogy of a traffic light system; ‘the care team [SST] would recognise students moving between green to amber or amber to red, and they would create recognition and then early intervention.’

The other three interviewees provided honest appraisals suggesting they were not clear about whole school guidance, ‘to be honest I don’t really know what the whole school approach to guidance policy is by definition’ (Gary). Isabel described her view of guidance counselling in the past as ‘career guidance’ and acknowledged that this perspective has evolved to reflect other core areas of focus stating, ‘guidance in school includes personal, social, education and career guidance delivered within a whole school context.’ Ada described the SST as part of the bigger school support system, which includes ‘guidance counsellors, subject teachers, year heads, SNAs etc. and we all feed into the bigger system to have a whole school programme … however sometimes the Student Support Team is misunderstood to be the bigger picture.’. This statement suggests that some teachers view the SST as being the only student support structure available in the case school and are unaware of the continuum of support model for the whole school guidance programme. Isabel positioned the role of the guidance counsellors in the school as key to the facilitation of the whole school guidance programme suggesting that they ‘are specialists and play a key role in planning and delivering the whole school guidance plan … I see the care team [SST] playing a critical role in the provision of guidance for a few’.

Discussion

This case study set out to explore the perceived nature, scope and function of an SST in one post-primary school and its role within the delivery of the whole school guidance programme. The first research question asked: what is the perceived nature, scope and function of a SST in one post-primary school? Interviewees perceived the role of the SST to support the personal, social and emotional development of a small group of students; and support school retention. Some divergent perspectives were offered regarding how members of the SST are selected and how members accessed and availed of CPD opportunities. The second research question asked: what is the role of the SST, if any, in the provision of a whole school guidance programme? Findings suggest that a lack of clarity emerged amongst members with regards to knowledge of the whole school guidance programme and consequently the role and contribution of the SST. These findings will be discussed from the perspective of supports and challenges for the SST in post-primary education; and clarity on the role of the SST in the whole school guidance programme. Implications for policy and practice will also be considered.

Supports and challenges for the SST in post-primary education

Findings indicate the presence of both supports and challenges for the SST in the case study school. Specifically, interviewees acknowledge the commitment by school management to allocate time for weekly meetings and access to relevant CPD opportunities. These initiatives provide a framework for team members to work collaboratively to deliver support and by default, play a part in the Whole School Guidance Programme. However, a number of challenges also emerged including an increasing demand on the SST, support to access relevant CPD; and adherence to policy procedures regarding membership selection. The general nature of how the SST is formed in the case school is arbitrary or based on individuals’ professional roles and dispositions. This would appear not to be in line with DES policy that emphasises that core membership should include a Special Education Needs (SEN) co-ordinator, year heads and the SPHE co-ordinator (DES 2014). This is particularly relevant as students with SEN may be more likely to be referred to the SST, thus highlighting the necessity of a more coherent approach (NEPS 2010a, 2010b). It is also interesting to note that all three guidance counsellors in the school currently serve on the SST.

Prior literature highlights the importance of the school setting for adolescents’ development and wellbeing (Corcoran and O'Flaherty 2022; Boyd and Bee 2012; Dooley and Fitzgerald 2012). There was consensus amongst SST members that they provided an integrated support structure for a small group of students’ personal, social and emotional needs. This finding echoes previous literature, which indicates that teachers view student wellbeing and pastoral care as an important part of their role within the school (Hearne and Galvin 2014; O'Flaherty and McCormack 2019). However, findings from the current study highlight the focused emphasis of the SST on a ‘small number’ of students. Equally, concern emerged that the number of vulnerable students is continuously increasing but the capacity of the support structure remains the same, thus the SST focuses on crisis management rather than on a holistic support structure as envisaged (DES 2014). In the context of supporting a small cohort of students, this echoes literature and proposed practice on the continuum of support model approach to guidance which stipulates a three-pronged approach described as support for few, support for some and support for all (NEPS 2010b; NCGE 2017). From a policy perspective, the SST is involved at all three levels. Support for a few is individualised, targeted interventions for students with more complex and enduring needs and often requires referral to outside agencies. Support for some involves identification and early intervention for students who may present with behavioural difficulties or who may be at risk. Support for all is more universal and includes wellbeing promotion and development of social and emotional coping skills (NEPS 2010b). Furthermore, the literature stipulates that SSTs should move away from dealing with only individual students and have a broader scope particularly for more preventative work (NEPS 2010b). The findings from this study indicate that the case school employs a particularly individualised and somewhat reactive approach concentrating on ‘support for a few’. Given the size of the student population, at over one thousand students, it is evident that the SST is already stretched and undertaking the three-pronged continuum of support would overburden an already over strained resource. Equally some team members highlighted the increased workload attached to SST membership, the allocated time being insufficient to adequately deal with the number of vulnerable students and the increased pressures of GDPR compliance, all of which may impact students accessing the required support structures. Some of these resource issues have already been identified in the context of whole school guidance delivery (Hearne et al. 2018; Hearne and Neary 2020). Furthermore, some have been further accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Mohan et al. 2021; Murray et al. 2021; Nelis et al. 2021). Importantly, Carroll and McCoy (2021, 178) call for targeted evidence-based supports at classroom level that are included in school plans and reflect ‘both intensive short-term responses and more sustainable long-term developments’.

Anvik and Waldahl (2018, 283) query ‘what conditions need to be in place for inter-professional collaboration to succeed in the efforts to support students’. One such condition is that SST members are supported and facilitated to access relevant CPD opportunities (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016), as the work can be demanding for team members (McCoy et al. 2006; Price and McCallum 2015). Without access to relevant CPD, SST members may not be equipped to support students’ personal, social and emotional learning, or strategize on how to meet the demands of the larger student cohort. Some SST members in this study noted a tension between teaching their subject and being active members of the SST. Participants are committed to their work as subject teachers and may be conflicted in their role as SST members as they may be reluctant to leave their subject classes to access relevant training. While guidance counsellors seem comfortable to facilitate this work, it appears even from this small-scale study that subject teachers require further support and access to relevant CPD initiatives that focus on staff and students’ social and emotional learning and wellbeing will be particularly important (Corcoran and O'Flaherty 2022; Corcoran and Tormey 2012, 2013; Phillippo 2013). This finding echoes the work of Graham et al. (2011) and others (Corcoran and O'Flaherty 2016, 2017) who suggest teachers do not receive adequate training to equip them to respond to such needs. Equally, Akkerman and Bakker (2011, 140) acknowledge that team members providing supports via interdisciplinary teams must possess ‘boundary crossing competence’, thus moving from one’s own standpoint, enabling access to the other actors’ perspectives and understandings. Wenger (2000, 233) calls this ‘a chance to explore the edge of your competence, learn something entirely new, revisit your little truths, and perhaps, expand your horizon’. Any affordances of engagement with CPD must pay cognisance of supporting teachers’ own social and emotional competence and the work of interdisciplinary teams (Corcoran and O'Flaherty 2022). Equally important is the need to acknowledge the professional capital required of SST members to support transformational processes in schools, especially in terms of whole school initiatives (Hearne and Neary 2020; Hargreaves and Fullan 2012). The guidelines regarding the establishment of SSTs clearly state the area is in ongoing development, and that a ‘guidance document’ should evolve and adapt in light of ‘future new perspective and needs of individual schools’ (DES 2014, 3). Whilst the Department produced further guidelines to support student wellbeing during school closures arising from COVID-19 (DES 2020), results from this study would suggest that schools, school management, and SST members require further support and guidance with regards to the particular remit of the SSTs and appropriate structures and strategies to support this work. Otherwise, SSTs shall only be organised at school level, which may contribute to variation across the sector. The authors suggest the need for an updated policy document from the Department of Education containing firm recommendations regarding SST member selection, co-ordination with the schools’ Guidance Department and Special Education Needs Department, and appropriate continuous professional development for members – all of which could contribute to a more homogenous approach to STTs across the post primary school sector.

Clarity on the role of the SST in the whole school guidance programme

Within an international context, the whole school model of guidance delivery in Ireland is quite unique. This integrated and collaborative approach incorporating personal and social, educational and career guidance has evolved over the last number of decades (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; Hearne et al. 2018; Hearne and Neary 2020; DES 2005; DES 2019). Responsibility for the delivery of the whole guidance programme lies with the school. An integral element of the programme is the SST. It is part of the student support system in a school that ‘encompasses a range of supports that cater for the learning, social, emotional and behavioural needs of students’ (DES 2014, 6). Like previous studies (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; McCoy et al. 2006) findings from this study indicate that there was a distinct lack of clarity amongst some participants regarding their understanding of whole school guidance and consequently the role of and responsibilities of the SST in guidance delivery. Some participants had little or no knowledge of the whole school approach to guidance, but were unknowingly playing an important role within the whole school guidance programme through their involvement in the SST. Interestingly, but also of concern from a guidance perspective, some participants in this study understood the SST as being the only support structure in the school. This phenomenon needs to be considered further in the context of staff being fully informed of their role in the whole school guidance programme in order to avoid diffusion of responsibilities and reactive provision to students (Hearne and Neary 2020).

Whilst Irish guidance policy (DES 2005; NCGE 2004, 2017) propagates a whole school approach, the gap between policy and practice can vary across school contexts (Draaisma, Meijers, and Kuijpers 2017). General consensus emerged amongst the guidance counsellors interviewed in this case study that a whole school approach involved the whole school community, incorporating the wellbeing programme, the professional activities of the guidance counsellor and the SST. However, equally they suggested that they do not meet students as regularly as subject teachers, who may have better insight with regards to student behaviour and needs. It may also be prudent to acknowledge some inherent challenges of facilitating interdisciplinary teams such as these. For example, Anvik and Waldahl (2018) acknowledge the potential challenges of the boundaries between the team and the rest of the school. They also recognise that being part of any support team within a school possibly represents a new role for the team members. This was evident in the current study with two classroom teachers forming part of the SST. Notwithstanding the multi-dimensional role of the teacher, members of the SST form part of a school’s support system that sets out explicitly to cater for the learning, social, emotional and behavioural needs of students. It is important to recognise the professional learning and development needs of any staff member when and if, their role and responsibility in the school evolves or develops. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) suggest that ‘a shared problem space’ is a central prerequisite for interdisciplinary practices. Creation and appropriate resourcing of this shared problem space may go some way to support schools and school management to embrace the NCGE (2017) whole school guidance provision framework and the continuum of support (NEPS 2010a, 2010b) to cater for the academic, social, personal, emotional and behavioural needs of all students.

Another finding to emerge is the apparent over reliance on the guidance counsellors who are viewed as specialists in planning and delivering the whole school guidance programme. There is an assumption that guidance counsellors have the necessary training and consequently are heavily relied upon to deliver the whole school guidance programme with minimum participation from the wider school community. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting there is a lack of understanding of the demanding role of the guidance counsellor and the time constraints and demands of the guidance service within a school (Hearne, Geary, and Martin 2016; Leahy, O'Flaherty, and Hearne 2017; IGC 2016; NCGE 2013). From the perspective of one interviewee in this study, the paradigm shift from ‘career guidance’ to ‘guidance counselling’ has taken some time to implement in the school. This echoes the sentiment of McCoy et al. (2006) who suggest the awareness, culture and values of management can have an impact on how guidance is delivered within a school context. Hearne and Neary (2020) suggest that the integration of personal guidance counselling within a holistic school approach has become a ‘political football’ as schools struggle within a resource vacuum having to choose between personal guidance counselling or career guidance. Thus, in the context of the Whole School Guidance Framework (NCGE 2017), the need for appropriately trained school staff including SST members who can provide suitable levels of support to students in a proactive manner is paramount. It is evident from this study that the delivery of whole school guidance requires a high level of commitment from management and understanding from the Board of Management, teaching and support staff, students, parents and the wider school community. Further clarity is also required regarding the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including the SST, as they can be an integral element of the whole school guidance programme.

Conclusion

The genesis of SSTs in the US and Europe is laudable with a combined focus on students at risk, increased retention and school completion, and the provision of early targeted interventions for students who experience academic or behavioural issues. SSTs in Irish post-primary education appear to have arbitrarily evolved from a pastoral care construct with a focus on supporting the social, emotional, behavioural, wellbeing and learning needs of all, some and few. SSTs are also identified as a key school support structure in advancing the whole school guidance programme. Findings from this study suggest that SST members see their role as primarily supporting a small number of students. While the supportive role of school management was acknowledged, participants evidenced a lack of clarity with regards the whole school guidance programme and consequently the role and contribution of the SST. Equally they identified challenges of their role as SST members including access to relevant CPD and the composition of the SST with perhaps an over reliance on guidance counsellors. While the Irish ministry for education put forward a guide for establishing or reviewing SSTs in 2014, and further referenced their role with regards to student wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, there appears to be an eminent paucity of information and attention in the interim period in terms of further guidelines for implementation, targeted CPD for members and adequate resourcing at school-level. Within such a policy and legislative vacuum schools and school management are left to manage, enact and organise SSTs at a local level – thus potentially diluting the contribution of SSTs in advancing and supporting students’ social, emotional, behavioural, wellbeing and learning needs against a policy context that exerts further prioritisation of these areas.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eileen O'Toole

Ms. Eileen O'Toole is currently a Guidance Counsellor at Rice College, Ennis Co. Clare and has been working in this area for some five years. She has a primary degree in European Studies and has worked in a variety of employment settings, including private industry. Eileen completed a Masters in Guidance and Counselling at the University of Limerick. Her Masters research explored a Student Support Team in a post-primary school and its role in the provision of a Whole School Guidance Programme.

Joanne O'Flaherty

Dr Joanne O'Flaherty is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, University of Limerick. She has a primary degree in Physical Education and English. Joanne has worked in a variety of educational settings, including the formal post-primary sector and the NGO sector, before joining the University of Limerick faculty. She is involved in coordinating and disseminating different education modules offered by the School of Education at both undergraduate and post-graduate level. Her research interests include social and emotional learning and social justice education and she has published in these areas.

Lucy Hearne

Dr. Lucy Hearne is a Lecturer in the School of Education and Lifelong Learning, South East Technological University of Ireland, Waterford. She was a recipient of an Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS) award in 2006 for her doctoral study on progression in adult guidance. Subsequent funding awards for her research include an IRCHSS research award in 2011, and an Irish Research Council (IRC) New Foundations award, IRC Starter Research Grant and a University of Limerick Faculty Seed Funding Grant 2014. In 2021 she was a recipient of a South-East Regional Development PhD Scholarship.