the career education movement: updating perceptions of career education supporters

The Career Education Movement: Updating Perceptions of Career Education Supporters

Kenneth B. Hoyt

Introduction

The prime purpose of this article is to update data reported in an earlier special issue of this journal (Hoyt, 1987). Those data are sup- plemented here for both the 1986-87 and the 1987-88 academic years.

Accurate interpretation of these findings demands knowledge with respect to characteristics of respondents providing data. Each is a member of the National Career Education Leaders Communication Network (NCELCN), an informal and unofficial collection of indi- viduals concerned about and/or interested in career education. The NCELCN has no membership requirements. It asks its members only tha t they be willing to "share" with as well as "steal from" other network members.

The NCELCN is "reborn" each Fall with new enrollment forms re- quired of all persons wishing to belong for the new academic year. Approximately 400 persons enroll each year with about one-third new members each y e a r - - a n d another one-third from the previous year dropping out. Roughly half work in K-12 school districts. About one-fourth are employed as "K-12 Career Education Coordinator," about one-fourth as "counselor," and about one-half in some other ca- pacity. In the 1987-88 school year, members came from 45 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and 7 other nations.

The 1987-88 NCELCN membership differed significantly from all others in the large number of new members from Ohio. Ohio membership jumped from 10 to 74 with 54 holding positions as K-12 career

Kenneth B. Hoyt is University Distinguished Professor of Education, Kansas State University.

Journal of Career Development, Vol. 15(4), Summer 1989 © 1989 Human Sciences Press 2 8 1

282 Journal of Career Development

education coordinators. When comparisons are made between responses given by NCELCN members in 1987-88 as opposed to all other years, this must be considered. It seems reasonble to assume findings will appear more favorable because of the strong status of career education in Ohio.

There is no way tha t NCELCN members can be regarded as a random sample of the general population. On the contrary, they repre- sent, at best, a random sample in time of persons interested and/or actively engaged in career education. It seems reasonable to assume tha t many persons now active in career education exist who are not NCELCN members. It seems even more reasonable to assume that communities where NCELCN members live are much more likely to have some kinds of career education efforts than are other communities.

Thus, while these data refute those who claim "career education is dead," they cannot and do not validate the pronouncements of those who claim "career education is alive and well." They are used here, not because they are so good, but ra ther because they appear to be the only per t inent individualized national database available.

" H e a l t h " o f t h e C a r e e r E d u c a t i o n M o v e m e n t

Each year since 1982, one item on the NCELCN enrollment form has asked respondents to rate the "health" of career education in their communities. A five-point scale ranging from "Stronger than ever" (5 points) to "Little support left" (1 point) is used. Results from the 1982-83 through 1987-88 academic year are presented below in Table 1.

The "Health" score found in Table 1 is computed by mult iplying the mean rat ing by 100. As can be seen, this score went up slightly each year from 1982-83 through 1985-86, declined slightly in 1986- 87, and then shot up to 370 in 1987-88. The total va r i a t i on - - f rom a low of 356 in ' 82 -83 to a high of 370 in ' 87 -88 over the six-year pe- r i o d - i s very small. In each year, the "Health" score averaged some- what closer to "In place & likely to stay" (scored as "400") than to "Strongly supported by some- - ignored by most" (scored as "300"). Considering the sizeable shift in Network membership that occurs each year, this degree of stabili ty is even more impressive.

c~ c~

0

c~

o

c~

c~

c~

Z

~ ~ oo ~ ~.~ ~ L~"

II II II tl II II Z Z Z Z Z Z

~ I I I I I I


N e e d to R e p l a c e the Term "Career E d u c a t i o n "

Each year since '83-84, the NCELCN enrollment blank has included the question "Do you believe it's time we actively set about to find a new term to replace the term 'career education'?" Responses of network members to this question in each year are presented below in Table 2. Data in Table 2 show about one-fourth of NCELCN members each year report they believe it's time to replace the term "career education." The percentage giving this response rose slightly each year from 1983-84 through 1986-87 but then declined sharply in 1987-88. It seems likely this was due to the big influx of Ohio K-12 career education coordinators.

Viewed in terms of trends, the Table 2 data show that, each year, somewhere between 40% and 50% of network members do not believe the term "career education" should be replaced while somewhere close to one-third are unsure about whether or not it should be. The

Table 2 R e s p o n d e n t s A n s w e r s to the Quest ion: "DO Y O U B E L I E V E

IT'S TIME WE A C T I V E L Y SET A B O U T TO F I N D A NEW T E R M TO R E P L A C E THE TERM " C A R E E R EDUCATION"?

Year Yes No Maybe

1987-88 No. Responding 85 173 118 Percent Responding 22.6% 46.0% 31.4%





Kenneth B. Hoyt 285

percen t who said "No" was h ighes t in 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 whi le the percen t say- ing "Maybe" was h ighes t in 1984-85 .

F u r t h e r c lar i f icat ion can be seen by examin in g da ta found in Table 3. Here , responses of ne twork member s for the last t h ree years are g iven in t e r ms of t he i r preferences for var ious t e rm s t h a t migh t be used as na me s for the ca ree r educa t ion movement . The "point to ta ls" found in this table are ca lcula ted by ass igning 3 points to each 1st choice, 2 points to each 2nd choice, and 1 point to each 3rd choice. Of the four possible te rms, Table 3 da t a show t h a t the r a n k order prefer- ence has r e ma ined the same for each of the las t th ree years . The two

Table 3 N u m b e r of R e s p o n d e n t s Indicat ing Their l s t - 3 r d Choices

o f Variant N a m e s for the Career Educat ion Mo v e me nt

Suggested 1st 2nd 3rd Total Total Points Names Choice Choice Choice Points N Rank

Caree r Educa t ion

1987-88 152 52 34 594 238 (1) 1986-87 148 56 30 586 234 (1) 1985-86 n.a. n.a. n.a. 661 261 (1)

Ca ree r Deve lopment Educa t ion

1987-88 101 100 41 544 242 (2) 1986-87 94 99 57 537 250 (2) 1985-86 n.a. n.a. n.a. 492 227 (2)

Life Ca ree r Educa t ion

1987-88 33 40 58 237 131 (3) 1986-87 35 43 60 251 138 (3) 1985-86 n.a. n.a. n.a. 249 143 (3)

Ca ree r Guidance

1987-88 32 33 42 203 107 (4) 1986-87 36 43 40 234 119 (4) 1985-86 n.a. n.a. n.a. 229 128 (4)


most popular terms are: # 1 - - " C a r e e r Education" and #2 - - "Ca ree r Development Education." The discrepancy in total points, however, between these two choices has steadily diminished from 169 in 1984- 85 (661-492) to only 50 in 1987-88 (594-544).

The two terms "Life Career Education" and "Career Guidance" have each received slightly over 200 total points in each of the last three years. Each has been the 1st choice of about 30 of the 400 + network members and has been one of the top three choices of about one-fourth of network members each year.

Conceptually, my view continues to be tha t the term "career development" represents a process to be implemented by two major kinds of efforts. One of these efforts is "career education" while the other is "career guidance." Thus, "career education" and "career guidance" are not synonomous in meaning. Operationally, "career education" goes far beyond the career development process to include the teach- ing/learning process, the collaboration process, and the networking process. Responses found in Table 3 make it clear that a majority of network members agree with this view.

Many currently popular "new thrusts" in education are using the career education concept without using the term. The most intriguing of these is the current rash of proposals to "modernize" and "redefine" the term "vocational education." If these "new" components of "vocational education" are put into place, the resulting package will be true career education pure and simple. This, of course, is what former USOE Commissioner Dr. Sidney P. Marland, Jr. proposed almost 20 years ago in his famous "Career Education Now" speech to NASSP.

Preferences in Defining "Career Education"

Each year since 1985, the NCELCN enrollment form has included one question asking respondents to express their preferences for seven conceptually valid ways of defining "career education" by rank ordering them from "1" to "7". Results are presented below in Table 4.

Examination of data reported in Table 4 makes it clear that, by far, the most preferred way of defining "career education" is as an effort to "help persons in career awareness, career exploration, and career decisionmaking." This definition was ranked #1 each year and had much higher point scores each year than any other definition. To the extent persons are content to define "career education" only in this

Kenneth B. Hoyt 287

way, one could contend tha t the terms "career education" and "career guidance" are synonomous in meaning. The large point scores found for other possible definitions given in Table 4 makes it clear tha t most respondents do not limit their conceptual view of career education only to career guidance.

In 1985-86, defining career education as an effort to "equip persons with general employability skills" ranked #2 while defining it as an effort to "relate education and work" ranked #3. In both 1986- 87 and in 1987-88, these rank orders were reversed. It may well be tha t this shift can be attributed, in part, to the current rash of litera- ture emphasizing the increasingly close relationships between education and work tha t are expected to emerge between now and the year 2000. In any event, the total point scores assigned to each makes it clear that, in comparison to those definitions ranked # 4 - # 7 , both of these definitions are considered very important by network members.

Another interesting shift has occurred between the #4 and #5 definitions. Defining career education as an effort to "promote private sector/education system partnerships" dropped in 1987-88 from #4 to #5 while defining it as an effort to "infuse a 'careers' emphasis in classrooms" rose from #5 to #4 ranking. The term "partnerships" has, in my opinion, been so overused in recent years it is losing some of its conceptual effectiveness. Perhaps this explains the shift. On the other hand, the concept of "infusion" appears to be gaining strength among proponents of educational reform with several advocating tha t teachers should help their pupils understand the career implications of subject matter. (It was with "infusion", of course, where much of the career education effort began in the early 1970s.) If these trends continue in the next year, it will be meaningful indeed.

Defining career education as an effort "to make work a meaningful part of total lifestyle" has consistently ranked #6 while defining it as an effort to "reduce bias and stereotyping and so protect freedom of career choice" has consistently ranked #7. With the current great increase of emphasis on the importance of unpaid work and the de- sirability of service-learning, it will be interesting to see if the #6 ranking moves up in the next year. Similarly, the importance of re- ducing bias and stereotyping in career development continues to grow as a societal priority. It may well be that, while both of these things are seen as important by career education advocates, neither is seen as something to which career education can make major contribu- tions. Personally, I continue to believe tha t both should continue to be major priorities for the career education movement.

c~

~S

0

~ . ~

C~

0

0

E~

~ °

?

~ 0 0

I I I

~'~1 ~ oo

I I I

0

~ O0 ~'~

O

0

O0 L~ O0 ~ L O L O

0 L,"~ ['- , ['-, oO ' ~

0 0

- ~ 1 1 1

0

0

C

0

0

o ~

I I ~ l l l


"Caree r educat ion," of course, is best def ined as an effort t h a t m ak es each of these seven def ini t ional approaches a component of the total package. I t is when al l of these components are pu t toge the r in an or- ganized, in tegra ted , sys temat ic effort t h a t one can t r u ly say "career educa t ion" is t a k ing place (Hoyt & Shylo, 1987).

C o n c l u d i n g R e m a r k s

The 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 school yea r m a r k e d both the beg inn ing of the N C E L C N and the demise of the Division of Ca ree r Educa t ion in the U.S. De- p a r t m e n t of Educat ion . In spite of repeal of the federal career educa- t ion law, da t a collected from N C E L C N member s each yea r beg inn ing in 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 provides c lear evidence t ha t this m o v e m e n t is far from "dead." On the cont ra ry , it seems difficult to view it in a n y t h i n g o ther t h a n a posi t ive manne r . I have h igh hopes we will cont inue to be able to do so.

R e f e r e n c e s

Hoyt, K. (1987) Perceptions of career education supporters concerning the current na- ture and status of the career education movement. Journal of Career Development, 13(3), 5-15.

Hoyt, K. & Shylo, K. (1987) Career education in transition: Trends and implications for the future. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

the career education movement: updating perceptions of career education supporters

Documents