Elementary and Secondary School Counselors' Perceptions of Graduate Preparation Programs: A National Study

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2005 • Volume 45 109

Elementary and Secondary School Counselors’Perceptions of Graduate Preparation Programs:A National Study

Rachelle Pérusse & Gary E. Goodnough

In a national survey, members from the American School Counse-lor Association were asked to rate the importance of graduate-leveltraining for 24 course content areas. Analysis indicated that therewere similarities and significant differences between elementaryschool counselors and secondary school counselors on their per-ception of the importance of various course content areas. Impli-cations for school counselor education were discussed.

Previous research has shown that there is variability with regard towhat counselor educators require school counseling students to takeas course requirements in an entry-level program (Pérusse, Goodnough,& Noël, 2001). This research was conducted to determine school coun-selors’ perceptions of the importance of graduate-level training inspecific course content areas during their preparation as professionalschool counselors. Responses of elementary school counselors andsecondary school counselors were also compared.

Studies have found that there are few differences in preservice edu-cation for elementary and secondary school counselors (Ballard &Murgatroyd, 1999; Hosie & Mackey, 1985; Pérusse et al., 2001). Manystates (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], n.d.) certifytheir school counselors K–12, requiring that counselor educators teacha broad spectrum of courses. In a national survey of school counse-lor preparation programs (Pérusse et al., 2001), school counseloreducators were surveyed about course content areas that were re-quired and/or specifically designed for students in an entry-levelschool counseling program. The researchers, Pérusse et al. (2001),provided counselor educators with a list of course content areas andallowed respondents to fill in responses regarding what course con-tent was required for school counseling students. These researchersfound that the majority of programs offered a core set of courses for allof their counseling students, regardless of specialization, as well as anaverage of one or two courses specifically designed for school counselingstudents. For example, more than 90% of programs offered courses incareer and lifestyle development; theories in counseling; testing,assessment, and appraisal; group counseling/group work; helping re-lationships; research methods and evaluation; development across the

Rachelle Pérusse, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut;Gary E. Goodnough, Counselor Education, Plymouth State University. This re-search was funded by the State of New York/UUP Affirmative Action/DiversityCommittee. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to RachellePérusse, Department of Educational Psychology, 249 Glenbrook Road Unit 2064,Storrs, CT 06269-2064 (e-mail: [email protected]).

© 2005 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 109–118

110 Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2005 • Volume 45

life span; and multicultural counseling. Regarding the courses de-signed specifically for school counseling students, approximately14% of respondents indicated that their programs offered sepa-rate courses for secondary and elementary school counseling.

Besides knowing what counselor educators are teaching, it is equallyimportant to know how school counselors perceive their graduate-level course content in relation to their work as professional schoolcounselors. During the past few years, there seems to have been anincrease in studies about the perceptions of school counselors abouta variety of specific course work areas or training needs, includingcomprehensive guidance and counseling programs (Sink & Yillik-Downer, 2001), Council for Accreditation of Counseling and RelatedEducational Programs (CACREP; 2001) standards (Holcomb-McCoy,Bryan, & Rahill, 2002), career development (Barker & Satcher, 2000),crisis intervention (Allen et al., 2002), multicultural counseling com-petence (Holcomb-McCoy, 2001), the ASCA National Standards andthe Transforming School Counseling Initiative (Pérusse, Goodnough,Donegan, & Jones, 2004), students with disabilities (Dunn & Baker,2002; Milsom, 2002), students with HIV disease (Carney & Cobia,2003), and interest in research (Bauman et al., 2002). However, noneof these studies examined school counselors’ perceptions about theirgraduate training programs with regard to the relative importance ofcontent areas included in graduate preparation. One study that ex-amined school counselors’ perceptions of the relative importance ofgraduate-level training was limited to respondents from Oregon anddid not focus specifically on course content areas typically taught incounselor education programs (Pérusse et al., 2001). Sisson and Bullis(1992) asked school counselors in Oregon to rank order educationalpriorities for graduate-level school counseling programs. Thirty-eightschool counselor training issues were divided among each of fivedomains: knowledge and information, counseling skills, role andfunction, consultation, and personal and professional issues. Eachdomain contained six to nine items, and school counselors wereasked to rank order each item within each domain. Overall, thefollowing training areas were the most highly ranked: counselingtheories, personal problems, comprehensive programs, in-schoolconsultation, and self-understanding. Lowest ranked items were thefollowing: research and evaluation, play therapy, using computers,consultation with community professionals, and writing and research.There were statistically significant differences among the three levelsof school counselors (that is, elementary, middle school, and highschool counselors) regarding the importance of counselor prepara-tion in suicide prevention, career development, leading groups, drugand alcohol abuse, play therapy, classroom guidance, evaluation oftest information, parent training, classroom management with teach-ers, and consultation with community professionals.

In the current national study, professional school counselorswere surveyed about what they perceived as important course con-tent areas in preparing for a profession in school counseling. Be-cause previous research had shown differences in what school


counselor educators were teaching (Pérusse et al., 2001), the cur-rent research was designed to ascertain what professional schoolcounselors viewed as important course content. Our research ques-tions were designed to disaggregate the data by level. This studyaddressed two research questions:

1. How do elementary school counselors and secondary schoolcounselors rate the level of importance of graduate-level train-ing in specific course content areas?

2. How are elementary school counselors and secondary school coun-selors alike or different in their perceptions about the importanceof graduate-level training in specific course content areas?

Method

Participants

The method was similar to that found in Pérusse et al. (2004). Asample of 1,000 professional school counselors, representing all50 states, was randomly generated by ASCA from the ASCA mem-bership database. For statistical analyses, respondents were cat-egorized according to the grade levels they served. School counselorswho worked with students in any grade level from K through 6were categorized as elementary, and those who worked with stu-dents in any grade level from 9 through 12 were categorized assecondary. Of those respondents indicating grade level, there were218 elementary school counselors, 352 secondary school counse-lors, and 33 who worked at more than one level. Only 24 respon-dents identified themselves as middle school counselors and wereomitted from data analysis due to their small numbers.

Procedure

Using the Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978), questionnaireswere mailed to 1,000 ASCA members. In order to keep track ofreturned surveys, respondents were asked to identify themselvesby name or institutional affiliation. This self-identification wasseparated from the questionnaire immediately upon receipt. After1 week, a postcard reminder was sent. Three weeks later, a follow-up mailing was sent to those who had not yet responded. A total of636 (63.6%) questionnaires were returned and 568 (56.8%) wereappropriate for use in this study.

Instrument

Twenty-four course content areas were used as stem items. These 24content areas were taken directly from a combination of five sources,until all content areas listed from these sources were exhausted: (a)the CACREP Standards (CACREP, 2001), (b) Hollis (2000), (c) resultsfrom a previous survey of counselor educators about required coursework for school counseling students (Pérusse et al., 2001), (d) Sissonand Bullis (1992), and (e) results from a review of the literature.Respondents were asked to rate each course content area on a scale


of 1 to 5 (1 = not important, 2 = limited importance, 3 = moderate impor-tance, 4 = important, 5 = very important), indicating the degree of im-portance of graduate-level training for school counselors in eachcontent area. In order to ensure that we had included as many rel-evant course content areas as possible, respondents were asked toprovide additional comments about graduate-level preparation oradditional course work suggestions. Additional comments were re-viewed by the first and second authors and independently placedinto categories. After review and discussion, consensus was reachedabout the placement of statements into each of the categories. Threenationally recognized school counseling professionals were asked toreview the survey instrument for completeness and accuracy. Thesereviewers were selected based on their service in CACREP and ASCA.

Results

Research Question 1

Table 1 shows the 24 course content areas in the order of impor-tance based on mean rank for elementary school counselors and

TABLE 1

Summary of Graduate-Level Course Content Areas by Rank forElementary and Secondary School Counselors

Rank/Elementary School Counselors

Individual counseling (including crisisintervention)

Small group counselingConsultation with parents and teachersUnderstanding child growth and

developmentLegal/ethical issues in counselinga

Classroom guidance curriculuma

Coordination between teachers, parents,community

Multicultural counselingTheories in counselingDrug and alcohol abuseProgram evaluation and developmentCase management of student’s progressParent educationAssessment techniquesPlay therapyCareer developmentSchool lawSpecial educationPublic relationsa

Curriculum and instruction (includingclassroom management)a

Psychopathology, DSM-IV, diagnosisComputer and related technologyCouple and family counselingWriting, research, and grant proposals

Rank/Secondary School Counselors

Note. Rank is derived from the mean.aIndicates that the two adjacent areas received the same mean score.

Individual counseling (including crisisintervention)

Consultation with parents and teachersSmall group counselingLegal/ethical issues in counselingUnderstanding child growth and

developmentCareer developmentMulticultural counselingDrug and alcohol abusea

Coordination between teachers,parents, communitya

Classroom guidance curriculumCase management of student’s progressTheories in counselingAssessment techniquesSchool lawSpecial educationComputer and related technologyProgram evaluation and developmentPublic relationsParent educationPsychopathology, DSM-IV, diagnosisCouple and family counselingCurriculum and instruction (Including

classroom management)Play therapyWriting, research, and grant proposals

1

234

567

89

1011121314151617181920

21222324

1

2345

6789

10111213141516171819202122

2324


secondary school counselors. Ranked data were obtained in a two-step process (Huck, 2000). Respondents rated each course con-tent area separately on a scale of 1 to 5. The mean for each coursecontent area was used to determine the ranked position of eachcourse content area within each respondent group. The five high-est ranked content areas were the same for both elementary andsecondary school counselors: individual counseling (including crisisinterventions), small group counseling, consultation with parentsand teachers, understanding child growth and development, andlegal/ethical issues in counseling. In addition, elementary schoolcounselors had a tied rank between legal/ethical issues in coun-seling and classroom guidance curriculum. Four of the five lowestranked content areas for elementary and secondary school coun-selors were the same: psychopathology, DSM-IV (Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed.), and diagnosis; coupleand family counseling; curriculum and instruction (including class-room management); and writing, research, and grant proposals.The following were also included in the lowest ranked contentareas for elementary school counselors: public relations, and com-puter and related technology. Play therapy was among those con-tent areas rated lowest for secondary school counselors. Overall,the mean ranks for 18 of the 24 course content areas were foundto be within three positions of each other. Those content areasthat were ranked farther than three ranks apart between the twogroups were career development, play therapy, computer and re-lated technology, parent education, program evaluation and de-velopment, and classroom guidance curriculum.

Research Question 2

Means and standard deviations for the 24 stem items can be seenin Table 2. Because Likert-type scales can be considered ordinaldata (Huck, 2000), it is appropriate to use a Mann-Whitney U witha significance level of .05 to test for group differences between el-ementary school counselors and secondary school counselors. Therewere no significant differences in mean rank between elementaryschool counselors and secondary school counselors in the follow-ing course content areas: assessment techniques, multiculturalcounseling, couple and family counseling, legal/ethical issues incounseling, school law, special education, case management ofstudent’s progress, and public relations.

Elementary school counselors rated the following content areas sig-nificantly higher in importance than did secondary school counselors:understanding child growth and development; theories in counseling;psychopathology, DSM-IV, and diagnosis; play therapy; curriculum andinstruction (including classroom management); individual counseling(including crisis interventions); small group counseling; consultationwith parents and teachers; coordination between teachers, parents,and community; classroom guidance curriculum; program evalua-tion and development/needs assessment; parent education; writing,research, and grant proposals. Secondary school counselors rated


three content areas significantly higher than did elementary schoolcounselors: career development, drug and alcohol abuse, and com-puter and related technology.

Additional Comments

Two hundred ninety-eight school counselors wrote additional com-ments to the prompt “Additional comments about graduate-levelpreparation or additional course work suggestions.” Categories thatwere addressed by at least 10% of the respondents included (a) ad-ditional course work suggestions (n = 109, 36.6%), (b) the impor-tance of fieldwork and on-the-job experience (n = 40, 13.4%), and (c)comments about their own graduate school preparation (n = 37,12.8%). Additional course work suggestions included counseling forspecific student personal/social issues (n = 27, 9.1%), special edu-cation (n = 14, 4.7%), school law (n = 14, 7.5%; secondary school

TABLE 2

The Degree of Importance of Graduate-Level Training in EachCourse Content Area as Perceived by Elementary and Secondary

School Counselors

Course Content Area

Understanding child growth and developmentTheories in counselingCareer developmentAssessment techniquesMulticultural counselingPsychopathology, DSM-IV, diagnosisDrug and alcohol abuseCouple and family counselingLegal/ethical issues in counselingComputer and related technologyPlay therapySchool lawSpecial educationCurriculum and instruction (including

classroom management)Individual counseling (including crisis

interventions)Small group counselingConsultation with parents and teachersCoordination between teachers, parents,

communityCase management of student’s progressClassroom guidance curriculumProgram evaluation and development, needs

assessmentParent educationWriting, research, and grant proposalsPublic relations

Secondary SchoolCounselors

Note. Means with different subscripts in the same row are significantly different atp < .05.

Elementary SchoolCounselors

M MSD SD

4.75a4.25a3.98a4.014.363.71a4.16a3.374.65a3.47a4.00a3.943.92

3.88a

4.93a4.89a4.76a

4.49a4.134.65a

4.14a4.06a3.14a3.88

4.52b4.04b4.44b3.974.393.35b4.34b3.274.54b3.81b2.85b3.933.90

3.11b

4.81b4.57b4.62b

4.34b4.064.08b

3.78b3.57b2.74b3.72

0.510.850.790.850.741.000.761.090.630.970.970.980.87

0.92

0.260.360.53

0.780.820.67

0.770.830.930.90

0.710.900.650.830.771.020.731.130.700.881.080.960.94

1.05

0.480.690.59

0.750.820.93

0.890.920.940.98


counselors only), and college counseling (n = 13, 7.0%; secondaryschool counselors only). One additional course work categoryemerged for each of the groups. Of the 187 secondary school coun-selors who responded, 31 said that they wanted graduate-levelpreparation to be more “realistic,” which included scheduling andother clerical tasks (n = 31, 16.6%), and of the 111 elementaryschool counselors responding, 21 (n = 21, 18.9%) said they wantedmore course work about how to implement a comprehensive pro-gram. Other identified categories included the importance of priorteaching experience (n = 14, 4.7%) and preparation should reflectthat elementary school counseling is different from secondary schoolcounseling (n = 7, 6.3%; elementary school counselors only).

Discussion

Limitations of the Study

Because all respondents were ASCA members, results cannot begeneralized to all professional school counselors. Therefore, re-sults might be viewed as a preliminary study. Furthermore,because the data were drawn from a random ASCA sample, middleschool counselors and K–12 school counselors were removed fromthe data analysis due to small numbers. A stratified random samplewould have increased the number of middle school and K–12 schoolcounselors and allowed further analysis by work level.

Although course content areas used in constructing the question-naire were selected from and consistent with other sources, they areopen to interpretation by those being surveyed. However, with theexception of college counseling, all of the additional course work sug-gestions offered by school counselors were already represented inthe survey instrument. In addition, the course content categories onthe survey instrument did not capture the statements by some schoolcounselors that preparation needed to relate more to the real work ofthe school counselor or their perceptions about how each of thesecourse content areas should be taught. Respondents’ views may havebeen biased by their own graduate-level experiences.

Importance of Graduate-Level Training

The five highest rated course content areas were the same for bothelementary and secondary school counselors, as were four of the fivelowest ranked items, suggesting that elementary and secondary schoolcounselors have similar perceptions about the importance of these coursecontent areas. Those course content areas where elementary and sec-ondary school counselors were significantly different and farthestapart, according to their placement in the ranks, included career coun-seling, computer technology, classroom guidance curriculum, programevaluation and development, parent education, and play therapy.

Counselor educators might use the data collected here to refinetheir programs to reflect the perceptions of what course contentareas are most important to professional school counselors, andthey might also provide different curricula based on whether students


desire to work at the elementary or secondary level. With few excep-tions, including the course content areas of consultation and research,results from the five highest rated and the lowest rated items parallelwhat a majority of counselor educators are teaching. For example, inrelation to the five highest rated areas, previous research (Pérusse etal., 2001) has shown that more than 90% of counselor education pro-grams required course work in helping relationships, group counsel-ing, and child development. Courses in legal/ethical issues andconsultation were required by 78.8% and 20.1% of counselor educa-tion programs surveyed, respectively.

In relation to those course content areas ranked in the bottom fiveby either group, according to Pérusse et al. (2001), fewer programsoffered courses in psychopathology (49.2%), couple and family coun-seling (48.1%), curriculum (13.2%), and play therapy (2.1%). The greatestdisparity between what counselor educators are teaching and ratingsby school counselors was for the course content area of writing, re-search, and grant proposals. Both elementary and secondary schoolcounselors rated this course content area lowest. According to Pérusseet al. (2001), a research course was required of school counseling stu-dents at more than 96% of counselor education programs. Even thoughmost school counselors are exposed to a course in research, researchand writing are seen as relatively least important in their professionallives. In their analysis of school counseling journals, Bauman et al.(2003) found that the percentage of journal articles authored by schoolcounseling practitioners affiliated with a K–12 program has been steadilydeclining since the 1950s. Writing and research was also the lowestranked item in Sisson and Bullis’s (1992) study.

On the other end of the spectrum, national attention has beenfocused on connecting the work of the school counselor with thecurrent school reform movement (Dahir, 2001; House & Hayes, 2002).Counselor educators might desire to have their programs reflectthe national movements rather than rely solely on what professionalschool counselors perceive as important course content areas. Thetwo are not necessarily mutually exclusive; however, the currentreform movements emphasize course content areas that school coun-selors rated as relatively lower in importance.

The ASCA National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Pro-grams (ASCA, 2003) includes four elements: foundation, deliverysystem, management systems, and accountability. According to ASCA(2003), public relations, computer technology, and writing and researchskills are essential and inextricable elements of any school counselingprogram, yet these were all rated among the lowest in level of im-portance. School counselors implement data-driven programs toadvocate for school counseling positions against job cuts, affect courseenrollment patterns, demonstrate the impact of interventions, and closethe achievement gap (Stone & Martin, 2004; Stone & Turba, 1999).Being able to demonstrate to stakeholders how students can benefitfrom an effective school counseling program is essential when coun-seling jobs are in danger of being cut during times when schoolbudgets are tight. Managing a data system necessitates the use of


computer technology. Computer technology is also used to gainknowledge from Web sites, online journals, and electronic news-letters. Also, school counselors can assist students who are ex-ploring college and career options using computer technology (VanHorn & Myrick, 2001).

To meet these new standards and models, it is clear that profes-sional school counselors must place greater emphasis on usingdata, conducting program assessments and evaluation, promot-ing schoolwide change, instructing classroom guidance activities,and using computer technology to monitor student progress andclose achievement gaps. Furthermore, it is important to note thatcourse content areas rated lowest in importance by school counse-lors, all of whom were ASCA members, are among the essential skillsneeded for school counselors to provide accountability to stakeholdersand advocacy for students, both of which are elements of the ASCANational Model.

Implications for Counselor Education and Future Research

As can be seen from these data, the most highly ranked and lowestranked items (with the exception of consultation and research) wereconsistent with what the majority of school counselor educators areteaching or, in relation to the lowest ranked items, not teaching. Fur-ther research might illuminate whether there is a relationship be-tween the courses school counselors were required to take in theirgraduate preparation programs and their ratings of the importancein each of these content areas. Also of interest would be further stud-ies about what is being taught in research courses for school coun-seling students and whether these courses are relevant to the workof the professional school counselor.

Are school counselors the best source for determining the future ofschool counselor education, or are these data best viewed as perceptionsbased on current practice? Many questions seem yet to be answeredregarding whether counselor educators might design their curriculumaround what professional school counselors deem as important, whatASCA deems as important, what the literature shows, a combination ofthese, or some alternate option. Even for those institutions that are CACREP-accredited, there is flexibility in how the school counseling elements aretaught (CACREP, 2001). In what way do these varying course require-ments and discrepancies between what counselor educators are teach-ing and the national movements influence not only the curriculum inschool counselor preparation programs but, more generally, the profes-sional identity of school counselors? ASCA (2003) has called for a unifiedvision of school counseling. Future research might be directed to the util-ity of a unified vision for school counselor education and school counsel-ing and its effect on the professional identity of school counselors.

ReferencesAllen, M., Burt, K., Bryan, E., Carter, D., Orsi, R., & Durkan, L. (2002).

School counselors’ preparation for and participation in crisis interventions.Professional School Counseling, 6, 96–102.


American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA National Model: A frame-work for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (n.d.). Certification requirements. Retrieved January19, 2005, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=242

Ballard, M. B., & Murgatroyd, W. (1999). Defending a vital program: Schoolcounselors define their roles. NASSP Bulletin, 83(603), 19–26.

Barker, J., & Satcher, J. (2000). School counselors’ perceptions of required workplaceskills and career development competencies. Professional School Counseling,4, 134–139.

Bauman, S., Siegel, J. T., Davis, A., Falco, L. D., Seabolt, K., & Szymanski, G.(2002). School counselors’ interest in professional literature and research.Professional School Counseling, 5, 346–352.

Bauman, S., Siegel, J. T., Falco, L. D., Szymanski, G., Davis, A., & Seabolt, K.(2003). Trends in school counseling journals: The first fifty years. Profes-sional School Counseling, 7, 79–90.

Carney, J. S., & Cobia, D. C. (2003). The concerns of school counselors-in-trainingabout working with children and adolescents with HIV disease: Training implica-tions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 302–313.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001).CACREP accreditation standards and procedures manual. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Dahir, C. A. (2001). The national standards for school counseling programs: Devel-opment and implementation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 320–327.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.Dunn, N. A. W., & Baker, S. B. (2002). Readiness to serve students with

disabilities: A survey of elementary school counselors. Professional SchoolCounseling, 5, 277–284.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. C. (2001). Exploring the self-perceived multicultural coun-seling competence of elementary school counselors. Professional School Coun-seling, 4, 195–201.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. C., Bryan, J., & Rahill, S. (2002). Importance of the CACREPschool counseling standards: School counselors’ perceptions. ProfessionalSchool Counseling, 6, 112–119.

Hollis, J. W. (2000). Counselor preparation, 1999–2001: Programs, faculty, trends(10th ed.). Washington, DC: Accelerated Development.

Hosie, T. W., & Mackey, J. A. (1985). Elementary and secondary school counse-lor preparation programs: How different are they? Counselor Education andSupervision, 24, 283–290.

House, R. M., & Hayes, R. L. (2002). School counselors: Becoming key players inschool reform. Professional School Counseling, 5, 249–256.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.Milsom, A. (2002). Students with disabilities: School counselor involvement and

preparation. Professional School Counseling, 5, 331–338.Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of

school counselors and school principals about the national standards for schoolcounseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative. Profes-sional School Counseling, 7, 152–161.

Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., & Noël, C. (2001). A national survey of schoolcounselor preparation programs: Screening methods, faculty experiences,curricular content, and fieldwork requirements. Counselor Education andSupervision, 40, 252–262.

Sink, C. A., & Yillik-Downer, A. (2001). School counselors’ perceptions of com-prehensive guidance and counseling programs: A national survey. Profes-sional School Counseling, 4, 278–288.

Sisson, C. F., & Bullis, M. (1992). Survey of school counselors’ perceptions ofgraduate training priorities. The School Counselor, 40, 109–117.

Stone, C. B., & Martin, P. (2004, January/February). Data-driven decision-makers. ASCA School Counselor, 11–17.

Stone, C. B., & Turba, R. (1999). School counselors using technology foradvocacy. Journal of Technology in Counseling, 1(1). Retrieved February29, 2004, from http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol1_1/advocacy.htm

Van Horn, S. M., & Myrick, R. D. (2001). Computer technology and the 21stcentury school counselor. Professional School Counseling, 5, 124–130.

Documents

Elementary and Secondary School Counselors' Perceptions of Graduate Preparation Programs: A National Study