This response (a) makes a few comments about the articles as a group, (b) briefly highlights the historical context of previous theory-based models for career guidance in schools, and (c) argues that school to work (STW) is not an intellectual but an economic and a political strategy that needs to be examined carefully, especially in relation to students' career needs and theory-based interventions of the recent past.
One can admire the theory group's integrity. The authors have taken a highly political topic, discussed it in intellectual terms, and derived a series of theoretical papers, each of which makes a reasonably compelling argument for its "fit" with school to work. The collection presents a cafeteria of choices from which readers or school-to-work (STV) policymakers and practitioners can choose which or which combination of the major career/vocational theories they prefer. The authors also have stayed with the original purpose for which the School-to-Work Opportunities Act supposedly was created-- to support the workbound, employment-bound, or "forgotten half" who do not go to college or may drop out of high school (Grant, 1988). The authors do not see the act as designed for all, as is happening in some states, but estimate that it could affect 75% of the youth population. They use their considerable talents and expertise to further delineate the current and continuing problem of preparing youth for work and the labor market.
If one has studied the School-to-Work Opportunities Act ( 1994), it is difficult to escape the conclusion that STW is a modern trait and factor approach and that, of the theories presented, Swanson and Fouad's person-environment fit theory relates best to STW ( 1999). The theory also fits well with expanding technology and information systems. Yet we all know that information is not enough, and I would suggest that the matching relevant models of the twentieth century alone may not be what we need for twenty-- first century career development.
Because of my theoretical orientation, I prefer Savickas's Developmental Perspective, and I appreciate the historical context he provides for STW (1999), which is not new but has been around since the 1930s. He succinctly analyzes Donald Super's Career Pattern Studies, which emphasize planfulness, self concept, and developmental tasks. He also delineates four interventions to orient, teach, coach, and rehearse students for what he regards as the major task of increasing their choice awareness, along with information and planning students need to make the choices.
I also agree with Krumboltz and Worthington ( 1999) that STW is based on economic rather than psychological principles and that students need to become active agents and problem solvers in their own lives. The authors make a convincing case for viewing STW from the learning theory of career counseling (LTCC), which focuses on expanding interests, reframing beliefs, and developing curiosity. They offer a few helpful and practical, though not new, strategies for applying the approach (e.g., job clubs, simulations, media and print materials, self-talk, and behavioral interventions).
Lent, Hackett, and Brown ( 1999) describe their Bandura-based social cognitive career theory (SCCT), which includes often-ignored emphases on contextual inputs and influences, and important self-efficacy expectations and outcomes. In terms of attending to previously neglected factors, such as personal inputs of sex, race, class, and disability, Lent et al. address important barriers to career development and offer new applications of their theory. The authors present six useful themes that undergird SCCT, suggesting both developmental and remedial interventions in students' career development not only at the STW transition point but throughout the school years.
Several of the papers allude to the changing workforce, and Krumboltz and Worthington (1999) indicate that much more emphasis needs to be put on the dramatic changes in the workplace. Instead of a static pattern of jobs and work, futurists, management consultants, and economists suggest that this country may be facing the end of"the job" and the end of"work" and the emergence of a new psychological contract between employers and employees. What will be the nature of the contract with students in work-based learning? Under STW, are career development specialists preparing students with skills that may not be needed and jobs that may not exist when students complete their training?
MISSING HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The continuities and discontinuities of educational history and reform need to be acknowledged by these authors. One of the surprises of the articles is that, other than Savickas's ( 1999), they have not attended much to the historical context of what has been done to promote students' career development in the schools over the past 25 to 30 years. Perhaps there is a generation gap, but a large chunk of the history of career guidance and attempts to create theory to undergird it are missing. For example, it is seldom acknowledged that Edwin Herr created the first developmental framework to integrate career development into schools' curricula (Hansen, 1977). Since the 1970s, he has been a major international conceptualizer and chronicler of career development and guidance for youth and adults (Herr & Cramer, 1996).
In the late 1960s, Gysbers and Moore (1975), along with the Minnesota Career Development Curriculum (CDC; composed of counselor educators, vocational educators, and graduate students), created theoretical models for systematic developmental career guidance (Hansen & Tennyson, 1975). The Missouri Life Career Development System (LCDS), a broadly based theory and K-12 developmental curriculum focused on the roles, events, and settings of the person's life, has been widely implemented. The Minnesota CDC, built on aspects of Donald Super's theory, such as career as self-development, career development over the life span, multipotentialities, and careers as life roles. Researchers analyzed literature from career and human development and developmental psychology to identify developmentally appropriate tasks and interventions at different educational levels, K-14 (Hansen & Gysbers,1975; Tennyson, Hansen, Klaurens, & Antholz, 1975, 1980).
The models were used for comprehensive career development programs in several states, and elements of the models were adapted for the National Career Development Guidelines (National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee,1989; 1997). The models also were used to train school counselors and in-service educators in the principles and practices of career development and guidance (Hansen, 1977).
As Lent et al. (1999) note, STW can be seen as very similar to career education. When career education was introduced in 1971, it gave a big boost to career activities in schools, but it was also atheoretical. Often confused with vocational education, it focused on students having exploratory work experience, knowing clusters of occupations, and having a marketable skill. When Kenneth Hoyt was the director of the Office of Career Education in 1975, career education flourished, but with the end of funding and with Reagan's agenda of"Back to the Basics" in the 1980s, career activities once again were diminished until the 1990s when apprenticeships and high skills became the focus and the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills Report (SCANS) was created, largely by corporate representatives and vocational educators (SCANS, 1991). Vocational education, through a process of relabeling, started using new terms such as work readiness, tech prep, employability, school to work, school to career, and "lifework" development (read career development).
THE CURRENT CLIMATE
It is true that STW is being implemented differently from state to state. But it seems clear that STW is paying little attention to how students make career decisions, at what levels, with what kinds of help, or with what kind of socialization. Critics of STW have accused it of tracking students, "dumbing down" the curriculum, forcing premature decisions (e.g., career majors by grade 11), and of allowing schools to take over functions that belong to parents (Barton, 1997; Cheney, 1998; "School to Work," 1998).
A recent report to Congress (Riley & Herman, 1997) states that STW implementation has fallen far short of expectations, with only limited participation by students and employers. It also reports that out-of-school youth, the primary target population, are not being adequately served.
More important questions seem to be "Who is to decide whether students are work bound or college-bound?" "When do students know themselves well enough to make these decisions?" "What are the respective roles of business and industry, school counselors, teachers, parents, universities, and students themselves?"
INCORPORATING STW INTO CAREER GUIDANCE
Career guidance, usually delivered by school counselors and teachers, is concerned with the development of the whole person. One of the limitations of STW is that it focuses on students as workers and ignores other parts of their development. STW is workforce development, providing skills so that the U.S. can keep the international competitive edge with Germany and Japan. Students deserve to be treated as whole people, and well-trained school counselors and teachers working with curriculum and community in comprehensive theory-- based developmental guidance programs are an important key to holistic development (Gysbers & Henderson, 1994). The new National Standards for School Counseling Programs (American School Counselor Association, 1997) allot at least a third of counselor activities to career development (including STW), and the remainder of the activities to academic development and personal and social development.
In Florida, several counselor educators and career practitioners were co-authors of an excellent theory-to-practice document called A Framework for Developing Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs for a School-to-Work System (Florida Department of Education, 1996). These collaborative models include many strategies long available through career guidance, such as curriculum units, career centers, exploratory work experience (now STW), action learning, computer-assisted career guidance, individual planning and portfolios, simulations, and change process principles.
Important questions remain. In light of the examples above, is STW just "old wine in new bottles? Should career development theorists be trying to make their theories fit a very limited political strategy, or should we be challenging the assumptions and origins of that strategy? Should we be colluding on a program of workforce development that started out for a specific group, but that is now supposed to fit all Americans and is being sold as the centerpiece of education and educational reform?
In the zeal to prepare students for the workforce, the human dimension-student development-has been forgotten. I do not think applying any of the theories to the STW movement will erase any of its basic flaws. It is the latest bandwagon, driven by business and industry, implemented largely by vocational education, costs billions of dollars, and is legislated to sunset October 1, 2001. When STW ends, career development theory and research still will have much to offer all students, apart from the STW initiative.
We need to develop a theory for career counseling in schools for all students that involves counselors, teachers, parents, communities, and students themselves-all of whom are stakeholders. Even if these theories are not implemented in STW, the papers here offer valuable suggestions and ideas to practitioners working in different aspects of career guidance and counseling.
[Reference]
REFERENCES
[Reference]
American School Counselor Association. (1997). Sharing the vision-The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author. Barton, M. (1997, Spring/Summer). Some arguments against school-to-work. Vocational Psychology News, 8, 4.
Cheney, L. (1998, February 5). School-to-work programs may sound appealing, but they aren't. Minneapolis Star Tribune, pp. A23.
[Reference]
Florida Department of Education. (1996). Florida's student development program-A framework for developing comprehensive guidance and counseling programs for a school-to-work system. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Grant, W. T. (1988). The forgotten half. Non-college bound youth in America. Washington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship.
Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing your school guidance program (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
[Reference]
Gysbers, N. C., & Moore, E.J. (1975). Beyond career development-life career development. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 53, 647-652. Hansen, L. S. (1977). An examination of the definitions and concepts of career education. Washington, DC: National Advisory Council for Career Education. Hansen, L. S., & Gysbers, N. C. (Eds.). (1975). Career development: Guidance and education [Special issue]. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 53(9). Hansen, L. S., & Tennyson, W. W. (1975). A career management model for counselor involvement. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 53, 638-645. Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. (1996). Career guidance and counseling through the Lifespan-Systematic approaches (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins College.
[Reference]
Hoyt, K. B. (1977). Career education: Contributions to an evolving concept. Salt Lake City, UT: Olympus.
Krumboltz, J. D., dc Worthington, R. L. (1999). The school-to-work transition from a learning theory perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 312-325.
Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1999). A social cognitive view of school-- to-work transition. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 297-311.
[Reference]
National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee. (1989; 1997). National Career Development Guidelines. Washington, DC: Author. Riley, R. W., & Herman. A. M. (Sept. 1997). Implementation of the School-toWork Opportunities Act of 1994. Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[Reference]
Savickas, M. L. (1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 326-336.
[Reference]
School-to-work implementation falls short of expectations. (1998, February). Counseling Today, p. 1, 10, 12.
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-239, 2, 108 Stat. 568 (1994).
[Reference]
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Applying theories of person-environment fit to the transition from school to work. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 337-7.
[Reference]
Tennyson, W. W., Hansen, L. S., Klaurens, M. K., & Antholz, M. B. (1975;1980). Career development education-A program approach for teachers and counselors. St. Paul, MN: Department of Education; Revised and reprinted by the National Vocational Guidance Association.
[Author Affiliation]
L. Sunny Hansen is a professor in the Counseling and Student Personnel Psychology program in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to L. Sunny Hansen, 139 Burton Hall, 178 Pillsbury Drive, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (e-mail: sunnylsh@tc. umn.edu).
No comments:
Post a Comment