The influences that social-cultural factors have on child development have been well established (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979; Super & Harkness, Reference Super and Harkness1986). Hendrick (Reference Hendrick1997) also illustrated how the changes in the education landscape over the years in the United Kingdom influenced child development. Examining changes in school environments and stakeholders’ perceptions about them could help further our understanding of children and their developmental years. This article reports on a qualitative study exploring three key stakeholder groups’ perceptions about counselling in Singapore schools as the country implements counselling as a key service in schools.
School-based counselling service is rapidly increasing around the world. In Asia, many countries are now investing, or are being called to invest more in the psychosocial wellbeing of both children and young adults at all levels within the school system (Chong, Lee, Tan, Wong, & Yeo, Reference Chong, Lee, Tan, Wong and Yeo2013; Leuwerke & Shi, Reference Leuwerke and Shi2010; Low, Kok, & Lee, Reference Low, Kok and Lee2013; Van Schalkwyk & Sit, Reference Van Schalkwyk and Sit2013; Van Schalkwyk & D’Amato Reference Van Schalkwyk and D’Amato2013). Singapore is no exception. Research has concluded that behaviours such as bullying, running away from home and disruptive behaviour disorders were among some of the key issues affecting the student population in Singapore (Elliott, Chua, & Thomas, Reference Elliott, Chua and Thomas2002; Khong, Reference Khong2007; Ooi et al., Reference Ooi, Ang, Ibrahim, Koh, Lee, Ong, Wong and Fung2013; Tan, Tan, & Appadoo, Reference Tan, Tan and Appadoo2007). Propelled by the increase in the demand for counselling in schools, the Ministry of Education mandated each public school to have at least one full-time counselling practitioner by 2008 (Ministry of Education, 2004). This led Singapore to be among the 39 countries of 82 reviewed where school counselling was state funded (Harris, Reference Harris2013).
Students have had access to counselling services within the public school system prior to the Ministry of Education's mandate; however, these services were provided on a part-time basis by social service agencies from outside of the school. Only a minority of schools had the funds and engaged full-time counsellors on campus. As such, counselling is not entirely new in Singapore schools. However, with a full-time counsellor stationed permanently in schools, it is not hard to imagine that they, as well as teachers and counsellors in the community, would have more opportunities to work together and develop independent views of the school counselling service. Understanding their perceptions is arguably an essential step in developing strategies to effectively integrate counselling within schools. With these considerations in mind, the primary aim of this study was to provide qualitative data on stakeholders’ perceptions of counselling in Singapore schools during this critical period of wide-scale implementation.
Stakeholders’ Perceptions
Studies focusing on a single group of stakeholders, such as teachers, counsellors, students, parents, school administrators, have been widely carried out in many parts of the world, mainly in Western countries. Over the years, there has been much research on students’ perceptions (Chan & Quinn, Reference Chan and Quinn2009; Fox & Butler, Reference Fox and Butler2007; Glasheen & Campbell, Reference Glasheen and Campbell2009; Lau, Reference Lau2009; Murgatroyd, Reference Murgatroyd1977; Quinn & Chan, Reference Quinn and Chan2009; Siann, Draper & Cosford, Reference Siann, Draper and Cosford1982). These often focused on students’ preferences regarding how counselling should be delivered and by whom.
There has also been much research that focuses on teachers’ perceptions of school counselling across the globe (Aluede & Egbochuku, Reference Aluede and Egbochuku2009; Alghamdi & Riddick, Reference Alghamdi and Riddick2011; Chan, Reference Chan2005; Hue, Reference Hue2008; Reiner, Colbert & Perusse, Reference Reiner, Colbert and Perusse2009). Some studies have highlighted the importance of teachers’ acceptance of counselling or support services in the school context (Cooper, Hough, & Loynd, Reference Cooper, Hough and Loynd2005; Vulliamy & Webb, Reference Vulliamy and Webb2003; Wolstenholme & Kolvin, Reference Wolstenholme and Kolvin1980). Similarly, interest in school counsellors’ perceptions also has a long tradition. Fulton (Reference Fulton1973) examined and compared school counsellors’ perceptions and discussed the agreements and differences in a relatively small survey study. A steady stream of studies focusing on school counsellors’ views followed (Bunce & Willower, Reference Bunce and Willower2001; Harris, Reference Harris2009; Kok, Low, Lee, & Cheah, Reference Kok, Low, Lee and Cheah2012; Maluwa-Banda, Reference Maluwa-Banda1998; Paisley & McMahon, Reference Paisley and McMahon2001; Tatar, Reference Tatar1995).
Generally, fewer studies have focused on other stakeholders. Polat and Jenkins (Reference Polat and Jenkins2005) examined the local education authorities in England and Wales, and much earlier, Maguire (Reference Maguire1975) noted that other mental health professionals had concerns about the role of school counsellors in providing therapeutic services. While there is much interest in learning about teachers’, school counsellors’, and students’ perceptions about school counselling, a gap remains in our insights of other stakeholders, such as community counsellors who worked in the communities where schools are situated (Low, Reference Low2014). The current study included this group of stakeholders to add richness to the current available data on stakeholders’ perceptions on school counselling.
While focused on a single stakeholder group, a few of the studies discussed in the preceding paragraphs and others were mindful of and recognised the importance of other stakeholder groups (Maluwa-Banda, Reference Maluwa-Banda1998; See, Reference See2004; Reiner et al., Reference Reiner, Colbert and Perusse2009). Some recent studies that took the steps to collect and compare perceptions of two or more groups of stakeholders found their efforts were well rewarded.
In an effort to gather and compare school counsellors, counsellors-in-training, and principals’ perceptions of the role of school counsellor in rural schools in the United States, Monteiro-Leitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner, and Skelton (Reference Monteiro-Leitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner and Skelton2006) found that the three groups of respondents had different perceptions of how much time school counsellors spent as well as how much time they ought to spend on a number of school counselling duties. Partin (Reference Partin1993), as well as Kirchner and Setchfield (Reference Kirchner and Setchfield2005), also compared school counsellors’ and principals’ perceptions on counselling and related areas. In separate studies in Israel and South Wales, Tatar and Bekerman (Reference Tatar and Bekerman2009) and Hamilton-Roberts (Reference Hamilton-Roberts2012) respectively explored and discussed both teachers’ and school counsellors’ perceptions. In the latter, they discovered differences between teachers’ and counsellors’ perceptions of student problems and methods of handling them.
Clearly, there is an urgent need to explore, understand and compare stakeholder's perceptions of counselling. There are many stakeholders in Singapore schools. They include school administrators, principals, education policy-makers, teacher-educators, and parents, among others. The focus of the current study was kept within a professional context, consisting of people who work closely with the students in the school counselling process. These stakeholders, namely, teachers, school and community counsellors, often work together in helping students and their families; their paths often cross intentionally or otherwise, hence gaining a deeper understanding that how they view and feel about counselling in school is essential. The current study was part of a larger mixed method, exploratory study that examined multiple stakeholders’ perceptions of school counselling in Singapore. The findings of the quantitative component of the larger study suggested that the stakeholders’ perceptions of school counselling were a mix of ‘hits and misses’. While clarity among the stakeholders in some aspects was uncovered, they differed markedly in others. The findings, which provided the impetus of the current study, will be reported in a separate publication in due course.
Methods, Procedures and Analysis
All the participants in the current study completed a questionnaire, which formed the quantitative aspect of the main study. This article reports on the qualitative component of the study. Nineteen interviews were conducted with teachers, school and community counsellors, and the data collected was analysed. The purpose of this case study research was to gain insights from participants’ lived experiences of the inclusion of counselling in schools during the early stages of implementation.
Qualitative inquiries into the role of school counsellors often take the form of interviews (Bunce & Willower, Reference Bunce and Willower2001; Jordans, Keen, Pradhan, & Tol, Reference Jordans, Keen, Pradhan and Tol2007; Leuwerke & Shi, Reference Leuwerke and Shi2010). This method of investigation arguably yields more conceptual data and acknowledges the presence and involvement of the investigator in the research process (Potter & Hepburn, Reference Potter and Hepburn2005). The investigator used semi-structured interviews in order to allow him to develop a keen understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives and lived experiences.
This study contained some elements of insider research, which included the investigator's knowledge of the field as a counselling practitioner who works around and at times within the school system. The investigator's experience in the field is beneficial for the scope of the study as he was able to obtain vital information that an outsider would not have access to (Brannick & Coghlan, Reference Brannick and Coghlan2007). The knowledge on how school counsellors were organised, supervised and supported was useful in scoping the current study, in arranging interviews, and in interpretation of the data.
Participants
The chain referral sampling method was adopted for the current study (Penrod, Preston, Cain, & Starks, Reference Penrod, Preston, Cain and Starks2003). Altogether, 19 participants from 12 schools and four Family Service Centres (FSC) took part in this study. Seven school counsellors, six teachers and six community counsellors were interviewed over a 6-month period. All participants have had recent experience either as a school counsellor or have worked with one within the past year. The school counsellors interviewed were working (or have worked) in seven government-funded schools (three primary and four secondary schools) across Singapore, and the community counsellors were from four FSCs. The teachers interviewed were working in five schools (three primary and two secondary schools). None of the teachers or school counsellors who participated in this study were working in the same school. The current study did not distinguish between primary and secondary level schools as the school counselling program was implemented simultaneously at both levels. In addition, the focus of the current study was to explore general perspectives on counselling in the local public school context. Most of the interviewees had responded to the invitation to participate in the interviews that were sent to them directly. A few of the participants referred the investigator to another person who was willing to participate in the study. They reported to have spent a mean of 5.4 years in their respective roles. Community counsellors were in their role longest, at a mean of 8.4 years, followed by teachers reporting 7.3 years and school counsellors 1.1. It was not surprising that school counsellors were relatively low in terms of mean years in service as the school counselling program was only in its fifth year of progressive implementation, and was in its third year after all schools were staffed with a counsellor each. Four (21%) of the total participants were males while 15 (79%) were females. The distribution of ages was as follows: one (5%) was 20–29 years old; 13 (68%) were 30–39 years old; four (21%) were 40–49 years old; one (5%) was 50–59; while none was 60 years and above. Consequently, the majority, or seventeen (90%), of the participants were between 30–49 years old. All the interviews were between 30 minutes to 1 hour in length, and were recorded with participants’ written and verbal consent.
Interview Schedule and Analysis
The semi-structured interviews were guided by predetermined discussion areas, including presenting issues leading to referrals, the role of counselling and positioning in schools, confidentiality, and working with families. These were generated from the initial sensing of the ground and relevant literature reviews, and were supported by the findings of the questionnaire that was issued in the main study. These areas were, however, also related directly to the purpose of the current study.
Data collected from the interviews was examined using thematic analysis to draw meaning from the data generated. Patterns that emerged from conversations during the interviews were at times developed into subthemes. During the course of interviewing, the investigator also used the emerging patterns to establish the subsequent questions in the interviews.
The steps taken in the examination of the qualitative data were similar to those suggested by Braun and Clarke (Reference Braun and Clarke2006). The investigator listened to each audio recording of the interviews of each participant and reviewed the associated notes taken during the respective interviews. This initial exercise allowed the investigator to have a general idea of each interview and at the same time develop a list of major discussions and themes for each individual recording, through repeatedly replaying each interview. While identifying the themes in the experiences of the participants, attention was given to identifying any patterns in what each participant had to say. These themes and the associated time frames of the recordings were mapped onto a spreadsheet to gain a holistic view of the interview data. All significant discussions were transcribed and mapped onto the spreadsheet. A full transcription of one of the interviews for each stakeholders group, was used as a template for this purpose. In the third exercise, the investigator listened to all interview recordings in their entirety in order to compare the recorded data with the early themes on the spreadsheet. This led to the final stage of coding, in which the investigator examined the themes that were present across all the interviews. Each overlapping theme was given additional attention, and was identified through repeatedly listening to the relevant recordings, comparing the respective transcribed extracts, and reviewing the researcher's field notes. This process was repeated and the themes were clustered to form the main themes.
Findings and Discussion
Two key themes of significant differences were discovered. Teachers, school and community counsellors held relatively different views on how school counsellors should be working with students’ families, as well as how freely information should be exchanged and the level of confidentiality between professionals in schools. Using relevant extracts from the interviews, these are discussed in the following sections. Minimum editing was carried out in the extracts to preserve the participants’ voice (Corden & Sainsbury, Reference Corden and Sainsbury2006).
Working with Families
Teachers, school and community counsellors worked with families and parents with children who attend school. On many occasions, they worked together both within and outside the school settings. From the interviews, the investigator sensed that school counsellors generally think that they do not do family work. Most referred to how their positions were limited by authority and/or resources. It was hardly surprising that school counsellors referred closely to their work scope or guidelines as the school counselling service was relatively new and most of the school counsellors had been in their role for less than 2 years:
But then again, you know, it doesn't fall into the job scope of school counsellor. Because working with family is a very long process . . . and also the school setting does not [cater] for that kind of therapy work. (SC1)
Yeah, yeah . . . The job scope is quite clear that we should only counsel students. Not to be involved in family therapy. (SC4)
They had the impression that the job scope did not include counselling parents and families. However, it was clear that they placed great importance on families and parents when it concerns improving a child's life. The extract below demonstrates the view about the need to work on family issues:
. . . I think that [working with families] is important, because the child spend majority of [his/her] time at home with their parents, and if it is really a social issue that is preventing the child from maximising his potential, then we have to look at the social issues, that [could be] financial, parental, the marriage . . . . family relations, that kind of things. (SC1)
Among the school counsellors, some were more ambivalent in this area, especially those who had worked with families in other settings. The following are interview extracts from two participants who have had experience working in social services prior to becoming school counsellors:
When [I was] working in the social service, I worked with parents, counsel parents. I also used to run parenting talks, parenting workshop. But here . . . basically meeting the parents, telling them how the child performed . . . (SC1)
That's why it's selectively! We don't provide family therapy or marital therapy. But if they come with [a] very urgent request, [I would think:] what will happen to the child?. . . It doesn't make sense to send them away, because they might get lost in the system, so we just provide [family counselling] as [a] transition. (SC6)
School counsellors seemed to be struggling with whether or not to extend their work with students’ families and what form the work should take if they do work with them — family therapy or just parent education. Although to some it was clearly spelled out that their work should focus on the student — the individual — many saw the logic that their clinical interventions could be a family-based one, or at least have the family support in the interventions.
While the school counsellors grasped the multiple possibilities presented to them by the different cases they saw in schools, community counsellors considered the current situation in relation to family work to be lacking or at best, limited. Nevertheless, they seemed to understand that school counsellors may be bound by their work scope as well as the time and resources available to them. Below is an extract from the conversations with community counsellors:
From my understanding, school counsellors only work with the students. If they felt that perhaps the student would benefit from family therapy, they would have to refer to us [FSC]. Because on their side, they don't deal with family therapy that much. Probably, they would have some sessions with the parents to find out more on the background of the student but they would not do family therapy. . . . If they are [going] to do family therapy, the workload will be very overwhelming. And also I understand their constraints, because they work office hours, it is quite hard for them to fix appointments with the parents who also have to work, so in that sense, they face a lot of limitations. Of course if you asked me ‘Would it be better if they do family therapy?’ I would say yes, it would be better because . . . they would have a more intimate picture of what's happening in the family, they would know the students more intimately . . . (CC5)
There was an ongoing debate on whether school is a good setting for family work. Considerations such as counselling hours, school counsellors’ training, school not being a neutral setting, and so on, were also raised in the conversations. Overall, community counsellors, on one hand, seemed to empathise with the workload of their counterparts in schools and understand that they were governed by their job scope, but on the other hand, they had mixed views on whether school counsellors should extend their work further to the point of doing family therapy. One of the community counsellors suggested a better referral system between schools and FSCs as a possible solution. This seemed to be in line with local and overseas studies and recommendations in this area (Chong et al., Reference Chong, Lee, Tan, Wong and Yeo2013; Kok, Reference Kok2013; Shaw, Reference Shaw2003).
While many teachers work with students’ parents themselves, they seemed to have little idea about how school counsellors work with students’ parents and families. Generally, teachers seemed to have some expectations that school counsellors work with parents on some aspects. However, most did not voice any expectation that school counsellors counsel the parents or families. They generally felt that school counsellors worked with parents pertaining to schooling issues so that students could better access teaching and learning activities. The first extract below demonstrates the view of a teacher who has been teaching for over a decade. He observed that school counsellors work with families to assess and refer them to relevant agencies that could meet the families’ other needs, such as financial help or emotional needs of adults in the families. The second extract discusses the school counsellors’ role in relation to the parents in cases of behavioural issues. This was offered by a teacher who has been heavily involved in working with the counsellors on such cases:
Another thing I would think FTSC [full-time school counsellor] works very well is dealing with children with some family needs. Because even when I do have experience working with FTSC so closely, I wouldn't not know what are the other connections . . . Because I know they [counsellors] have a lot of contacts [that] I would not know . . . (T5)
And if they [school counsellors] were to take over the case [referring to behavioural and disciplinary issues], they would usually work with the parents, especially if these students also require the help of external agencies. Because the majority of these cases would also involve the discipline committee, so the counsellors are like the other face of the school. (T6)
Teachers’ understanding of school counsellors’ work with parents and families revolves around the child, and typically concerns behavioural issues that disrupt learning in the classroom. It adds to the sense that the teachers and counsellors were only beginning to learn more about each other's roles, especially concerning students’ families.
The interviews added some clarity to how teachers, school and community counsellors view school counsellors’ work with parents and families. Teachers hold common expectations for school counsellors to be engaged with parents appropriately, and especially working with them in tandem on students’ educational goals. Community counsellors, on the other hand, expressed keen interest in school counsellors providing some family counselling in schools, but cautioned on the resources and time constraints within the current school counselling service, as well as questioned the appropriateness of placing family therapy in the school setting. Still, school counsellors constantly struggled with whether and how they should engage the parents and families, almost on a case-by-case basis. Some go the distance by providing counselling for selected families while others remain at the level of information exchange or discussion of the school's concerns, which seemed to match teachers’ expectations. The three stakeholder groups, however, appeared to agree that a family's needs have to be kept in clear view when working with students. The timely referral to external family counselling services such as family service centres was highly valued by teachers and community counsellors, as well as school counsellors. School counsellors, perhaps unintentionally, have placed themselves in a place where they will continue to have to use good judgment in determining how families’ needs can be met, either in or outside the school.
Sharing Information and Confidentiality
The data suggests that teachers’ and community counsellors’ ideas of sharing of information differed greatly, while school counsellors were in a somewhat uncomfortable middle position. They appeared to balance the need for sharing more information to remain a member of the school setting and to keep their professional identity intact through compliance with confidentiality norms in the counselling fraternity.
Counsellors in schools, as with their counterparts in other settings, were well aware of the confidential information they managed in their work. Many verbalised a clear understanding of upholding a high level of confidentiality, but some reported difficulties in doing so in a school environment. They also seemed to be aware of the teachers’ eagerness to know more about the students they worked with and their interest in school counsellors’ feedback:
Ok, I [will] put it this way, when we are working in the hospital, all of us have our own professional ethics. Confidentiality is very important as we can get sued, you know? And there are other ethical issues. But in a school, they [teachers and principals] are not bound by all these things and counsellors are the only ones interested in confidentiality. So, it will probably be a very foreign topic for teachers and principals. They will tell you that confidentiality, ‘There is no need’ for that, or they will [say], ‘You must trust us’. (SC6)
School counsellors appeared to face pressures from management and teachers to share information while having to ensure that they do not become unethical at the same time. This dilemma is widely reported in more developed, school-based counselling services in the United States and Israel (Isaacs & Stone, Reference Isaacs and Stone2001; Lazovsky, Reference Lazovsky2010). Many in Singapore adopted creative methods for managing this on a daily basis. Some school counsellors preferred to seek students’ consent at an early stage of the counselling relationship. This appeared to work for students in secondary schools:
You know, the previous counsellor in the school, she kept everything very confidential. So, the teachers felt [that it’s] useless [to ask] because she said everything is confidential. She couldn't share anything about the child. So, I thought about how I wanted to do it. I am not the case owner of the student even though I counsel them, so [when it comes to sharing information about] the student, [it is] not an individual confidentiality, so here we maintain group confidentiality. So I will tell the students that, ‘You know I may feedback to the teacher about certain things that we talked about . . . If you don't want me say certain things, I won’t.’ So we maintain a group-confidentiality. (SC1)
Some counsellors managed the information being shared, as well as with whom they share the information. In some cases it appeared that the school counsellors had secured some understanding from the school management on the need for them to uphold confidentiality. As illustrated in the following extracts, school counsellors found meaningful ways in this balancing act of sharing information with stakeholders and keeping with their professional ethics:
In a way I am quite fortunate because I have an understanding with my principal. So if I don't share with him, he will not force me. Because I told him [about] confidentiality. So I will share with the teacher, but when I share with the teacher, the most I share with the teacher, maybe I will say, ‘Oh . . . single parent . . . parents work long hours, not much time (with the student)’, something like that, no more . . . because I have to keep up my code of ethics and I think as a counsellor, I have to let the kids trust me, otherwise it's going to be very difficult. I uphold my confidentiality, [in the] long run, I think teachers [will] trust me. (SC5)
Thankfully, the school leaders are quite understanding, they don't really probe a lot. I think in general, [it’s] on a required basis. When they want to know, they just want to know the gist of, I think that's fine and I do tell my student [that] I need to share, just the gist, not even summarised, [just] a broad idea. . . (SC4)
It is your [school counsellor’s] call, you are attending to a case and you know, you have done this work for quite some time, so just through experience I guess. You know what to say and what not to say. (SC7)
Although the current situation appeared at best ambivalent for the stakeholders and themselves, school counsellors felt that the current situation was manageable and comfortable. Earlier research both in Singapore and overseas seemed to suggest that students’ perceptions of whether counselling was confidential influences their confidence and willingness to access the service available in school (Fox & Butler, Reference Fox and Butler2007; Lau, Reference Lau2009). This supports the concerns the school counsellors have. The following extract reflects one counsellor's thoughts along this line:
I think it's just fine, because I don't think I should share more, you know because, if I share more, then where do [I] draw the line? Okay, then the students will not tell me anything anymore because it gets opened up and tell everybody everything. And I don't think it's right. So at this moment, I think it's okay. (SC5)
On the other hand, teachers were clearly expressing their desire and interest to hear more feedback from counsellors, or to have them share information about their work with teachers. All the teachers interviewed found this an important aspect of their relationship with school counsellors. They valued the information shared as resources to help them better work with their students. Almost every interview consisted of clear messages that the information they get or hope to get from school counsellors are those helpful for them to better understand and work with their students. Some also addressed the issue of confidentiality. Following are some extracts of such exchanges during the interviews:
I think she [the school counsellor] is helpful in a sense that, for me to speak to the boy to get to know all these things, it doesn't help. So for her, at least she understands a bit and she tells me. [So] I know how to deal with this kid [better] because [I understand] his background, of course I keep it confidential. But at least I know what is frustrating him, what sort of [strategies] work for him and sometimes a bit [about] what he is thinking. So she [school counsellor] is in a way, like a middle person. (T2)
Between us, teachers and counsellors, I think the confidentiality part should be, I mean, they should not say that what we discuss during the session they will not let the teacher know. But . . . I think it is useful for the counsellors to let the teachers know . . . So I find [that] between teachers and counsellors, there should be that cooperation to tell each other as much as possible, because underlying all these is the intention to help the child. (T1)
This strong desire to know more from school counsellors on the cases they attend to may explain the strong sense that school counsellors feel about having to share information. It may also be a contributing factor to the difficulties school counsellors face in keeping confidentiality in the school setting. While some teachers agreed to maintain confidentiality, some thought that counselling in schools was not the same as elsewhere. Teachers generally agreed that there was no need to know the information exchanged between the counsellor and the students in detail, but most felt the need to know key information that might influence how they work with a student. It is important to note that the teachers’ desire to know more seemed to be driven by their passion to work better with the students and to complement the work of the counsellor outside the counselling room. They were content with the need-to-know basis and restrained themselves from asking more than the main gist of the story.
The interaction and dynamics between school counsellors and other stakeholders, including the topic of sharing of information and confidentiality, is an interesting area that has received attention in research literature (Isaacs & Stone, Reference Isaacs and Stone2001; Jenkins & Polat Reference Jenkins and Polat2006; Low, Reference Low2009). Community counsellors also had strong views on this matter. During the interviews, some shared experiences that led them to have less confidence in teachers as well as school counsellors in keeping with confidentiality. Following are some extracts demonstrating this:
I think that there should be a [shared] understanding that whatever we share [it] is professional, I mean we are professionals, so we should maintain confidentiality. But I don't really trust school counsellors . . . because there were instances where they have spoken to the teachers, and the teachers will ask the child, so it's not very nice. (CC6)
I think some school counsellors are not abiding to confidentiality. . . . And also, sometimes I spoke to some school counsellors, they revealed a lot of information that they are not supposed to reveal. (CC5)
It appeared that community counsellors have had some less-than-desirable experiences sharing confidential information with school counsellors who further shared with teachers. It appeared that community counsellors expect school counsellors to uphold confidentiality but their confidence was hit by some of their encounters with school counsellors and teachers. However, community counsellors also recognised the importance of sharing information with other stakeholders such as key teachers working with the child.
Discussion
All three groups of stakeholders recognised the importance of sharing information while working together or separately to better teach, care, support or help a student and his/her family. School counsellors, community counsellors and some teachers also recognised the need to keep confidentiality in the process. Nevertheless, due to the different roles they play, each group seemed to have differing levels of confidentiality in mind and separate concerns that directly impact their work. Teachers were concerned about whether they were getting all the relevant information for them to understand their students better. School counsellors were concerned about what information they have obtained in counselling sessions they should share, how it should be shared and with whom they should share it, while community counsellors were concerned about how the information they provided to school counsellors was shared with teachers and how the information was being used.
This concurred with the findings of the quantitative components of the larger study, which suggested an association between professional roles and perceptions among the stakeholders. This is a complex situation as the stakeholders were all keenly involved with the best of intentions to better provide support to the client/student. The findings seem to suggest that stakeholders might be lacking in their understanding of each other's needs and roles in information management within the school counselling service loop. This supports the anecdotal observations reported by Yeo and Lee (Reference Yeo and Lee2014) in their recent report on the situation of school counselling in Singapore. The findings identifying these needs add to the accumulating knowledge that may lead to more clarity about this area among the stakeholders in the future. In addition, it is important to read these findings along with those from research on students’ and parents’ perspectives on this matter as they are important stakeholders to the school counselling process as well (Collins & Knowles, Reference Collins and Knowles1995; Fox & Butler, Reference Fox and Butler2007; Lau Reference Lau2009).
The themes discussed in this article suggest that the stakeholders’ views have a role in the integration of counselling services in school and the community. Their views represent their thoughts, feelings and experiences of those working with the growing service in Singapore. The need to establish a common understanding between teachers, school and community counsellors on confidentiality and information exchange is clearly an urgent one. It lays the important foundation for the stakeholders to work together to deliver better care to students and their families. The extensive discussions about the need for, and the concerns on how to work with families further support the prospects for more dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders to develop a comfortable tripartite working relationship. As suggested in earlier studies, the quality of working relationships among stakeholders is an important aspect of an effective school counselling service (Cromarty & Richards, Reference Cromarty and Richards2009; Harris, Reference Harris2009). Chong et al. (Reference Chong, Lee, Tan, Wong and Yeo2013) and Kok (Reference Kok2013) also recommended closer collaborative working relationships between stakeholders.
The current study supports this view and proposes a graphical illustration of how stakeholders’ working relationships in particular could evolve in the near future (Figure 1). Teachers, school and community counsellors in the current situation are working towards better care and support for students and families but in a relatively independent manner. The future presents possibilities for teachers, school and community counsellors to close the gaps between each other and coordinate interventions for students and families. Figure 1 depicts a generic integrated working system for the future which, depending on the situation, any stakeholder within the system could use to influence and lead others in their joint effort for the child/student and their family. The establishment of a common understanding on how these stakeholders could work to engage families, and to exchange information undoubtedly forms the foundation for the working relationship to evolve and mature as the school counselling services grow. A case management approach used in Australia (De Jong & Griffiths, Reference De Jong and Griffiths2008) may be useful. Perhaps an urban school-based family counselling model, as illustrated by Evans and Carter (Reference Evans and Carter1997), or more specifically, the Community-sited: Agency model of school-based family counselling as described by Gerrard (Reference Gerrard2008) maybe an option to consider. A better referral system between schools and community-based agencies such as FSCs may be a possible solution as well. While integrated or seamless working models have been established or are being establishing elsewhere, Singapore seems to be evolving towards a suitable model for itself, which will become more evident in the near future.
Stakeholders’ working system.
Limitations
The current study was conducted in an attempt to explore stakeholders’ perceptions of school counselling through interviews that reflected their views. The small sample size of each group of stakeholders, however, restricted the exploration. By extension of this observation, future studies in this area should gather a larger sample size, perhaps 15 participants in each stakeholder group. While the focus of this study was clearly placed on understanding the stakeholders involved directly and professionally in school counselling services, inclusion of others such as school leaders, parents and students in a single larger study will help create a meaningful ecological review of school counselling in Singapore.
Conclusion
The current study seemed to show that school counsellors were adapting to the school setting and the various aspects of their work. They were seen to be striving to establish a working relationship with school leaders while mindful of the line of reporting between them. The data also suggests that school counsellors are trying to balance the need to share information with colleagues in the school context and the need to maintain reasonable confidentiality for the students they work with. In addition, school counsellors often have to make a conscious choice on how much they should attend to students’ parents and families. Collectively, the findings revealed that the school counsellors, as new members of the school system, are constantly in a balancing act as they are finding their suitable positions in the schools.
As the school counselling service matures, stakeholders, including school leaders and counsellors, may focus on developing clarity and consensus on matters concerning working with families, confidentiality and exchange of information, as well as working relationships. While these findings are not representative of a cross-section of Singapore, it has provided a channel to hear stakeholders’ experience of the implementation of the nationwide counselling service in schools. Finally, this article adds to the global understanding of the impacts of the ever-changing social-cultural environment surrounding child development across cultures.
