Students pursuing a master’s degree in CACREP-accredited school counseling programs are required to complete supervised field experiences as a part of their course requirements. During their practicum and internships experiences, they receive university supervision by a faculty member or doctoral student supervisor, as well as site supervision at the placement site, typically from a school counselor. University supervisors may lack experience in school counseling and knowledge of the unique roles and supervision needs of school counselors. In addition, site supervisors may lack training or knowledge of clinical supervision. Furthermore, the multiple systems in which SCITs function may have differing goals and expectations for supervisees. The various factors influencing supervision may result in confusion and frustration for SCITs. The purpose of this interpretive phenomenological study was to understand the supervision experiences of SCITs enrolled in CACREP-accredited counselor education programs in Southern Louisiana universities who recently completed internship. Specifically, I sought to understand SCITs experiences with regard to university individual and group supervision, site supervision, and what influence, if any, the ASCA National Model had on their supervision experiences. After receiving IRB approval, participants were invited to participate via an email solicitation. The eight participants chosen were master’s students from CACREP-accredited counselor education programs who recently completed internship. Data were collected through individual, face-to-face, audio-recorded interviews utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol. After the interviews were transcribed, the data were analyzed using IPA data analysis procedures. The final analysis resulted in four super-ordinate themes. The findings describe the meaning of the lived experiences of SCITs with supervision. According to the results, supervision experiences, whether being reported as positive or negative, could be attributed to: impact of counselor education program, aspects related to supervisors, significance of feedback, and influence of self. The results could help inform the design of counselor education programs to more adequately prepare SCITs for school counseling as it is today. Furthermore, the results could help improve site supervision practices.

Hernandez (2013) claimed that the economic landscape in the United States of American (U.S.) has changed over the last decade, increasing the number of children of low social class standing. Counselors for Social Justice (CSJ; 2011) noted that an achievement gap exists between children of low social class standing and their middle and upper social class standing peers. School counselors and school counselor-in-training (SCITs) serve as advocates to address systemic barriers impeding academic, career, and personal/social success of all students (American School Counselor Association; ASCA, 2012; CSJ, 2011; Erford, 2011). Therefore, the need to understand school counselors’ and SCITs’ multicultural self-efficacy is imperative (Holcomb-McCoy, Harris, Hines, & Johnston, 2008). ASCA and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2016; 2009) provide standards and guidelines for training school counselors to address issues of social class and classism. The purpose of this study was to understand the relationship between SCITs multicultural competency training and their self-efficacy in social class and classism training regardless of race/ethnicity and gender. This quantitative study consisted of 169 SCITs from CACREP and non-CACREP school counselor programs across the five Association of Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) regions. The survey used in this study contained modified versions of the Multicultural Counseling Competence and Training Survey-Revised (School Counselor Version) (MCCTS-R; Holcomb-McCoy & Day-Vines, 2004); the School Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSE; Bodenhorn & Skaggs, 2005); the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984); and a social class and classism training questionnaire and demographic questionnaire developed for the purposes of this study. Results from this study indicated program accreditation status (i.e., CACREP and non-CACREP) does not appear to influence multicultural competence or self-efficacy, but non-CACREP status did seem to increase perceived social class and classism training competence. In addition, results suggested low social class standing appeared to negatively influence perceived multicultural competency, self-efficacy, and social class and classism training more so than middle or upper social class groups. The number of multicultural competency courses and training level were consistent significant predictors in perceived multicultural competency, self-efficacy, and social class and classism training. However, region did not appear to influence perceived multicultural competency, self-efficacy, or social class and classism training. Finally, this study found a moderate, positive relationship between perceived multicultural competency and self-efficacy regarding social class and classism training. Implications from this study supported previous research (i.e., Constantine, 2001b; Constantine & Yeh, 2001; Holcomb-McCoy, 2005, 2001; Holcomb-McCoy, Gonzalez, & Johnston, 2009; Holcomb-McCoy & Myers, 1999; Larson, Suzuki, Gillespie, Potenza, Bechtel, & Toulouse, 1992) that the number of multicultural competency training courses, training level, and counseling experiences increased perceived multicultural competence and self-efficacy in social class and classism training. Therefore, SCITs should experience social class issues early and often in training through role-plays and modeling to improve the multicultural self-efficacy in social class and classism training (Cartwright, Daniels, & Zhang, 2008; Owen, Bodenhorn, & Bryant, 2010).