Issues in the Field

Today, we at IPCAP met again (we've been doing this quite regularly) and discussed among the agenda current issues in the field. Among those that I find disturbing include the shutting off of the Guidance Center in schools where there are no resident Registered Guidance Counselors or RGC. The Guidance Counselors who used to man the Guidance Center were either laid off, or moved to a different area such as teaching. One of us called some schools to invite Guidance personnel only to be told that there is no one in the Center and that it has been closed. Will there be schools now having NO GUIDANCE COUNSELORS simply because there are no RGC's? Is this now saying that schools can survive having NO GUIDANCE COUNSELORS. Has the time come for the schools to be the first to say that it can go on without these people? Who will be doing the Guidance Counseling then? Will Guidance Counseling still be important? If not, what will licensure be all about then?

The question then was raised, as it has been raised in Congress last May 26, 2009: has the law produced more problems or solved problems? Has it brought harm or good? I know of certain people who communicated with me about being laid off. This is one of the effects of the law: retrenchment of our colleagues. And I bet that person's not alone. The closing of the Guidance Center is I think by far the worst of it all. This is really sad because those who worked for the law may have thought that when there is licensure, the supply of Guidance Counselors will be available. Right now, the demand is so high, but the supply is so low.

Now comes in the economics of it. We at IPCAP got reports and sharing that certain RGCs were being pirated to another "high-paying" institution. "Come to us and we offer you this much." When this said RGC was about to resign and move to another institution, this said institution raised the RGCs pay just to stay! Actually, this can be really exploited.

The other issue is using the license of the RGC in the absence of the said RGC just so the school can maintain its Guidance Services Center. This reminds me of a close relative who is a licensed pharmacist who was offered some funds if only the license could be "borrowed". The said relative disagreed because ayaw niya na on-call siya. The law can be quite clear about this.

And still another issue is the presence among the more or less 1,500 RGCs of those who are not qualified to be Guidance Counselors in the school. Of course we all know that Guidance and Counseling is not purely for the schools. We have RGCs who are into Community Counseling, Pastoral Counseling, Private Practice. Many of them are not Guidance Counseling doctorate, masters nor bachelor's holders, hence they are not qualified to do school counseling. Therein now comes the scope of this profession.

There are schools too, who for having no RGC, now resort to "spiritual counseling" instead. Shall Guidance Centers without RGCs now be identified as Spiritual Counseling Centers? Are we into really challenging times? This should spur lots of research and literature in the field since we are into these situations. Those in their masters and doctorates may pick this issue so that we can really come up with a clear identity as a profession.

Lastly, although there may still be a lot you may want to let us know of, is the issue on salaries. Many of our colleagues, RGCs at that, are paid rather lower than teachers. Rightly so, said one administrator, because schools can afford to lose Guidance Counselors but cannot lose teachers. Schools are centers for instruction. But look, retorted some, as RGC's we have our masters while many of the teachers do not have our level of education yet end up paid lower? The population we serve appears to be more than that of the teacher who only deals with at most 60 (I know this is too many), while the currently approved ratio is 1:500 (1 Guidance Counselor per 500 students). And when it comes to certain cases, it is possible that teachers are kept away from knowing the cases of some students. So we hear comments like, "Ang hirap nito. Pagod ka na, mababa pa ang bayad." But we all know that we don't work for pay only. We work as Guidance Counselors because we love to help (Enneagram #2 ka ba?), and the pay may not be the only source of our joy and meaning. But in our world today, we need something better. This is high time to really come together for our needs.

Hope we all look into our dear profession and collectively discuss the possible directions to take. May God bless us all. Take care