I propose to take Questions Nos. 165 and 235 together.
It is important to note that the issues raised in the survey referred to by the Deputies are best dealt with at local school level. Such surveys give an insight into how schools exercised the enhanced discretion or autonomy that they had because the reduction in posts was done by bringing guidance in quota. If the alternative (a worsening of the basic schedule) had been done then any impact survey conducted would have shown greater impact in all other curricular areas identified in this survey other than guidance. The bottom line is the budget measure allowed schools deal with the reduction on an individual basis according to their own judgement of what was best.
I have already acknowledged to the House and indeed previously to the Institute of Guidance Counsellors that bringing guidance provision within quota is challenging for schools. All of us in the public sector have to do more with less and teachers including those who are assigned as guidance counsellors cannot be exempt from this requirement.
It is important to note that the provision of guidance in schools is a whole school activity and it does not just involve the guidance counsellor. All teachers in the school have an important role including Year Heads and this would not be captured in surveys of this type.
The budget decision actually sheltered the impact for all the DEIS post-primary schools by improving their standard staffing allocations.