I move:
That Seanad Éireann welcomes the establishment of the National Guidance Forum and urges that Government facilitate the activity of the forum with a view to enhancing public consciousness of the importance of guidance counselling in an era of life long learning involving rapid and sustained change in the education system and in the labour market.
This motion is intended to be entirely non-adversarial and is not in response to spectacular public demand at this time for an instant solution to a problem. However, the issue it highlights is important and will become more so in years to come. It behoves us to see how the Oireachtas can contribute towards improving public understanding of its importance.
I presented the issue in the phraseology used in the motion to give it a focus. The National Guidance Forum was established a little over a year ago and has met a number of times since then. It is an entirely independent and voluntary organisation, bringing together a variety of the interests involved in guidance counselling and advice at all levels, including formal education, adult education, FÁS and various placement services. It is an excellent example of the voluntary co-operation which is at the kernel of a healthy civic society.
Part of the object of this exercise is to enhance public awareness of the existence and objectives of the forum. The bodies comprising it provide an example of that capacity for co-operation which is one quality that guidance counselling is increasingly intended to inculcate in all its clients, whether they be teenagers in schools or people changing jobs and looking for alternative careers at a more advanced and mature level.
One should welcome the establishment of this forum. It came together from a common realisation that change is all around us and the only thing we can predict is that it will be even more rapid in the future than it is at present. The idea that one chooses a career path and remains in it for life belongs to history. If we live in a world where nothing is as permanent as it once seemed, it is important that we try to get the best quality of adjustment to change. All commentators agree that what they call "the human factor", meaning people, is central to all future development, including economic development. The fewer round pegs there are in square holes the better for national performance and productivity as well as for the individuals concerned.
This can be seen in every area of activity. Many middle-aged, financially successful professionals are deeply dissatisfied with their jobs. It might even be seen in these Houses from time to time. It is rather sad that people may enter a career path between the ages of 17 and 21, make a lot of money and by the ordinary criteria of the wider world be successful and yet may be frustrated because they do not derive the satisfaction they once thought or hoped they would, or because they were put on that career path without thinking of job satisfaction but purely of monetary reward. The ability to give good advice on the activity which is most conducive to an individual's personality development and satisfaction is a contribution towards the type of civil society in which most of us would wish to live.
Historically, when jobs were available, we put enormous pressure on our young people by forcing them into choices at an early age. Even now, when the transition year opens all sorts of possibilities and most young people finish second level, we ask them to make choices at that point which may determine their path for many years ahead. We ask them to choose at a younger age than their peers in most western countries. It is, therefore, more likely that some of those decisions will be less mature and informed. If they decided a year or two later, they would decide differently.
I will not criticise the points system as such in this debate; it has many merits but it is implemented with extraordinary rigidity — perhaps it must be. Two years after making a choice, people may decide they have chosen wrongly and may wish to change. Of those perhaps 10 to 15 per cent will find they cannot change in the short-term. Fortunately, a degree of flexibility is being introduced to the leaving certificate and to more mature education whereby there are more alternative paths to third level but there are not enough of them as yet. There should be a greater opportunity for flexibility and integration of the entire education system to allow people to take different paths more frequently than is the case at present. Although matters have improved markedly in recent years, the mindset which regards educational paths as open to people coming from a variety of different directions rather than just one has yet to pervade adequately among the decisions makers involved.
We must ensure as far as we can that pupils at school level get the quality of guidance to enable them to make the most informed choice from a variety of view points. I do not look on guidance counselling as simply a service that exists parallel to or tops up the teaching pupils receive in school. Guidance counselling is an integral part of the entire personality development of pupils. It should be a central part of the curriculum and of our concept of education and not simply an optional or luxury extra.
I will not debate the issue of resources. Doubtless the Minister of State would argue that resources are inadequate for everything and that choices must be made. However, I urge the centrality of guidance counselling to education in the widest sense and to the development of young people to enable them make the type of choices which will ensure that they are as successful as possible and that they provide to employers the quality of service required, whether it be in the private or public sector.
I do not want to confine this debate to the schools. A great advantage of the National Guidance Forum is that it is equally concerned with guidance for adults and that it regards guidance as part of a life long experience. Learning is increasingly becoming life long. Our rhetoric probably still runs ahead of our practice in responding to the reality of this, but if the rhetoric is going in the right direction that will pull the practice after it in due course. It is important, therefore, that the right rhetoric emanates from Government and from all those who can influence public perceptions.
People are going to be changing jobs frequently, which historically we have equated with losing jobs. When I look at my own graduates — a privileged group — who may be five to eight years out of university, three points come to mind. First, most of them are in good jobs as far as conventional criteria apply. Second, very few of them would have predicted they would have been in that job on graduation. Third, most of them would have been in at least one other job, and often two other jobs in the five or six years after graduating and before their present job. They are searching, which may be a good thing up to a point. Given the level of counselling available and the plethora of both jobs and courses, they are inevitably making their choices on the basis of limited information.
While one never has access to perfect information, there is a better balance to be struck. Anything that can be done to encourage the type of commitment this forum has shown is to be welcomed. I am not seeking resources, indeed the forum's independence is a major factor in its favour. Nevertheless, a contribution towards achieving its aims can be made by public figures and politicians taking cognisance of its work and encouraging the wider public to appreciate the importance of what it is endeavouring to achieve. It is a process and not an event. It is not a response to any perceived instant crisis, but it is an important part of the type of society and economy we are striving to become in as efficient and humane a manner as possible for all those involved.