This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 10 October 2014, At: 00:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vocational Education &TrainingPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

Listening to the stakeholders: exploringpossibilities for family and communityscience education in the USTami Moore a , Sylvia Asay a & Beverly Curry aa Department of Family Studies and Interior Design , TheUniversity of Nebraska at Kearney , USAPublished online: 18 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Tami Moore , Sylvia Asay & Beverly Curry (2006) Listening to the stakeholders:exploring possibilities for family and community science education in the US, Journal of VocationalEducation & Training, 58:2, 191-204, DOI: 10.1080/13636820600799650

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820600799650

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Vocational Education and TrainingVol. 58, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 191–204

ISSN 1363-6820 (print)/ISSN 1747-5090 (online)/06/020191–14© 2006 The Vocational Aspect of Education LtdDOI: 10.1080/13636820600799650

Listening to the stakeholders: exploring possibilities for family and community science education in the USTami Moore*, Sylvia Asay and Beverly CurryDepartment of Family Studies and Interior Design, The University of Nebraska at Kearney, USA.Taylor and Francis LtdRJVE_A_179910.sgm10.1080/13636820600799650Journal of Vocational Education and Training1363-6820 (print)/1747-5090 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis582000000June 2006RichardMoorerichard.moore@csun.edu

Vocational academic programs in secondary classrooms and in university settings are interdepen-dent in terms of teacher preparation and curriculum design. Significant changes in either entitywill affect the viability of the other. Family and Consumer Science programs in US secondaryschools are facing several challenges. A focus group design was used to gain insight on the vitalityand viability of these programs from the perspectives of three stakeholder groups—students,parents, and school administrators. Emerging themes are presented and discussed. The impact ofmultiple realities and their possible negative consequences on this and similar vocational programsare explored.

Although the social, technological, and economic environments have changeddrastically over the last century, little has changed in the departmental structure ofAmerican universities. Abbott (1992) suggests that it takes at least twenty years fornew areas of study to pass through the stages necessary to become legitimate disci-plines—surge of interest in subject, definition of subject, differentiation of subjectfrom others through theory development and testing, and development of PhDs inthat field. These new fields emerge when deficiencies are discovered in existing fieldsand questions remain unanswered or they are only partially explained. New groupsoften emerge at disciplinary margins (Abbott, 2001). Thus, it was with HomeEconomics, now more commonly known as Family and Consumer Science, when ittook chemistry and physics into home and family management area early in thetwentieth century.

Corresponding author. Department of Family Studies and Interior Design, The University ofNebraska at Kearney, Otto Olsen Building, 905 W. 25th Street, Kearney, NE 68849, USA. Email:mooretj@unk.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

192 T. Moore et al.

Family and Consumer Science programs have traditionally been closely connectedto secondary programs within the public and some private schools. The vocationalaspects of these programs sustained them through serious elimination debates of the1980s and 1990s. This interdependence brings about important questions for thefuture of both secondary and post-secondary program survival.

The future of the Family and Consumer Sciences programs in the secondaryschools of the USA depends upon an adequate supply of well-qualified teachers. Arecent poll revealed that there is a critical shortage of Family and Consumer Sciencesteachers. One reason for this is that Family and Consumer Sciences teacher educa-tion programs in American universities have declined 94% from 1968 to 1991 withfive states not offering a single undergraduate program in Family and ConsumerSciences education (Austin, 1999). Many post-secondary programs have closed orwill close in the future due to low student enrollments. Barnes (2001) reports that theimpact of state budget cuts at the university level has forced some Family andConsumer Sciences programs to close, merge, or pair down the majors within thedepartment.

Thaler-Carter (2000) reports that the shortage is even more critical when coupledwith the fact that in the state of Indiana, 25-35% of the FACS teachers will retire inthe next few years and there are similar reports across the USA. The authors’ owndepartment was forced to eliminate the Family and Consumer Sciences Educationmajor in 2001 and the Dietetics/Nutrition major in 2003. Although one program maynot seem to have a significant impact, analysis of the currents students in other Familyand Consumer Sciences Educations programs in the state of Nebraska proved thatthe remaining programs were no stronger or less vulnerable. Over the next threeyears, graduates from the remaining programs will meet less than one-third of thedemand for replacement of retiring teachers.

Students give many reasons for not choosing Family and Consumer Scienceseducation as a profession. Low salary and lack of respect are concerns for anyonethinking about teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Family and ConsumerSciences presents additional concerns. Schnieder (2000) talks about ‘a stigmatizedfield,’ where students must deal with not only outside negative identity where theymay not feel that they are taken seriously, but also an internal fractured identity aswell. She described the profession as a whole that seems to have lost a central focusand that has taken many different directions.

Family and Consumer Sciences programs at the university level are facing changesthat affect the secondary level. In some cases, the elimination of the FACS Educationmajor has forced departments to adjust their primary focus. While in the past the vari-ous content areas within FACS focused on preparing secondary teachers, the focus isnow on the separation of content to prepare students for specific work experiences.The authors’ department has turned its attention to two programs in Family Studiesand Interior Design. While these programs are growing and viable within the univer-sity system, the ‘seamless’ connection between Family and Consumer Sciences at thesecondary and post-secondary programs is lost and there is no logical relationshipbetween the two.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 193

While the challenges for Family and Consumer Sciences Education at both thesecondary and post-secondary level represent a crisis, at the same time the curriculumof the Family and Consumer Sciences classroom is also seen as essential for secondarystudents. More administrators, parents, and communities are recognizing the need forstudents to know more about what it takes to make decisions that contribute to ahealthy and productive family life. Some school districts are making Family andConsumer Sciences classes a requirement for graduation.

What should be done then to address the current situation both locally and acrossthe USA? Previous studies have been able to assess the perceptions and importanceof specific courses within the FACS curriculum (Pauley, 1996; Wendland & Torrie,1993), but have not addressed the overall perceptions of the profession related to thecurrent crisis or the future direction of secondary and post-secondary programs.Several recent publications have suggested that improved public relations are theanswer (Barnes, 2001; Smith et al., 2001; Thaler-Carter, 2000). Others havesuggested that the profession return to its roots of home, family, and relationships(Ennis, 2001; Blassingame, 1999). Still others call for members to move quickly intoan orientation of new and growing careers with an emphasis on technology (Reese,2003; Thaler-Carter, 2000).

The purpose of this study was to establish a baseline of information about the percep-tions that administrators, parents, and students have towards Family and ConsumerSciences secondary programs in the state of Nebraska. These perceptions serve toinform and add to the dialogue about the future of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Method

Group interviewing has been used by social scientists since the 1920s and using focusgroups as a qualitative method of inquiry emerged in the early 1980s. The success ofthis applied and academic research method was noted by Morgan in his assessmentof its use in recent publications within the social sciences (Morgan, 1996). Thepurposes of projects that use focus groups are to identify problems or issues, generateways to solve these issues, and an assessment of the effectiveness of solutions.

To assess these existing attitudes towards Family and Consumer Sciences middleand high school programs in the State of Nebraska, focus groups were conducted withschool administrators, parents, and students across that state. Participants were askedto volunteer for the focus group of six to eight people. Participants represented bothlarger schools (Class A and B) and smaller schools (Class C and D) from districtslocated in geographically representative sites. The focus group for administrators washeld during the Nebraska Association of School Administrators Conference. Theother focus groups were held at their respective schools, with parents and studentsparticipating in separate rooms.

A qualitative focus group method was used to (1) discover the strengths and weak-nesses of the current Family and Consumer Sciences programs, and (2) explore andbrainstorm possibilities for the future of the programs. The focus groups were askedto respond to a set of questions designed to illicit a variety of answers. Although the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

194 T. Moore et al.

questions were controlled across groups to enhance comparisons, rich data emergedas the participants shared experiences and beliefs essential to this type of researchtradition.

All focus groups were tape-recorded and data was transcribed for accuracy.Themes within groups and across groups were analyzed for common perceptions; andto identify emerging beliefs about the future directions for Family and ConsumerSciences programs across the state of Nebraska.

Results

Administrator focus group

Administrators were drawn from the annual Nebraska School AdministratorsConference. Representation of all four classifications of school sites was present. Fourmajor themes emerged:

● teachers● curriculum● administrative challenges● future of FCS programs

Family and consumer sciences teachers

Participants in the focus group of administrators were quick to suggest that the key tosuccess of FCS programs in their schools, regardless of size, was the teaching staff.

We have an especially great gal, who is the ring leader, she is very dynamic, going up thereand working and finding out what the kids want. What do they need? What does societyneed? The biggest is ‘who’ is doing the teaching.

We have a very strong program where the teachers are very good. I’ve been at schoolswhere they weren’t so hot, so the program suffered.

When you are dealing with elective classes, you better have good dynamic people in orderto keep those programs strong.

Another issue linked to staffing was that of multiple endorsements. This was espe-cially important to administrators from the smaller schools. They noted that not onlyis the pool of FCS endorsed teachers shrinking, but their staffing needs require flex-ibility of teaching assignments and extra-curricular sponsorships and coaching.

We’re going to have to have fully (multiple) endorsed people. All of a sudden you have ahalf time FCS position and that person can’t teach anything else, then that is all you aregoing to have, is a half-time job.

Acknowledging that the curriculum within Family and Consumer Sciences is verydiverse and that teachers endorsed in that area already have multiple skills andtalents, the administrators from smaller schools expressed a need for increased tech-nology skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 195

FCS teachers ought to have some training in teaching in an IDL (distance learning) system.

Family and consumer sciences curriculum

During the process of analyzing the transcripts, it became apparent to the researchersthat the participants were somewhat torn between what they saw as traditional HomeEconomics curriculum and what their contemporary students may need from currentcourse offerings.

… in our situation, the FCS program needs to modernize some for the things they are doing.

There were a lot of courses—foods, some sewing classes and some family parenting.

We spent tons of money in sewing machines, computerized label-making, put a lot ofmoney in the food.

There was also some uncertainty as to which program had the responsibility topresent which curriculum. Health and Business program offerings often duplicate oreven subsume components of what these administrators viewed to be FCS curriculum.

Home Ec health—hygiene, mental health, emotional health.

Our program focuses on careers and the leadership skills and financial types of things andchild care and a wealth of things that they need.

Participants suggested subject matter and skills they felt should be part of thecurriculum in contemporary and future FCS program curricula. Values, familyvalues, and relationship skills surfaced as essential to student life success. FCSappeared to these administrators as the logical place for such material.

I think looking, going back to the family values and some of those kinds of things, I thinkreally taking a hard look at things in society and finding ways to address the currentsituations in society as opposed to doing things maybe that have been done and were valid15–20 years ago.

Administrative challenges

Participants shared both their current and their experiences with FCS programs fromdifferent staff and administration positions in different communities and even otherstates during this part of the discussion. Three indicated that they had workedpreviously in a school system that had closed FCS programs. Three participants werecurrently at schools that had just eliminated or were in the process of downsizing theirprograms.

Lack of financial resources was clearly a problem for these administrators.

It’s the budget situation, again, that’s driving a lot of this. It’s not the program itself.

Another thing with small schools, too, our numbers are very small and to divide them outyou may have one or two in a class for electives and it is pretty tough to justify.

Finding new FCS teachers to replace retiring staff is also problematic for theseschool sites.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

196 T. Moore et al.

In small districts either we can’t find the teachers or we can’t afford them. Our teachersare pushing 50, where is that next generation coming from?

These administrators felt that advocating for their FCS programs was an importantpart of their job. Budget, graduation requirements, and declining enrollments wereall cited as imminent problems.

Over the past couple of years we have been putting our programs together so each schoolhad a part-time Home Ec teacher.

We have added some graduation demonstrations the kids have to have in reading, writingand math, so in some cases we have students that are taking multiple years of reading toget to pass that-so that reduces the options they have to take elective courses in somecases.

The competition between elective program, I think one of the things that is out there is theuniversities and increase in their entrance requirements.

While acknowledging that administrative support is essential, participants alsoexpressed frustration at the lack of self-advocacy, they perceived within the FCSprofession, itself.

I don’t see FCS being promoted from within its organization. I think you need to promotefrom within saying, look what we do to prepare children for life.

I think it gets put on the chopping block because people don’t understand the program orthe importance of the program. Music is more visible and people like to see that their kidsare doing things, whereas FCS can be in the background and misunderstood when it doescome to the budget ax falling.

The future

These administrators were, as a whole, very supportive of FCS programs in theircurrent sites and/or in their past career locations. They could articulate the impor-tance of program content and realize that current budget concerns are a real threat tothe future of many Nebraska programs. Their suggestions for what needs to be doneto protect and to enhance them, however, differed most often by size of school site.Smaller, rural administrators were less optimistic about the continuation of FCSprograms as they are now structured. They proposed that part-time, shared teachersor classes via distance education technology were inevitable.

Participants from the larger Class A and B sites were more positive about thecontinued success and growth of their existing FCS programs. They reported increas-ing enrollments across course offerings and the ability to structure graduationrequirements to accommodate FCS course selections. The concern about the shrink-ing numbers of pre-service teachers in FCS education programs spanned all sites,regardless of size or success of current programs.

In summary, these administrators regard their FCS programs, or the lack of such,from realistic, complex positions. They must justify staff and materials expenses fortheir sites. They must work within the constraints of state mandates and communityneeds. They must staff all programs and courses with the most qualified teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 197

available to them. Family and Consumer Science programs were viewed as vulnerableon all of these levels.

Parent focus groups

Focus groups were held at four different sites, drawing from both large school districtsand smaller sites. Responses and insights illustrated a general inconsistency of bothknowledge and perceptions of FCS programs in these schools. General themes iden-tified in the data include:

● curriculum and program goals● confusion of program goals and curriculum across and between various electives

available in their schools● support and encouragement for future of programs

Curriculum and program goals

Parents in all groups were quick to present their understanding of curriculum throughillustrations of projects that were most visible to them: computerized baby, quilts andsewing projects, foods, and budgeting. They knew that their students were learningto sew, cook, balance checkbooks, and that they were not ready to be parents.

… cooking supper for the family or seeing how you do the laundry. The Baby Think ItOver part of the program has kind of given him a dose of reality.

They believed that there was much more to the curriculum than that, but could notverbalize anything beyond speculation. When probing questions about other curric-ulum areas (relationships, family, child development, and teen problems) were used,none of the parent participants were sure of how or if FCS program curriculapresented that material to their children.

She (the teacher) paired them up and married them, I think, and they had to make it workin the pretend world.

… ya, my son drew the night shift laborer guy and couldn’t believe how hard it was tostretch that fake paycheck.

I think they talk about venereal diseases in one of these classes. But, maybe that was health.

A continuum of comfort emerged in this discussion. Some parents believe stronglythat values and decision-making skills are important topics in high school and thatsuch things may be better dealt with in the family, but that they feared such teachingwas not taking place as often as they thought necessary. Other participants wereuncomfortable, even fearful, of these topics being presented in the classroom byteachers, rather than by parents.

Those are values. That should be in the home.

These are things kids don’t get at home. School is the only place they hear this.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

198 T. Moore et al.

I don’t want my kids to hear that it’s ok for two men or two women to live like marriedpeople.

The kind of skills and the depth of training expected were also diverse.

I wish they would teach them about basic fundamentals, like peeling potatoes, but theydon’t. They made a pie. How many of you make pies?

It would be nice for them to learn how to cook … how to sew a button on … .

The term survival skills emerged in all focus group discussion. Although easilylinked to cooking and sewing, as the discussions continued, participants began todefine these survival skills more in terms of problem solving, decision-making, andrelationship building knowledge and application.

Parents were anxious to discuss how they remembered Home Economics programswhen they were in high school. They expressed awareness that things have changedover time, but were not confident that they knew just what those changes have been.

They have been working very hard to kind of get rid of the image of it being for girls andto teach them how to be good wives and mothers and stay at home with their kids … butI think it has a ways to go because a lot of people … still look at it as life training skills, andemphasize it for kids who aren’t going to college or want an easy class.

Confusion of program goals and curriculum

Across all four focus groups, confusion surfaced when discussing specific topics andwhere parents thought these topics were covered. No clear program lines were evidentbetween and among the various vocational programs in their schools. Healthprograms were also a common source of confusion.

They study careers a lot. … Or was that in his business class?

I know they talked about nutrition. … Maybe that was in health?

She had that ‘sex’ presentation in middle school. I don’t know if FCS or health teachersdo that.

They learned how to change a tire in some class … that was an important life skill.

Budgeting was a huge project for her. That might have been a Math class or a businessclass, though.

Support

Parents were generally supportive of FCS programs and positive in their assessmentof the importance of classes their children had taken. A clear, general agreement orunderstanding of what should be included in these programs and how material shouldbe presented did not emerge. Although survival skills could not be defined or agreedupon, their importance was expressed across all four discussions.

The impact of teacher skills did not present itself in the discussions at the two largersites. These schools have multiple teachers in the FCS department. The parents from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 199

the two smaller schools did imply that the success or failure of FCS programs at theirschools might be linked to the personality and the teaching skills of the FCS teacher.Often teachers at these smaller sites are one-woman departments, or even part-timestaff. At one site, the teacher was part-time FCS and part-time counselor. Parents inthat focus group seemed unaware of that arrangement.

In summary, the parents in these focus groups did not express a high level of under-standing of FCS curriculum, nor could they express a clear definition of what theywould like these programs to focus upon. They were most comfortable discussingprojects their children had completed in FCS courses—visible, tangible, things likequilts and pies. They appeared satisfied with the experiences their students had inthese classes and expressed interest in seeing such courses more readily available,easier to schedule with other required courses, and more strongly encouraged andsupported by school counselors.

Student focus groups

Students participating in the four focus groups included males and females,students who had taken FCS courses and students who had not taken thesecourses, and eighth graders through high school seniors. It became evident early inthe data analysis that smaller school sites, with their limited number of courseofferings and single staff members, create a much different environment than didthe two larger school sites. This was reflected in many ways in student responses.In terms of general satisfaction, most students were pleased with their FCSclassroom experiences. Problems expressed can be summated in three distinctcategories:

● lack of course offerings or difficulty in scheduling● lack of academic emphasis on FCS coursework● lack of understanding of the general goals and objectives of the courses they take

Course offerings

The two larger schools had a variety of courses and often multiple sections of differentcourses to choose from. However, these students still expressed difficulty in workingdesired classes into their schedules.

You basically have to choose between music, FCS, and theater.

After you get all the basic classes you need, you fill in with what’s left. You don’t have alot of options with FCS electives.

Students in three of the focus groups expressed a problem with other studentsenrolled in FCS courses.

We had a lot of special needs kids in our class. That made it hard for the teacher.

A lot of kids take these classes for easy A’s or because they flunk out of other classes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

200 T. Moore et al.

Academic emphasis

Many students expressed frustration in confronting stereotypes and misconceptionsabout the FCS courses they chose to take. As these courses are usually not graduationrequirements, they are perceived as less academic or necessary for students who maywish to pursue higher education. They are seen more as ‘fillers’ for openings in classschedules.

My advisor gave me a choice of FCS, Drafting, or Study Hall. She didn’t seem to carewhich one I took, just so it fit into my open hour.

My friends tease me about taking the ‘easy courses’ just to keep my GPA up.

Lack of understanding of program and course goals and objectives

During the group discussions, course titles surfaced. When probed about what anyparticular course included, students found it difficult to explain what the course subjectmatter actually was, and what they perceived to be the intended learning expected ofthem upon class completion. Sewing and cooking courses were exceptions to this.

The computer baby was in that class … or maybe not. I think it might have been in theother class. But we made a lot of stuff using the microwave in Foods.

I think we spent time in the childcare room in that class. We watched kids and stuff.

Course titles were much more descriptive in the two larger school programs.Students from the smaller schools referred to courses as FCS One, FCS Two, and inother generic terms. Again, when probed, they were sometimes confused aboutcourse content within any one-course offering.

In summary, students expressed no strong positive or negative feelings toward theirexperiences in FCS courses. No gender differences in responses were noted.References to teacher attributes were more frequent in the discussions with studentsfrom the smaller schools. In these two schools, the FCS teacher and the FCS programare inseparable entities.

Common threads across participant groups

When the school had an active FCCLA program, participants cited that extra-curric-ular activity as very beneficial in developing leadership skills and positive self-concepts. However, no direct connection was ever made to an integral relationshipbetween that organization and FCS courses. Students shared that to be in FCC LAyou have to take one FCS course, and most expressed that they had completed thatrequirement in their mandated middle-school class.

Another common thread was the general confusion among parents and students asto what exactly FCS courses were designed to accomplish in terms of learning goalsand objectives. The confusion, or lack of clarity as to which elective program wasintended to teach which subject matter a common item was also of discuss in thosetwo groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 201

Parents and administrators seemed to understand the need for advocacy for theseprograms and the realization that when resources were tight, FCS programs wereoften vulnerable. Although both groups saw the program as beneficial, they both alsoseemed to accept that when pitted against the core subjects, FCS would fall. Asadults, taxpayers, and parents they seemed to grasp a need for accountability.

Discussion

There are several suggestions for change that can be used as recommendations basedon the perceptions of the participants in this study. Although the study represents asmall number of participants in a single and monogamous region of the USA, thelessons learned can be used to question current practices in other areas.

The fact that participants in these focus groups had no solid grasp of FCS contentis of major concern.

The impact of multiple realities

The idea that the profession is often viewed from multiple perspectives is not new.The profession of Family and Consumer Sciences encompasses a vast range ofsubject matter and expertise. However, one lesson to be learned from this study is thatbecause of being ‘all things to all people’, this profession may have blurred its ownvision of where is fits in academia. In essence, the participants in this focus groupstudy express multiple realities. Professionals within FCS seem no less confused.

The vocational connection

One reality is the connection of FCS curriculum and purpose to vocational educa-tion. Vocation, as defined by Webster, is any trade, profession, or occupation. Asthe Home Economics profession emerged under Richard’s leadership, managingthe home and family to ensure its safety and continuation was an occupation.Social changes to the roles of women from 1910–1970 both reaffirmed homeeconomics training for women as an important field of study and disputed itsimportance in relation to other, more ‘academic’ preparation at the post-secondaryinstitutions (Pundt, 1980). As enrollments dropped and costs remained an issue,administrators welcomed the opportunity to connect with Carl Perkins’ funding.Being ‘vocational’ also lessened the image problems. Home Economics, or the firstemerging programs under the name of Family and Consumer Sciences, not onlyprepared students to be family leaders, but to be wage earners and policy makers,as well.

This alignment with vocational education presents an obstacle to teacher trainingin this new century. Perkins funding has become more restrictive and difficult toaccess. Many Vocational Education programs in major universities have been elimi-nated. As focus group participants explained, the borders between the variousprograms in secondary settings are blurred.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

202 T. Moore et al.

Should FCS programs focus curriculum time and resources on the study of careersat the expense of other topics? Is that type of information and training available inother programs down the corridor? Is it the mission of FCS to prepare workers for theoffice or job site, or to teach individuals how to be positive, productive familymembers, who transfer those life skills to the workplace? Does FCS have to choose?When vocational coursework is necessary to fulfill teaching endorsement require-ments, a choice will be made. If vocational programs are not present on the collegecampus, it is difficult for administrators to support an FCS education program thatrelies on coursework provided by another institution, whether it occurs throughdistance learning, commuting, or on the Web.

The Home Economics stigma

The cloak of Home Economics continues to be a negative factor in the publics’perception of the discipline in some professionals’ opinions. Others argue that it hasbeen and will remain the true center of the discipline, past, present, and future. Whena current alumni board began exploring the possibility of re-naming a college buildingon one mid-western campus, the voices of many alumnae cried out against droppingThe Home Economics Building designation. Many expressed that the brick with thatname inscribed ‘was the only thing left to remind us of where we come from.’

Adult participants in these focus groups frequently referred to the existing programas something that ‘used to be Home Ec.’ That reference is common in many discus-sions in academic and in public community settings. As Helen Richards was recentlyquoted in a journal piece, ‘Real progress is often retarded by trying to make the newfit into the old scheme of things’ (Tucker, 2002). Have the name changes beeneffective, or merely just more confusing?

The perceived academic integrity

Another reality is the campaign for academic recognition. Family and ConsumerSciences classes have often been stereotyped as easy classes. As budget cuts and newlegislation emerges (such as the ‘No Child Left Behind’ initiative), critical examina-tion of academic preparation of both teachers and students heightens. Will FCSprograms size up? Will the rigor and the course content be able to dispel the stereo-types that emerged across all focus groups? Cutshall (2002) points out that even thosewithin the National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Educationrecognize there is a lack of focus on academic achievement. Fighting against thestereotype that the field lacks academic ‘rigor,’ Schneider (2000) reports that today’shome economist is a ‘serious scholar.’ More and more programs are promotingcritical thinking skills and connections to math, science, and writing. Can academicsbecome the driving force without compromising the importance of the inherentpresence of applied science in FCS?

Although a valid attempt has been made to change the negative image of Familyand Consumer Sciences, the stereotypes are still firmly rooted in both the secondary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Listening to the stakeholders 203

and post-secondary settings. There is evidence that not all practicing professionalsfeel that the image needs to be changed (Ennis, 2001). Many are still perpetuatingthe cooking and sewing image that others have fought so hard to shed. Even thosewho work to improve the image of their profession and of their programs are thwartedby the perennial expectations of the community they serve.

The impact of the emerging family life education model

Another reality comes from some programs that have embraced the Family LifeEducation model. Leaving the areas of nutrition, clothing, and housing to othereducational entities, Family Life Education has moved into an education model,centered on human development and family relationships as the basis for the work ofthe family. The authors’ own university department found success and growth byfocusing on this model. There is no question that the American Association of Familyand Consumer Sciences has a natural philosophical alliance with the National Coun-cil on Family Relations in terms of the post-secondary programs. In light of theteacher shortage, national discussions have already explored the possibilities for theFamily Life Education model at the secondary teacher-training level (Asay et al.,2002). Many secondary programs are already focusing on family relationships.Blassingame (1999) quotes one secondary teacher, ‘We used to be a lot more aboutstitching and stirring … and now the emphasis is on relationships in the family.’

Separately, not one of these realities is purely detrimental to the future of FCS. Theproblem surfaces when the populations it serves no longer have a clear picture of ‘whoFCS is’ or ‘what FCS provides.’ At the risk of becoming too narrow, has the focusbecome too broad? Abbott (2001) notes that bodies of academic work are constantlybeing redefined in an effort to strengthen their stance within the disciplinary structureof the US university system. He even suggests that some occupational groups havewithered with time, eventually disappearing when their tasks become obsolete(Abbott, 1988). Are there new groups emerging at the margins? Are they ready tosubsume the new realities and problems of a contemporary global environment andto shed the baggage of an out-dated structure?

References

Abbott, A. D. (1988) The system of professions (Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press).Abbott, A. D. (1992) Human services as complex organizations (Newbury Park, CA, SAGE

Publications).Abbott, A. D. (2001) Chaos of disciplines (Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press).Asay, S. M., Moore, T. J. & Curry, B. (2002) New partnerships: the future of certified family life

education in the secondary school. Invited Symposium for the annual conference of the NationalCouncil of Family Relations, Houston, TX.

Austin, E. (1999) Saving the home from Martha Stewart, Washington Monthly, 31(12), 9–12.Barnes, B. M. (2001) The failing support for higher education: how can FCS survive and thrive?,

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(4), 37–38.Blassingame, K. M. (1999) Then and now, Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 74(8),

26–28.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4

204 T. Moore et al.

Cutshall, S. (2002) Preparing with a purpose: discovering new directions in teacher education,Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 77(5), 20–22.

Ennis, P. A. (2001) Op ed., Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(4), 105.Morgan, D. L. (1996) Focus groups, in: J. Hagan & K. S. Cook (Eds) Annual Review of Sociology,

Vol. 22 (Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews), 129–152.Pauley, E. D. (1996) Family and consumer sciences curricula: what do students, parents, faculty,

and community want?, Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 88(2), 11–14.Pundt, H. (1980) AHEA: a history of excellence (Washington, DC, American Home Economics

Association).Reese, S. (2003) Keeping our programs alive: sometimes it may be a struggle to keep career and

technical programs alive and well in high schools and middle schools, but it’s a battle worthfighting, Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 78(1), 18–22.

Schneider, A. (2000) It’s not your mother’s Home Economics, Chronicle of Higher Education,47(7), A18–20.

Smith, B. P., Hall, H. C. & Jones, K. H. (2001) National standards for family and consumersciences education: perceptions of parents, professionals, and vocational administrators,Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(4), 49–57.

Thaler-Carter, R. E. (2000) Leaving Home Economics in the past, Techniques: Connecting Educationand Careers, 75(8), 2.

Tucker, K. S. (2002) Transforming AAFCS for the 21st Century, The Journal of Family andConsumer Sciences, 94(3), 2.

Wendland, J. & Torrie, M. (1993) Perceptions of Home Economics program content as viewed bystudents, parents, and guidance counselors, Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education,11(2), 30–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

0:52

10

Oct

ober

201

4