HOME PREFACE

Site-Based Counseling in Elementary Schools

Ronald S. Kiyuna, EdD

Christopher Lucey, PhD

Susan M.Tracz, PhD

California State University, Fresno

Department of Counseling and Special Education

Abstract

Academically at-risk students face chronic multiple-stressors leading to significant emotional distress, which hinders educational and personal achievement. An effective remedy for this concern includes successfully integrating counseling with the school’s educational mission. This study describes a counseling service established by an elementary school and a counselor education program at a regional university. The setting for the presented model is an urban, lower socioeconomic and ethnically diverse elementary school. The data analyzed for this report represent a five-year time period. The most frequently cited reasons for referral included low academic performance, low motivation and disruptive behavior. An analysis of the teacher assessment, counselor trainee assessment and student satisfaction scores revealed significant correlation values (p < .01), suggesting hopeful outcomes for such programs.

Background

Students performing below academic expectations while exhibiting heightened emotional and behavioral difficulties are an increasing concern for school personnel.  Academic and behavioral problems are often interrelated and may result in or precipitate mental health issues (Roeser, Eccles, & Strobel, 1998). According to Keys, Bemak, and Lockhart (1998), academically at-risk students face a multitude of environmental pressures associated with extreme poverty, chaotic family environments, physical and sexual abuse, and violence. Frequently, these stressors are multiple in presentation and chronic in nature, leading to significant emotional distress that hinders academic and personal success (Hobbs & Collison, 1995).

School personnel are under mounting pressure at the local, state, and federal level to devise curriculum that enhances student learning (Jones-Sears, 1993). Yet, they also struggle with chronic student problems that include high transient rates, poverty, discipline and emotional issues (J. Caspar, personal communication, October 10, 1996). While school administrators recognize the importance of developing and implementing comprehensive academic programming that includes mental health services, the reality of limited resources frequently poses challenges to creating such innovative programs (Tracz, Gehart, Kiyuna, & Lucas, 2001).

Establishing collaborative ventures between schools and regional universities is a way of mitigating the aforementioned resource constraints. In this way, all parties can benefit. These collaborations can offer cost-effective services to schools while providing educational opportunities for universities. The schools receive much needed counseling services for at-risk students while graduate counselor trainees receive relevant training experience.

The success of these school/university collaboratives depends upon the overall effectiveness of the services provided. Assessing student satisfaction with counseling is one measure used to assess program success. By measuring student satisfaction with counseling, valuable insight is gained. However, additional measures that corroborate student satisfaction scores are needed. According to LaSala (1997), incorporating evaluations of progress from various sources provides a more accurate and valid assessment of student outcomes. Comparing student satisfaction ratings with teacher and counselor trainee assessment of treatment outcomes provide additional evaluation measures from which program effectiveness can be discerned. 

Statement of Purpose

            This study describes a cost-effective counseling collaborative model established by an elementary school and a regional, university counselor education program. The model was designed to address the emotional and behavioral needs of at-risk students while providing an in-vivo training experience for graduate counseling students. This study also documents teacher referral patterns over a five-year period and reports student satisfaction with counseling as well as teachers’ and counselor trainees’ assessment of treatment progress.

Service Area Description

The service region represented in this study reflects a rich ethnic diversity with a population comprised of 45% Caucasians, 39% Hispanics, 11% Asians and Pacific Islanders, 5% African Americans and 1% Native Americans (State of California Department of Finance, 2000). Economically, this region has the fifth highest rate of unemployment in California at 14.3% (State of California Employment Development Department, 2000) with 37.6% of children ages 5-17 living in poverty  (United States Bureau of the Census, 2000). Educationally, nearly 32% of the county’s residents have less than a 12th grade education, and 21% have less than a ninth-grade education (United States Bureau of the Census, 2000). Ethnically and economically, the population of the targeted school is representative of the regional population.

The enrollment at this school site ranges between 860 and 920 students. The ethnicity representation is 49% Hispanics, 24% Southeast Asians, 17% Caucasians, 10% African Americans and less than 1% of Pacific Islanders, Filipinos and Native Americans.

Site-Based School Counseling

The site-based counseling model has been operating since 1996. This program was designed as a collaborative effort between an elementary

school and a counselor education program at a regional university located in central California. The goal of the project has been to provide

cost-effective mental health services to students and their families while providing an in-vivo training experience for graduate students enrolled

in the university’s counselor education program. 

The counselor trainees participated in the program for two semesters as per educational requirements and were under direct supervision of a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. As counseling services were provided by counselor trainees, no costs for counseling sessions were accrued by the local school district. The trainees placed at the school site have had coursework, training, and practicum experiences in family therapy, diagnosis, and child and adolescent therapy. In addition to improving their counseling skills, the trainees were expected to learn the process of implementing therapeutic services in an elementary school setting. Through collaborating with teachers, administrators, parents and children, an integration of therapeutic and educational goals were fostered.

The site-based location of the counseling services provided children and their parents with a familiar and emotionally safe place. According to

Paalova (1995), schools are in a unique and strategic position as a social institution with which children and their families have prolonged and

regular involvement. The counseling service was designed as a “pullout” program; students were counseled during their class time for 30-45

minute sessions at the school site counseling center. The “counseling center” was a designated bungalow shared with the special education

services.  One-half of the room was cordoned-off into three separate counseling rooms. Storybooks, toys, sand trays, art supplies, puppets and

interactive games were available for use in counseling sessions. Given the cognitive and developmental ages of the student population, non-

verbal mediums such as play therapy were frequently employed to allow the children to process their underlying concerns in a manner that was

developmentally appropriate (Axline, 1993).

Therapeutic Model

The therapeutic model utilized was based upon the Narrative (White & Epstein, 1990) and Solution Focus (Walter & Peller, 1992) frameworks. These approaches address student concerns by discovering and exploring personal strengths and resources as a means to overcome both academic and emotional difficulties. The majority of the interventions were delivered via a play therapy format, which was well suited to the strength-based approaches (Freeman, Epston & Lobobitz, 1997; Selekman, 1997). In addition to the play-therapy interventions, taking walks with students on the playground, playing basketball, soccer and other more physically active interventions were also employed. These non-traditional interventions were conceptually consistent with the therapeutic model and were designed to build upon students’ existing strengths and resources.

 An intervention of counseling-while-tutoring was devised to simultaneously address emotional and behavioral issues through academic

tutoring. There appeared to be a reciprocal relationship between academic and emotional difficulties. Hence, tailoring counseling interventions

that impact both academic and emotional problems were incorporated as a means to disrupt the negative cycle of failure.

While counseling was usually conducted on an individual basis, when appropriate, small groups working with two to four students were also

employed.  An ongoing concern in these groups was maintaining confidentiality and preventing inadvertent disclosure on the playground or at

other inappropriate times. The group topics, therefore, typically focused upon social skill development, violence reduction/prevention via anger

management and assertion training.

            The therapeutic interventions used focused on the emotional well being and educational achievement of students. As frequently as possible, parents were encouraged to attend sessions, both individual and conjoint with the child. Encouraging parents to participate in the counseling process recognizes the influence of families in children’s academic success or failure (Lewis, 1996; Widerman & Widerman, 1995). Routine attempts were made to contact parents to discuss their child’s concerns. Parents were encouraged to consult with the counselor trainees and to actively participate in the services provided.

Services Delivered

During the five-year span that this program has been in operation, 221 students received between 5 to 12 counseling sessions (See Table 1). The majority of students received individual counseling only (N =191), with 25 students receiving both group and/or individual counseling and five students receiving only group counseling.

Though counseling sessions for parents were far fewer, a total of 149 parents were consulted face-to-face or by telephone. Consultation with teachers/administrators regarding student issues occurred regularly; the number of teacher consultations regarding their particular students totaled 164. There were only 19 cases in which consultation with teachers did not take place.  (See Table 1).

Methodology

Research Questions

What are the teacher referral patterns of elementary-aged students over a five-year period? What are the intercorrelations between student satisfaction, teacher and counselor trainee assessment of therapeutic progress?

Subjects

Table 2 presents the demographic information for the 221 subjects in this study who received counseling services.  This sample consisted of 133 (60%) males and 88 (39.5%) females.  The largest ethnic group was Hispanic (N = 97, 44%), followed by Caucasians (N = 77, 35%), African Americans (N = 28, 13%), those of mixed ethnicity (N = 14, 5%), Southeast Asian (N = 1, 0.5%), Other (N = 1, 0.5%) and three students whose ethnic identity information was missing  (N = 3, 1%).  The percentages of students referred from kindergarten to the fourth grade ranged from 9 to 20%.  The highest percentages of referrals were for students in the fifth-grade (N = 45, 20%), the second-grade  (N=38, 17%) and the sixth-grade (N = 38, 17%). (See Table 2).

Procedures

When students were identified as counseling candidates, the referring teacher completed an Educational Risk Assessment (ERA) checklist that

included a listing of concerns categorized under academic, attendance, student safety and school climate, other presenting school problems

and factors affecting school problems (see instrumentation section). Once the assessment was completed and a consent-to-counsel form was

signed by the parent or legal guardian, counseling was initiated. The number of counseling sessions each child received was determined by the

nature of the presenting concern and therapeutic progress.  While there were no limits to the number of counseling sessions provided to

students, factors such as being “off-track” in the year-round school schedule, family-relocation and counselor trainees’ scheduling practices

did affect the number of counseling sessions conducted.

            Upon completion of the counseling services, the student satisfaction, teacher assessment and counselor trainee assessment scores were

collected. The data were entered into the database and were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package.

Instruments

As sessions were initiated, the referring teacher was asked to complete an ERA form for each referred student. Items on this instrument were

organized under two major categories, Presenting School Problem(s) and Factors Affecting Presenting School Problem(s), and included the

following five sub-sections: Academic Achievement, Attendance, Student Safety and School Climate, Other Presenting School Problems and

Factors Affecting Presenting School Problems.  Table 3 lists the presenting concerns included in the ERA and the frequencies and percentages

that each was reported. The referring teacher was asked to check all relevant behavioral, emotional and environmental concerns.

Student satisfaction with counseling services received was measured by the following question: “I am happy with the counseling that I received.” The students were asked to select the most appropriate response based upon a five-point scale. In addition, teachers and counselor trainees independently rated the degree of overall treatment progress using a five-point scale.

Results

The frequencies and percentages of presenting school problems rated by teachers appear in Table 3.  These ratings fall into five general categories.  In the Academic Achievement category, the highest frequencies occurred when students were behind in class (N = 86, 39%), not motivated (N = 82, 37%), had low overall achievement (N = 80, 37%), or did not turn in work (N = 75, 34%).  The lowest frequencies occurred for failing classes (N = 27, 12%) and a drop in grades (N = 25, 11%). 

The Attendance category had the lowest number of citations overall. The highest frequencies within this category were for frequent absences/truancies (N = 45, 21%), frequent tardiness (N = 30, 14%) and requests to see the school nurse (N = 14, 6%), while the lowest frequencies were for dropped out of school (N = 3, 1%), and for frequent cutting of classes (N = 1, 0.5%).

In the Student Safety and School Climate category, by far the most frequent presenting problem cited was being disruptive in class (N = 75, 34%) followed by being defiant (N = 39, 18%), being argumentative  (N = 37, 17%), and fighting (N = 26, 12%).  The item, signs of drug/alcohol abuse (N = 1, 0.4%), was the least frequently cited reason for referral.   

In the Other Presenting School Problems category, imminent risk of lowering academic achievement (N = 80, 37%) and developing discipline problems (N = 67, 31%) had the highest frequencies, while imminent risk of developing attendance problems (N = 38, 17%) and dropping out of school (N = 24, 11%) had the lowest frequencies.

            The final category of the ERA Form, Factors Affecting Presenting School Problems, included 28 items. Of these items, six of the most frequently selected are listed in Table 3. Family conflict/problems (N = 66, 30%) and experiencing poor peer relationships (N = 53, 24%) were the most frequently cited, followed by lives in violent neighborhood (N = 46, 21%) and adjustment to parent’s divorce (N =43, 20%). Less frequently indicated items were having teenaged parents (N = 36, 16%) and having a learning disability (N = 34, 15%). (See Table 3).

            The sample sizes, means and standard deviations for student satisfaction, teacher assessment and counselor trainee assessment appears in Table 4. Table 5 lists the intercorrelation coefficients between student satisfaction and teacher assessment (r = .57, p < .01), between student satisfaction and counselor trainee assessment (r = .42, p < .01), and between teacher assessment and counselor trainee assessment (r = .58, p < .01). All intercorrelations were significant at the p < .01 level and are in the upper moderate range.  A further analysis was conducted to determine if ethnic and grade differences existed in student satisfaction, teacher assessment and counselor trainee assessment of student progress scores.  Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations for student satisfaction, teacher assessment and counselor trainee assessment by ethnicity and grade level.  Only Hispanic, Caucasian and African American ethnicity groups were analyzed due to the small numbers of students in the other ethnic designations. ANOVA results indicated that no significant ethnic or grade level differences were found for student satisfaction (F = 1.58, df = 2,146, p = .21; F = .90, df = 6,157,  p = .50), for teacher assessment (F = 1.90, df = 2,144, p = .15; F = .33, df = 6,148, p = .92) and for counselor trainee assessment ( F = .98, df = 2, 167, p = .38; F = 1.42 df = 6,179 p = .21) by levels of ethnicity and grade respectively. (See Tables 4,5 & 6).

Discussion

            This study describes a cost-effective model for a site-based counseling program for elementary students and their families.  Included is a description of the student population in terms of ethnicity, gender and grade groupings and the referral reasons for counseling. Inercorrelation coefficients among reported levels of satisfaction of treatment by students, and the outcome assessment reported by teachers and counselor trainees were also presented.

            Overall, falling behind in class and lack of motivation were the two most frequent risk factors cited by referring teachers. This was further supported by a general concern about low academic achievement.   For student safety and school climate factors, classroom disruption was clearly the factor most frequently cited as a cause for referral to counseling. To a lesser degree defiant behaviors, students being argumentative and defiant were also cited reasons. This finding is in agreement with earlier studies suggesting that oppositional-defiant or externalizing behaviors as opposed to anxiety and/or social withdrawal or internalizing behaviors are frequent causes of referrals for mental health services (Hutton, 1984).   

            The mean scores for student satisfaction, teacher and counselor trainee evaluation of treatment progress were high on the five-point scale. These finding suggest students were satisfied with counseling services, and teachers and counselor trainees found that students made progress in treatment. The results indicate that the counseling activities were perceived to be effective in improving the emotional and behavioral precursors to poor academic functioning. These findings are consistent with previous research citing the efficacy of counseling services in impacting the negative reciprocal relationship that exists between emotional and behavioral difficulties and poor academic functioning (Roeser, Eccles, & Strobel, 1998).

            Significant intercorrelations were also found among student satisfaction with counseling and teacher and counselor trainee assessment of treatment progress. The results suggest a strong agreement between perceptions of effectiveness by all participants. Group differences based on ethnicity and grade-level of students were examined and revealed no significant differences between student satisfaction and teacher and counselor trainee evaluation scores. Although further research is needed to explore these findings, results do support the efficacy of the present model across ethnicity and grade-levels.

The collaborative nature of the present model also suggest that counseling services can be established in ways that address the educational and emotional needs of students while providing school systems access to cost-effective counseling services. Establishing cost-effective counseling collaboratives with university graduate programs may afford school districts faced with ever present budget constraints, a viable alternative to meeting the emotional/educational needs of their student body.

Several interesting patterns were found in the current study and will be explored further in follow-up studies. Results indicated that the percentage of referrals for counseling of Hispanic (44% referred; 49% school population) and African American (13% referred; 10% school population) students, closely matched the population percentages. The percentage of Caucasian students referred for counseling, however, was over twice that of the total Caucasian student population (35% referred; 17% school population). Only one Southeast Asian student received counseling services despite the Southeast Asian students comprising the second largest ethnic group of the school population (0.5% referred; 24% school population). Possible explanations for the high number of Caucasian student referrals and low number of Southeast Asian student referrals may be related to cultural acceptance of counseling and demands further study.

            In addition, findings indicate that gang-associated behavior and substance abuse were not frequently cited as risk factors. While these aberrant behaviors may be of major concern to middle and high school administrators, these behaviors are yet to be seen as major problems at this elementary school. Despite being located in a lower socioeconomic environment with violence in the neighborhood (cited as a concern for 21% of the cases), these behaviors were not frequently cited.  One interpretation may be that active participation in gang-related activities and/or substance use issues has yet to directly impact students at this age level.

            While student satisfaction scores can provide valuable information about students’ perceptions of progress, this measure is insufficient to measure treatment outcomes. Therefore, teacher and counselor trainee assessments of treatment progress were also measured to corroborate student responses. However, the results of the current study should be interpreted cautiously.  Future research may benefit by including additional measures of student progress such as self-efficacy scores or self-esteem ratings as supportive evidence for counseling effectiveness. Despite these limitations, the present study indicates that the site-based collaborative holds promise as an effective counseling service delivery model.

Conclusion

Issues that impede children’s ability to learn are clearly present at an early age and must be addressed to prevent future educational detriment. Intervening at a stage in a child’s development when negative behaviors and emotional wounds have yet to crystallize may alleviate future problematic behaviors. The results of this study suggest that providing counseling in the elementary school setting may be a positive contribution to children’s educational success. In the face of budgetary constraints, collaborative initiatives developed by schools and universities present viable options to meet the needs of students. Cooperative efforts that share available resources of schools and regional universities are partnerships that can benefit both communities and the universities that serve them. Creative initiatives that address the needs of communities while providing relevant training experiences to future counselors are ventures worthy of further consideration.

References

Axline, V. (1993). Play therapy. New York: Ballentine.

Freeman, J., Epston, D., & Lebovitz, D. (1997). Playful spproaches to serious problems: Narrative therapy with children and their families. New York: Norton.

Hobbs,  B. B. & Collison, B. B. (1995).  School-community agency collaboration: Implications for the school counselor. The School Counselor, 43, 58-65.

Hutton, J. B. (1984). Teacher ratings of problem behaviors: Which student behaviors “concern” and “disturb” teachers? Psychology in the Schools, 21, 482-484.

Jones-Sears, S. (1993).  The changing scope of practice of the secondary school counselor.  The School Counselor, 40, 384-388.

Keys, S. G., Bemak, F., & Lockhart, E. T. (1998). Transforming school counseling to serve the mental health needs of at-risk youth. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76(4), 381-388.

LaSala, M. C. (1997). Client satisfaction: Consideration of correlates and response bias. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 78(1), 54-64.

Lewis, W. (1996). A proposal for initiating family counseling interventions by school counselors. The School Counselor, 44, 93-99.

Paavola, J. C. (1995). Health services in the schools: Building interdisciplinary partnerships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Strobel, K. R. (1998). Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 153-176.

Selekman, M. D. (1997). Solution-focused therapy with children: Harnessing family strengths for systemic change. New York: Guilford.

Tracz, S. M., Gehart D., Kiyuna, R., & Lucas, S. (2001). Perspectives from Principals on School-Based Counseling. Education Leadership Review, 2(1), 23 – 31.

Walter, J. & Peller, J. (1992). Becoming solution focused in brief therapy. New York: Bruner/Mazel.

White, M.,& Epstein, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

Widerman, J. L.,& Widerman, E. (1995). Family system-oriented school counseling.  The School Counselor, 43, 66-73.

State of California, Employment Development Department. (2000). Unemployment rate ranking of California’s counties. [on-line]. Retrieved March 1, 2002. Available: www.calmis.cahwnet.gov.

State of California, Department of Finance. (2000). Age distribution Fresno County and California. [On-line]. Retrieved March 1, 2002. Available: www.dof.ca.gov/dofhome.htm

United States Bureau of the Census, Supplemental Survey. (2000). Educational attainment Fresno City, Fresno County, California. [On-line]. Retrieved March 1, 2002. Available: www.census.gov/

California State University, Fresno

Department of Counseling and Special Education

5005 N. Maple Ave.  M/S ED 3

Fresno, CA  93740-8025

(559) 278-0340

(559) 278-0045 FAX

ronaldk@csufresno.edu


Table 1
Frequencies of Services Delivered

Services Delivered                                                                        N
Individual Client Therapy Only                                                       191
Group and Individual Therapy                                                         25
Group Therapy Only                                                                         5
Number of Parents Contacted                                                       149
Teacher Consultations                                                                   164
Information Missing                                                                           3

 

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Variables of Client Population

 

Variable                                                                       N                            Valid %

Gender

                        Male                                                  132                                60%

                        Female                                                 88                                40%

                        Missing Information                                1                                0.5%

Ethnicity

Hispanic                                               97                                44%

Caucasian                                             77                                35%

African American                                  28                                13%    

Southeast Asian                                     1                                 0.5%

Other                                                     1                                 0.5%

Cauc/Hisp.                                             7                                  3%

Cauc/Afr.Amer.                                      3                                  1%

Cauc/Asian                                             1                                0.5%

Cauc/Other                                            1                                0.5%   

Hispanic/Afr.Amer.                                1                                 0.5%

SEAsian/Other                                       1                                0.5%

Missing                                                  3                                    1%               

Grade

                       Kindergarten                                        20                                  9%

                       First                                                     27                                12%

                       Second                                                 38                                17%

                       Third                                                    24                                11%

                       Fourth                                                  29                                13%

                       Fifth                                                     45                                20%

                        Sixth                                                   38                                17%


Table 3

Frequencies and Percentages of Presenting School Problems as Rated by Teachers

 

Presenting School Problem Category & Behaviors

    

Indicated

N                  %

Academic Achievement

 

Behind in class                                                          

86                39%          

Not motivated                                     

82                37%          

Not turning in work  

75                34%          

Failing classes                                                           

27                12%

Drop in grades                                                          

25                11%

Low achievement overall                                           

80                37%

Attendance

 

Frequent absences, truancies                                     

45               21%

Frequent tardiness                                                    

30               14%

Frequently cutting classes                                          

  1              0.5%

Frequently asks to see nurse                                     

14                 6%

Dropped out of school                                              

  3                 1%

Student Safety and School Climate

 

        Disruptive in class                                

75                34%

Defiant                                                

39                18%

Argumentative                                     

37                17%

Fighting                                               

26                12%

Poor Hygiene                                      

16                  7%

Gang behavior/dress                            

15                  7%

Suspended/expelled                             

12                  6%

Uses obscene language                        

  7                  3%

Sleeps in class                                     

  7                  3%

Signs of drug/alcohol abuse                  

  1               0.4%

Other Presenting School Problems –

Imminent risk of:

 

Lowering academic achievement

80                 37%

Developing discipline problems            

67                 31%

Developing attendance problems

38                 17%

Dropping out of school 

24                 11%

Factors Affecting Presenting School Problems

 

Family Conflict/Problems

66                 30%

Poor Peer Relationships

53                 24%

Lives in Violent Neighborhood

46                 21%

Adjustment to Parent’s Divorce

43                 20%

Having Teenaged Parents

36                 16%

Learning Disability

34                 15%

Note: Percentage totals exceed 100% because students were frequently referred for more than one issue.


Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Student Satisfaction, Teacher Assessment, and Therapist Assessment with Counseling Service  

Variable                                               N                                Mean                           SD

Client Satisfaction                                 114                              3.97                             .81

Teacher (Referring Person)                   107                              3.58                             .79
Assessment

Therapist Assessment                           128                              3.63                             .81

 



Table 5

Intercorrelations Between Student Satisfaction, Teacher Assessment, and Therapist Assessment with Counseling Services

                                                                                    1                      2                      3

1. Client Satisfaction                                                    -                       .57*                 .42*

2. Teacher (Referring Person) Assessment                                            -                       .58*

3. Therapist Assessment                                                                                               -

* All correlations are significant at alpha < .01


Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Student Satisfaction, Teacher Assessment, and Therapist Assessment with Counseling Services by Ethnicity and grade Level.

 


Ethnicity

Student

Satisfaction

     M             SD

Teacher

Assessment

      M             SD

Counselor

Trainee Assessment

      M              SD

Hispanic              

    3.97           .65

    3.67            .92

    3.58             .91

                             

     

Caucasian            

   3.89            .93

    3.45            .82

    3.74             .78

                             

     

African Amer.     

   4.24            .70

    3.83            .78

    3.80             .91

                             

     


Grade Level

     

Kindergarten       

3.83            .83

3.38            .77

3.50           1.03

                             

     

First                     

3.76            .94

3.68            .84

3.71             .75

                             

     

Second                

3.94          1.00

3.57          1.04

3.69             .78

                             

     

Third                   

4.00            .63

3.48            .98

3.27           1.08

                             

     

Fourth                  

4.19            .60

3.75            .64

3.80             .71

                             

     

Fifth                    

4.17            .76

3.58            .70

3.89             .76

                             

     

Sixth                    

3.93            .65

3.57            .99

3.66             .87

 

HOME PREFACE