Lessons From Life's First Teacher:
The Role of the Family in Adolescent and Adult Readiness for School-to-Work Transition

MDS-725

Wendy L. Way

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Marilyn Martin Rossmann

University of Minnesota-St. Paul

National Center for Research in Vocational Education
University of California at Berkeley
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704

Supported by
The Office of Vocational and Adult Education
U.S. Department of Education

June, 1996

FUNDING INFORMATION

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
  • Research Questions
  • Related Literature
  • Research Model and Design
• ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN READINESS FOR SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION: AN ADOLESCENT LEARNER MODEL
  • Methodology
  • Results and Discussion
• ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN ADULT READINESS FOR SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION: TWO PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS
  • Methodology
  • Results and Discussion
• ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION READINESS: ADOLESCENT VOICES
  • Unilateral Parent-to-Child Guidance and Support
  • Reciprocal Interactions with Their Parents
  • Family as a Place To Interpret Reality
  • Illustrated Realities of Work and Post-High School Transition
• SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
  • Similarities Among the Models
  • Differences Among the Models
  • Conclusions and Implications
• REFERENCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although the role of parents in children's academic achievement has featured prominently in recent national debates and policies, little is understood about the contributions of families in their children's preparation for work. This national study of 1,266 high school seniors and 879 adult two-year college students asked whether family plays a role in developing readiness for school-to-work transition and whether the family role differs for adolescent and adult learners. School-to-work transition readiness indicators in the study included measures of career maturity and selected work effectiveness skills.

The findings, based on examination of a series of structural models linking family attributes to transition readiness, suggest that family does play a role in the development of readiness for school-to-work transition among both adolescents and adults. It is not just the unidirectional adult-to-child actions (e.g., parent participation in school), so often highlighted in educational policy and practice, that seem to matter, however. The day-to-day relational elements of the family also seem to play a role in developing transition readiness for both adults and children. Proactive family characteristics, such as being cohesive or expressive, having an active recreation orientation, and democratic decision-making, contribute positively to readiness for school-to-work transition. Inactive family styles, such as being laissez-faire in decision making and/or enmeshed, work against development of readiness for school-to-work transition. An authoritarian family functioning style makes no contribution at all to school-to-work transition readiness among adolescents as defined in the study, although this style does seem to be associated with adolescents' plans to continue some form of education beyond high school.

Study findings suggest that family characteristics seem to be important in nurturing readiness for school-to-work transition because families contribute to the development of family members' learning processes, such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and critical thinking, which, in turn, are useful in developing transition readiness. The role of their current family in developing readiness for school-to-work transition seems to be similar for adults and adolescents. Important differences were found, however, between present family and recollections of past family for adults. Several implications are discussed for workforce education policy and practice and further research.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Current interest about the preparedness of American workers has sparked widespread discussions. Schools and families are two of the targets of the heated debates. This attention flows from broad public concerns about the quality of students' education, declining economic fortunes of both young and old, perceived deterioration in family life, and lagging U.S. economic competitiveness in world markets (Berryman & Bailey, 1992; Brustein & Mahler, 1994; Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, 1990; Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, & Williamson, 1994; Kazis, 1993; Kerr, 1994; The William T. Grant Foundation, 1988). The goal of this study is to inspire and inform the conversations about work readiness by improving understanding of the complex relationships among individuals, their families, their learning, and their preparation to enter the world of work.

The transition from school to further occupational or educational roles is far from smooth for a large portion of the American population (Kazis, 1993). Too many young persons (perhaps half or more of high school graduates) flounder in unemployment, less than living-wage jobs, or ill-fitting college programs. Many adults lack the ability to improve employability skills or find more personally meaningful career directions, once initial occupational choices have been made (Herr & Cramer, 1992; The William T. Grant Foundation, 1988).

Yet, such transitions seem easier for some individuals than others. There are many examples of young people who know their career goals, who have realistically assessed both their personal abilities and the labor market projections, and who are ready to move smoothly from education to their chosen occupations. There are also adults who have successfully returned to school and are now pursuing new career goals. For every case of a clear career path, there are contrasting examples, such as the high school senior with vague or nonexistent occupational goals and plans, and the adult who is unable to chart a satisfying course for education and/or career. An intriguing question is, what accounts for these differences in ability to make successful school-to-work transitions?

The answer to the question is complex and embedded in an understanding of the relationships between many individual and societal characteristics. Use of the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) provides a framework to understand how individuals develop as a direct consequence of the interactions that take place between them and their surrounding environments. For both young persons and adults, the family is widely regarded as the primary and most powerful influence on human development (Olson & Hanson, 1990). The dreams of parents for their children, the structures families build, the way they handle conflict and communication, and the feelings of parents toward work and learning may have powerful effects on the development of skills and attitudes necessary to succeed. Schools, religious institutions, neighborhoods, and the business community are other components of the ecological system that have an effect on the family. All of these elements interact to contribute to an individual's potential for smooth transition to work.

Conventional wisdom suggests important links exist between families, effective schools, and the ability to enact adult life roles such as work. In a February 15, 1994, address at Georgetown University, for example, U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley spoke of how families are life's first teachers of lessons that are often never forgotten and that have profound social and economic consequences. Yet the role of this important "first teacher" has not been examined in much detail. Marshall and Tucker (1992) recently argued that "it will do the country little good . . . to restructure schools unless we make families better learning systems and include families as integral components of restructured schools" (p. 165).

Empirical evidence linking the family, and especially parental involvement in schooling, to academic achievement lends credibility to widely held public perceptions regarding the importance of ties between the family and educational efforts (Bempechat, 1990; Epstein, 1987; U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Surprisingly, though, relatively little research has been available to help examine the role families play in preparing individuals for work, either at particular points in time or throughout the lifespan (Entwisle, 1990; Gerstel & Gross, 1987; Way & Rossmann, 1994).

The need for information about family factors which may contribute to the school-to-work transition is particularly relevant today, given current attempts to implement the 1994 School to Work Opportunities Act and to fashion an appropriate sequel to the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990. Both policy initiatives emphasize improving the ability of individuals to make meaningful and efficient movements from school to work. Unfortunately, most recent education-for-work policy proposals have overlooked or given narrowly conceived attention to links between family and work.

Kazis' (1993) discussion of the "school-to-work problem" is typical of current literature. Although it outlines thoughtful strategies for improving career preparation and provides a number of important recommendations for federal policy, it fails to address the question of whether family matters or what role the family might play in school-to-work transition. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act does mention parents as important participants in children's education, but primarily in terms of career exploration and choice and as a possible representative partner in designing and administering educational programs (Brustein & Mahler, 1994).

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the recently adopted national education goals, emphasize the enhancement of learners' capacity for productive employment and the stimulation of parental participation in the education of their children. No connection is made, however, between parents and education for work. The references to parents in this policy initiative are laudable, but the fact that the policy ignores the link between families and preparation for work is a concern.

There seem to be some erroneous assumptions about families regarding their career development involvement; for example, the beliefs that all parents have equal capacities to fully and effectively support their members' career exploration and choice, educational program planning, and homework completion; assertions that a family's primary contribution to preparation for work occurs before adulthood, and during the child's adolescence; feelings that preparation for work universally occurs at distinct stages of life, which conveniently coincide with secondary and/or postsecondary school; or thoughts that a parent's involvement in educational activities contributes more to a child's preparation for work than do other aspects of daily family dynamics. One final assumption is that occupational work roles and family work do not interact in meaningful ways.

With few exceptions, current school-to-work literature also ignores a number of major changes in American family forms and functions that have occurred over the past quarter century; for example, increases in the number of single-parent families and the entry of large numbers of married women with children into the labor force (DelCampo, 1994; Furstenberg, 1990; U.S. House of Representatives, 1987). The absence of more substantive policy-focused dialogue regarding associations between family, education, and transition-to-work appears to be a weak link in the process of designing current school-to-work opportunity initiatives.

Research Questions

In the interest of informing the present policy debate, as well as educational practice and research, this study addressed the following broad questions:

• Does the family contribute to learners' readiness for transition from school to work? If so, in what manner does the family contribute to learners' transition readiness?
• Does the linkage, if any, between family and transition readiness differ for adolescent and adult learners?
• What, if any, kind of attention should be given to the family by educators and policymakers interested in preparing youth and adults for the school-to-work transition?

Related Literature

Before turning to a discussion of the study methodology and findings, it is appropriate to step back and ask why, given the conventional wisdom that links family to educational achievement and school success in general, hasn't more attention been given to the family in education-for-work proposals?

Perspectives That Limit Visions of Work/Family Interconnectedness

Taylorism

During the rise of industrialism, occupational work came to possess increasingly discrete and well-defined times and places. This direction served to conceptually disconnect occupational work from family work and also from the enactment of other key life roles such as the user of leisure or lifelong learner (Kliebard, 1990). Several scholars have argued that U.S. business has influenced educational practice and that both perpetuate the scientific management ideology of compartmentalizing roles, and that even in the face of evidence, this approach may no longer be functional (Bennett & LeCompte, 1990; Gray, 1993; Shedd & Bacharach, 1991; Wirth, 1992). A reasonable question is what is the extent to which school-to-work transition programs also reflect role compartmentalizations that are no longer functional and which separate the world of work from the world of family.

Instrumental Action

Male Experience Standard

The use of a male experience standard, however, still characterizes many related policies and research (Noddings, 1992). For example, special educational programs have often been designed for teen mothers with little or no attention to the responsibilities of teen fathers (Bogenschneider, Young, Melli, & Fleming, 1993). Researchers have also traditionally asked different questions about work and family roles for males and females (Kline & Cowan, 1989). Most research about the effects of unemployment, for example, has focused on the effects of male unemployment on individuals and families. Little attention has been given to the effects of female unemployment on the family. On the contrary, there has been much interest in female employment and its effects on the family, particularly on the development of young children in the family.

Such approaches are not surprising given persistent social norms that support different degrees of permeability in work/family boundaries for men and women (Pleck, 1977). It is still much more acceptable (even desirable) in the United States for men to place occupational work ahead of family work--for example, to stay late at work or to travel on business--and for women to place family work ahead of occupational work--for example, staying home to care for sick children or other family members.

Because of the greater interdependence of work and family for women, these differences often put women in a no-win position, regardless of which decision they make. For a woman, choosing not to work or to work only part time in order to care for her children may put her at a disadvantage when a strong work history may be needed for later employment. On the other hand, working mothers are at risk, too. Recently, for example, several divorced and separated female parents have had child custody orders challenged or reversed when they relied on day care to permit them to work and/or attend school (Brecher, 1995). Although there are important differences in the ways men and women form their work commitments and enact their work roles (Kline & Cowan, 1989; Pittman & Orthner, 1989), these differences do not seem to be part of the current educational policy debate. Most policy, in fact, tends to reflect the male experience standard of greater separation of work and family roles.

Policymaker's Socialization

Links Between Family and Work Readiness

Existing research and theory suggests that a number of characteristics of the family are particularly relevant to vocational development. These include the location of the family in the broader social context (for example, socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic background); the structural features of the family such as single or dual parenthood; and family processes such as transmission of family work values, planned parental career-related interventions, and family interaction style (Schulenberg et al., 1984).

Family Interactions

Recent studies provide several insights. It has been shown that parents transmit occupational values such as values of conformity or autonomy in work to their children (Kohn, 1977). It has also been shown that a family's socioeconomic status affects the nature and extent of career exploration (Grotevant & Cooper, 1988; Hageman & Gladding, 1983), occupational aspirations and expectations (Harvey & Kerin, 1978; MacKay & Miller, 1982; Marini & Greenberger, 1978), and occupational status attainment (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Gansemer, 1977; Mortimer, 1974, 1976). Parents are now known to initiate a number of different kinds of intentional career-related interactions with their children (Young & Friesen, 1992). Day-to-day patterns of family functioning, such as decision-making styles and degrees of conflict and cohesion, have been shown to be related to the development of career maturity among adolescents (Penick & Jepsen, 1992). Enmeshment in one's family of origin--for example, feeling pressured to spend most of one's free time with one's family--has also been shown to be associated with career indecision among university students (Kinnier, Brigman, & Noble, 1990).

System Interactions

For adults, the potential impact of the family on vocational development is more complex. Recent research focusing on the relational contexts of development suggest that not only do individuals take with them through the lifespan the result of interaction in their family of origin, but they also subsequently add the influence of family structures they create (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).

To date, however, much of the career development literature has been based on a "social mold" view of unilateral parent-to-child influence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1988; Hartup, 1978), rather than on a relational view of family interaction. In the social mold perspective, families are seen as supporting career development primarily through modeling appropriate career behaviors, providing enriching experiences for children, and supporting development of desirable work-related attitudes. In the relational view, the contexts of development are cast as transactional and reciprocal rather than unidirectional and are seen as providing "gateways or channels to an ever-widening range of experiences" (Hartup, 1986, p. 2), as opposed to specific guides for future behavior. Questions are being raised about the adequacy of the unidirectional model of family interaction for explaining the development of adult competence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1988). This model remains, however, in most current education for work policies and programs, as the dominant view of a family's role.

Links of Family to Learning Processes

Extent of Family Influence

Relationship of Family and Preparation for Work

Another explanation for the limited inquiry concerning family involvement in adult work-related learning is that social scientists have historically been more interested in the effects of work and the workplace on adults and families than in the reciprocity of these relationships (Schulenberg et al., 1984). In an interesting qualitative study, however, Crouter (1984) found educational as well as psychological spillover from family to work among employees of a large manufacturing plant. Among the responses were explanations of how the family taught employees lessons that paid off on the job.

Research Model and Design

To address the questions of this research effort, a conceptual framework was developed that outlined causal relationships among the characteristics of individuals, characteristics of families, selected learning processes, and readiness for transition from school to work. The constructs in the model were operationalized and their relationships examined for both adolescent and adult learners using two similar data collection and analysis procedures.

Data for the study was gathered from two national samples of youth and adults in four states. A description of the respondents in the adolescent group is provided in the next two sections. Hypothesized models linking study constructs were tested using LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) structural equation modeling and SPSS (Norusis, 1990) logistics regression routines. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a small number of respondents in the youth sample. Funds were not available in this study for follow-up interviews with the adult respondents; however, a separate study to talk with the adults is in progress. Study methods and findings are presented in the next few sections of the report.

ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN READINESS FOR SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION: AN ADOLESCENT LEARNER MODEL

The first part of the research focused on experiences of adolescent learners. These students were seniors in high school, three to eight months away from graduation.

Methodology

Conceptual Model and Instrumentation

Individual Characteristics

Family Characteristics

expressiveness; enmeshment; disengagement; conflict; cohesion; intellectual, recreation, and religious orientations; democratic, authoritarian, and laissez-faire decision-making styles; organization; external locus of control; and family idealization.

A ten-item scale, adapted from existing instruments (Mortimer, Lorence, & Kunka, 1986), assessed family work values related to extrinsic and intrinsic work orientation and work autonomy. Items included family modeling and expectations about educational and career outcomes.

Another ten-item scale, based on qualitative research by Young and Friesen (1992), was developed to assess parents' intentional career-related interactions with children in the family. Intentional action is defined as acting to bring about a desired outcome (Chapman, 1984). A key characteristic of parental action is the notion of personal influence, usually either in outcomes or process (Brandtstadter, 1984; Young, Friesen, & Dillabough, 1991; Young, 1994). Using an intentional action perspective allows for a view of the reciprocal relationship parents have constructed with their children (Maccoby, 1992). Types of intentional parental career-related interactions addressed in the study included skill acquisition, facilitation of human relationships, increasing independent thinking and action, development of personal responsibility, enhancing self-image, and decreasing sex-role stereotyping.

Information on parent participation in schooling was collected using a 4-item scale developed for the study. The scale reflected a variety of typical types of parental involvement such as assistance with homework, attendance at school events, and discussion with school personnel about student progress (Epstein, 1987).

Learning Processes

Readiness for Transition from School-to-Work

Data Collection

Data collection began in late fall of 1993 and continued through March of 1994. A total of 1,409 questionnaires were received during the data collection period. Of these, 1,266 (90%) contained complete datasets which were used to test the proposed model of family influence on school-to-work transition readiness.

Although four states were selected for data collection, most of the respondents in the final sample represented three of the four states. A total of 715 (56.5%) were from Georgia, 197 (15.6%) were from Arizona, 308 (24.3%) were from Minnesota, and 43 (3.4%) were from Pennsylvania. In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, actual public elementary and secondary school enrollments in the south did comprise a larger percentage of the total school enrollments than other regions, though not as large as that for respondents in this study; 35.5% of actual U.S. total enrollments are now in the southern states region compared to 17.6% in the northeast, 24.1% in the midwest, and 22.5% in the west (Smith, Rogers, Alsalam, Perie, Mahoney, & Martin, 1994).

Somewhat more of the respondents were from metropolitan areas (35.9% suburban, 12.4% urban, and 8.7% midsize cities) than rural areas or small towns (42.8%). Currently, about 75% of U.S. elementary and secondary school students are enrolled in metropolitan areas (Bruno & Adams, 1994). Most of the respondents were aged 17 and above (85.0%); 12.2% were age 15 or 16. There were more female respondents (58.7%) than male (39.7%).

The final sample represented the U.S. secondary school population well, in terms of race and family background. Of the usable returns, 69.9% were from students who identified themselves as white; the rest were self-identified as members of minority groups. According to the latest available statistics, 69.6% of U.S. elementary and secondary school students are white, and the rest (30.4%) are minorities. Students in single-parent families comprised 23.3% of the respondents. Of the public U.S. elementary and secondary school population, 24.7% live in a single-parent family (Digest of Education Statistics-1993, 1994).

To determine whether the overrepresented numbers of respondents from southern and rural/small town regions and underrepresented numbers from the northeast region would bias study results, a series of one-way analyses of variance was conducted to determine if differences emerged in key dependent and independent study variables according to the location of respondents. No troublesome differences were found. For example, no systematic differences (p < .05) were found in the career maturity measures or work effectiveness skills mean scores according to respondents' city or state size. The only systematic difference in family functioning (p < .05) according to city or state size appeared in just one of the 15 family functioning scales, that dealing with religious orientation. Respondents from Georgia reported greater degrees of religiosity than those in each of the other states.

Instrument Reliability

As shown, estimates for the measures of career maturity, work effectiveness skills, parental-intentional interactions, family work values, school integration, and learning strategies scales were at or above acceptable levels (Borg & Gall, 1989). Several of the individual family functioning scale reliabilities were lower than desirable, which may be partially explained by the small number of items in these scales. Individual scales were grouped using factor analysis for subsequent testing of relationships in the hypothesized structural model. The derived factor structures are provided in Table 2.

Factor Structures for Study Constructs

The 15 scales of the family functioning pattern instrument loaded on three factors, which were labeled "proactive functioning," "dominating functioning," and "inactive functioning" (Table 2). These summary patterns of family-wide functioning are similar, though not identical, to the widely accepted Baumrind (1967) concept of differentiated parenting styles characterized as autocratic, or authoritarian; indifferent, or uninvolved; and authoritative, or warm and active, yet firm. Factor scores based on these three dimensions of family functioning were used in subsequent analyses.

Proactive (authoritative) parenting has been associated with several positive indicators of psychosocial development among adolescents, such as greater degrees of psychological autonomy, self-esteem, mental health, self-reliance, academic and social competence, impulse control, and social responsibility (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). An indifferent parenting style is known to place adolescents at greater risk of problem behaviors such as drug and alcohol use and delinquency. Those raised in authoritarian households typically fall between those in the other two types of households on measures of social competence, self-reliance, self-esteem, and other measures of psychosocial development (Steinberg, 1990). It is believed that the consequences of parenting style hold up across race and socioeconomic groups, as well as through varying family forms (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Dornbusch, Ritter, Liederman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg, 1990).

The derived factor structure developed for indicators of readiness for transition from school-to-work (two measures of career maturity, work effectiveness skills, and the single item post-high school plans) showed that the post-high school plans item did not load well with the others (Table 2). Thus, the post-high schools plans measure was excluded from the school-to-work transition readiness construct for the initial analysis of the hypothesized model and was examined in a separate analysis.

Analysis

Results and Discussion

Mean scores and standard deviations for each of the observed variables in the model of adolescent transition readiness are provided in Table 3. The intercorrelations among the constructs in the hypothesized model of adolescent experiences are provided in Table 4.

Respondent Characteristics

Overall Effects in the Model

Total Effects

The total effects findings are consistent with a good deal of literature which suggests both females and whites possess greater degrees of career maturity in terms of vocational identity and career indecision than males and members of minority groups (Herr & Cramer, 1992; Neely, 1980; Westbrook, Cutts, Madison, & Arcia, 1980). The findings are also consistent with the literature describing the power of warm and actively managed family functioning over functioning which is domineering or authoritarian, or lacking in control (Steinberg, 1990). What is noteworthy about these findings is that they suggest that a relational model of development, which acknowledges reciprocal transactions between family members, rather than simply unidirectional influences, may be appropriate for understanding and nurturing the development of adolescents' readiness for school-to-work transition.

Direct Effects

Family Functioning Style

Students' Integration in School

Sex

The finding of greater perceived inactive family functioning among male adolescents is consistent with other literature suggesting that parent-child interactions occurring in adolescence are different for girls and boys (Mann, 1994). A specific example is that mothers have been found to exert more power over daughters after puberty than before, while boys are known to assert themselves more as puberty progresses (Brooks-Gunn & Reiter, 1990). Gender differences in terms of family and friends, power, achievement, and division of labor at home and at work have been previously well-documented (Lips, 1988).

Race

Socioeconomic Status

There are a number of reasons students' family experiences may be enhanced by higher socioeconomic status. Greater family economic resources may permit more ready access to at least some resources supportive of intellectual, cultural, and recreational activities. Economic resources may also permit family members to more easily achieve physical and psychological distance from one another, serving to reduce conflict and enhance cohesion and sociability. Greater degrees of education may serve to provide broader awareness of growth opportunities and perhaps enhance comfort in interacting with educational partners outside of the family.

Family Form

Indirect Effects

Family Functioning

Family Work Values, Parental Intentional Interactions, and Parent Participation in School

Socioeconomic Status

The results of the present study suggest that for adolescents, socioeconomic status does not exert all of its effects on preparation for work roles directly, and that, in fact, the effect is exerted only indirectly, through the character of functioning within the family. In this study, socioeconomic status exerted no significant total effect or direct effect on adolescents' readiness for transition from school to work, but there was a significant indirect effect of socioeconomic status on transition readiness. Thus, high socioeconomic status does not appear to provide a guarantee of transition readiness, nor does lower socioeconomic status appear certain to prevent it; the effect is mediated by the nature of transactions in the family.

The fact that there were significant indirect effects of socioeconomic status on adolescent transition readiness, but not significant direct or total effects, indicates that in the final analysis, what happens in the family may well be more important to transition readiness than socioeconomic status per se.

Family Form

Family Functioning Style and Family Work Values

Predictors of Adolescent Post-High School Plans

¹ Plans = 1,100 (86.9%), No Plans = 166 (13.1%); Model X² = 78.64, p = .000

² The exponentiation of the regression coefficient (B) or odds effect = e^B. This value, which is always positive because of the nature of exponentiation, represents the multiplicative impact of the predictor variable on the odds. Odds effects greater than 1.0 reflect increases in odds per unit change in the predictor variable; odds effects less than 1.0 reflect reductions in odds (Norusis, 1990).

The contrasting results between the two models may be explained by examining the differences associated with making plans for a particular post-high school work or education pursuit versus having a real sense of readiness to make and enact career choices. A controlling family style, for instance, may be effective in getting a child to college. Merely arriving at college, however, is no guarantee that the individual will have a vocational identity which is adequate to set a personally meaningful, satisfying, and effective career course. Similarly, feeling comfortable in school environments may contribute to the likelihood that individuals will seek out further education, but again, such comfort may not, in itself, guarantee readiness for transition from that school environment to meaningful work.

ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN ADULT READINESS FOR SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION: TWO PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS

The second phase of the present study examined the role of the family in the development of readiness for school-to-work transition among adult learners. These students were enrolled in postsecondary college programs that emphasized preparation for employment.

Methodology

Models and Instrumentation

As shown in Figure 3, the key constructs in the adult models of transition readiness were the same as those in the model of adolescent experiences. Several of the indicators of the constructs, however, were modified to reflect adult development concepts.

Individual Characteristics

Family Characteristics

The family work values scales, adapted from instruments developed by Mortimer
et al. (1986) consisted of ten items reflecting extrinsic and intrinsic work orientations, work autonomy, and work/family harmony values. Study participants responded separately to two identical sets of items: one reflecting family of origin and one reflecting present family work values.

Career development support was similarly assessed using two identical sets of five items for family of origin and present family. Developed for the study, these items reflected financial, emotional, and informational types of support.

The family of origin model also included indicators of parent intentional interactions and work-family stress. Data regarding intentional interactions was collected using a ten-item scale based on the work of Young and Friesen (1992) which was developed and used for the adolescent portion of the study. Work-family stress was assessed using a two-item scale developed for the study which reflected the bidirectional permeability of work/family boundaries (Chow & Berheide, 1988).

Learning Processes

Respondents' learning strategies were assessed using 20 items reflecting four scales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al., 1991). These scales assessed extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for learning, self-efficacy, and critical thinking. Two items developed for the study measured the smoothness of respondents' transition from high school to further schooling in terms of time lapse and consistency of study interest areas.

Readiness for Transition from School to Work

The work effectiveness construct was assessed using a three-item scale developed for the study which reflected a self-appraisal of basic work-effectiveness indicators (College Entrance Examination Board, 1978): past work performance, ability to compete for employment, and future capacity for advancement in a chosen occupation. The work readiness construct was assessed using a ten-item scale developed for the study based on the ten workplace competency areas outlined in the 1991 SCANS report, What Work Requires of Schools.

Data Collection

Data collection began in the summer of 1994 and continued through December of the same year. A total of 980 instrument responses was received. Of these, 879 (90%) contained complete datasets which were used in testing the proposed models of family contribution to adult school-to-work transition readiness.

Of the 879 usable responses received, 19.7% were from Arizona, 38.5% from Georgia, 14.8% from Minnesota, and 26.1% from Pennsylvania. The possibility of bias due to varying regional response rates was assessed by comparing mean scores of key dependent and independent variables according to state in a series of one-way analyses of variance. Only two systematic variations according to state were discovered, and neither appeared troubling, since both variables were treated as part of larger composite constructs during model testing. One difference was that Pennsylvania respondents reported greater (p < .05) degrees of vocational identity than respondents in the other three states. In addition, Georgia respondents reported greater degrees (p < .05) of one (extrinsic orientation) of the four family work values in their present family than did respondents in the other three states.

Age and race of the adult respondents approximated that of two-year college students nationally. Of the sample, 16.7% were below 21 years, 25.8% were 21-25 years, 13.8% were 26-30 years, 13.4% were 31-35 years, and 22.1% were 36 years of age or older. Nationally, about 56% of students in two-year postsecondary institutions are 24 years of age or older. Whites comprised 76.7% of respondents and nonwhites, 23.3%. Nationally, 72.1% of students in two-year postsecondary schools are white, and 26.2% are nonwhite (Smith et al., 1994).

More of the adult student respondents were female (75%) than male (25%). Nationally, females do outnumber males in two-year college programs by about 57% to 43% (Smith et al., 1994). However, the study sample does, by comparison, overrepresent females.

In terms of parental status, 50.5% of the present study sample report having children, compared to 49.5% who do not. Nationally, 57.7% of first-time two-year college students report having children compared to 28.8% who do not (Smith et al., 1994). (Note: Percentages reported in Smith et al.'s Condition of Education do not always total to 100% due to missing data.) A total of 58.8% of present study respondents reported being married, and 41.2% reported being single. National figures for first-time two-year college enrollees identify 34.8% of students as married and 59.4% as single (Smith et al., 1994). Thus, although the present study sample appear to represent the parental status of two-year college learners fairly well, it may be that the sample somewhat overrepresented persons who were married.

Instrument Reliability

Factor Structures for Adult Model Construct Indicators

For both present family and family of origin, a factor labeled proactive functioning emerged. Proactive functioning is characterized by traits such as family expressiveness, cohesion, an active/recreation orientation, an external locus of control, and democratic decision-making. In addition, the adult respondents saw their present families in ways that were labeled reactive and inactive in functioning style compared to their families of origin, where functioning style factors labeled indifferent and suffocating emerged. Reactive families are characterized by a lack of organization and leadership in setting family functioning guidelines and limits. Indifferent families not only lack organization, leadership, and rules to live by, but also seem to have members who are casual to the point of being disengaged from one another with respect to their day-to-day activities. Inactive families lack capacity for action because they either cannot set guidelines for family living (laissez-faire) or are overly tied to the present family system (enmeshed).

Suffocating families are those characterized primarily by enmeshment, which has been described elsewhere as "a familial environment [where] members are undifferentiated from or overly dependent on [one another]" (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, 1967, p. 309).

The underlying structures of the proactive and inactive family functioning factors for the adults' present family are identical to the factors that emerged for family functioning in the adolescent portion of the study. However, the other family functioning factors based on adult perceptions have structures that vary from the adolescents. Prior research has shown that adults and adolescents may view the same aspects of family functioning within their families differently. Penick and Jepsen (1992) found, for example, that different subcomponents of family functioning were significant predictors of vocational identity among 11th-grade students when perceptions of students, mothers, and fathers were compared. It may be, however, that the fundamental nature of family functioning is actually conceptualized differently by adolescents and adults, and that adults may also conceptualize family functioning differently in their present families and in their families of origin as well. The derived family functioning factors outlined in Table 8 were used in the subsequent testing of the adult transition models in the present study.

Analysis

Results and Discussion

Means and standard deviations for the observed variables in the adult models are presented in Table 9.

Respondent Characteristics

As expected, the adult respondents reported higher levels of vocational identity and lower levels of career indecision than the adolescents (see Table 3).

Family of Origin Contributions to Adult School-to-Work Transition Readiness

Total Effects

The direction of the effects of the family functioning styles were in the expected directions and consistent with the findings for adolescents in the study. Proactive functioning exerted a positive effect on transition readiness, while indifferent and suffocating functioning styles in the family of origin exerted negative effects on adult school-to-work transition readiness. In contrast to the adolescent findings, sex and family of origin work values did not exert significant total effects on transition readiness for adults in the hypothesized model of family of origin influences.

These findings provide evidence that a relational view of development is appropriate for understanding the process by which learners achieve readiness for school-to-work transition. They also support a convincing body of developmental literature focusing on how family relationships can promote or impede later developmental competence during adulthood. In a study of 604 undergraduate and graduate students, for example, Kinnier
et al. (1990) found that enmeshment (feeling pressured to spend most of one's free time with one's family) in the family of origin was significantly associated with difficulty in making career decisions. Penick and Jepsen (1992) also found that enmeshment in the family contributed negatively to the development of vocational identity.

Direct Effects

Another direct link shown in the model is the interaction between a suffocating family functioning style and a smooth transition from high school to higher education. A possible explanation may be that a suffocating family style may contribute to unquestioned decisions about further education for individuals who accept the advice they receive.

Sex

Race

Socioeconomic Status

Indirect Effects

Other significant indirect links in the model included those between race and learning strategies and between socioeconomic status and post-high school education transition smoothness. Being nonwhite was negatively associated with development of motivated strategies for learning through an indirect path, while socioeconomic status was positively and indirectly associated with smoothness of the post-high school educational transition (Table 11). In contrast to the adolescent model, there was no significant indirect link between socioeconomic status and transition readiness in the adult family of origin model.

Present Family Contributions to Adult School-to-Work Transition Readiness

Total Effects

Direct Effects

Race

Socioeconomic Status

These findings are suggestive of some particularly interesting questions about the role of socioeconomic status in adult life course career development. Why, for example, does present family socioeconomic status directly affect adult transition readiness, but not that of adolescents? What is the relationship between adult socioeconomic status, work-family stress, and participation in adult work-related education?

Marital Status

Indirect Effects

ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION READINESS: ADOLESCENT VOICES

To add further depth to the information provided in the questionnaire responses, follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of adolescent volunteers who had completed surveys several months earlier. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the experiences of the adolescents as they prepared for and made the transition from high school to further education and/or work. Special attention was given to the family's role in the adolescents' transition experiences during the time since graduation from high school. A phenomenological perspective was used as the basis for carrying out this segment of the research.

Phenomenology is a research tradition that dates back to the work of German philosopher Husserl (1962). As extended by Schutz (1977), Merleau-Ponty (1962), Giorgi (1971), and others, it focuses on the nature of human experience and how it is interpreted. According to phenomenologists, there is no separate (or objective) human reality; there is only what people know their experiences mean to them (Patton, 1990). Phenomenological research typically uses qualitative methods such as storytelling or interviews to gain deeper understanding of the nature and meaning of everyday experiences (van Manen, 1990).

Of the adolescents who completed survey questionnaires, 265 volunteered to participate in follow-up interviews after high school graduation. Fifty were randomly selected for interviews. Fifty-four percent were women, and 46% were men. Twenty-eight percent were people of color, and 72% were white. Of these, 31 could be located and interviewed. They were from all four states in the study. Data collection took place in December of 1994 using a semistructured interview format developed for the study. Interview questions were designed to encourage participants to relate stories about their post-high school transition experiences and reflect on the family's role in it. Typical questions were, "How are you currently involved in either work and/or school?" "What steps led you from high school to what you are doing now?" "What has this transition been like?" "Describe some experiences you have had with your family about your occupational plans--this could be recently or while you were growing up." "Tell me about a story that stands out in your memory regarding what you learned from your family about the work world." "All in all, what are the factors that account for your being where you are now, in either work and/or school?"

Interviews lasted 15-30 minutes each. No attempt was made to link interviewees with their survey data. All telephone interviews were tape recorded with participants' permission and subsequently transcribed for analysis. Interview transcriptions were analyzed to identify themes regarding the family's role in developing readiness for transition from school to further education and/or employment.

The thematic analysis was carried out using a series of steps consistent with guidelines for phenomenological research outlined by van Manen (1990): (1) review the literature and reflect on the nature of the experience being examined, (2) investigate the experience by collecting narrative data from informants, (3) read and reread the narrative information to interpret it and begin to form a conceptual framework for categorizing the informants' experiences, (4) extract phrases from the text that help lend insight into the informants' experiences, (5) determine broader themes that summarize the more specific categories of experience, (6) write and rewrite the themes into a narrative description that helps make sense of the phenomenon, (7) articulate what has been discovered for use by others interested in the phenomenon.

Three broad thematic categories emerged during the data analysis process. These themes suggested that, regarding post-high school transition events, the adolescents experienced (1) unilateral parent-to-child guidance and support, (2) reciprocal interactions with their parents, and (3) family as a place to interpret reality. Although the themes are not all mutually exclusive, the first two seem to represent a more direct family role in adolescent post-high school transition, while the third theme reflects a more indirect role. The themes, subthemes, and adolescent comments are discussed below. Adolescent respondents are identified by an initial to protect their identities. The selected quotes were chosen as being representative of all the quotes in the same theme.

Unilateral Parent-to-Child Guidance and Support

Unilateral actions within the family are those that involve primarily one-way paths of influence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1988). Four subthemes suggest adolescents experienced a number of unidirectional forms of interaction in the family, most of them parent-to-child. Many of these quotes indicate the role parents play in post-high school transitions.

Helped Financially

Conveyed Expectations

Communicated Words To Live By

Provided Career Information and Networking Contacts

Reciprocal Interactions with Their Parents

While some of the experiences described by the adolescent interview participants appeared to represent one-way adult-to-child interaction, others suggested a type of communication that was more reciprocal in nature. Some of these exchanges, represented by three subthemes, appeared to be more positive than others.

Showed Interest, Supported, and Openness

Pushed and/or Controlled

"Cooled" Interactions

Family as a Place To Interpret Reality

Many of the adolescents in the study described personal experiences that provide insight into how the family may serve more indirectly as a specific context for interpreting reality associated with work and post-high school transitions.

Modeled Work Behaviors

Worried About Children's Future

Illustrated Realities of Work and Post-High School Transition

Several of the interview participants described other experiences in their families that seemed to permit them to examine the realities of work and of post-high school transition:

W:	I sorta saw things from the inside when I grew up. Because my dad's a minister, and my mom's a teacher and . . . so I saw what people did as an institution, like . . . in their daily lives . . . I got to see how teachers think, and I was this little kid running around the church and whatnot. I could see all the background, knowing that holy water's really just tap water and things like that.
N:	They have a lot of interesting stories. `Cause my mom works at the hospital, x-raying . . . she likes to bring home her stories.
L:	I think my sister, after she graduated from high school, she just got married. I see how hard it is for them financially, too, just her and her husband, just to have one person working, and I think that made me kinda want, not to depend on one person financially.

These voices of American adolescents suggest that the family provides a context for a rich and unique set of experiences related to preparation for work and the school-to-work transition process. Currently, much education-for-work policy and practice either ignores the relationship between work and family (Way & Rossmann, 1994) or ascribes limited roles for families which reflect primarily unidirectional parent-to-child influences (e.g., School-to-Work Opportunities Act and Goals 2000).

The interview data indicate that unidirectional parent-to-child interactions are part of the family-based work-related experience of adolescents. In addition, reciprocal interactions within the family also seem to be part of the adolescent experience. Beyond these aspects, there is another contextual dimension of the family experience for adolescents which serves as a unique sounding board for interpreting work-related experiences and envisioning future school-to-work scenarios. Family "lessons" about school-to-work transition seem to be experienced by adolescents through both more and less direct processes.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of family contributions to adolescent and adult learners' readiness for transition from school to work and to determine whether the nature of family contributions to transition readiness varied for adolescent and adult learners. Using data from national samples of 1,266 high school seniors and 879 adults in one- and two-year postsecondary occupational education programs, three hypothesized school-to-work transition models were examined via structural equation modeling routines. One model focused on the role of their families in adolescents' readiness for school-to-work transition. A second model examined contributions to adult transition readiness from the family of origin, and the third model reviewed present family perspectives of the adults.

The direct, indirect, and total effects obtained for the models revealed a number of similarities among them but some important differences as well. These are discussed below.

Similarities Among the Models

One important similarity among the derived models is that, in each case, strategies that motivated the respondents toward learning are linked directly to school-to-work transition readiness. In the adolescent and in the adult present family models, day-to-day interactions of the family are linked both directly to transition readiness and indirectly through their contribution to motivated strategies for learning. Family functioning which is proactive in character (e.g., cohesive, expressive, well-organized, active in intellectual and recreational pursuits, and guided by democratic decision-making) is positively linked to motivated strategies for learning and transition readiness. Functioning which is suffocating, indifferent, or inactive (characterized by authoritarian or laissez-faire decision-making, enmeshment, and/or disengagement) is negatively linked to transition readiness. In both adolescent and adult models, family work values also exert a significant positive effect on school-to-work transition readiness.

Another similarity among the three derived models is the direct link between race and transition readiness. For both adolescents and adults, being white is associated with greater readiness for school-to-work transition. These findings may reflect awareness among persons of color of persistent differences in the American employment opportunity structure for whites versus nonwhites, thus permitting whites to be more certain of possible future career direction(s). It has been suggested that the family influences how members interpret the meaning of ethnicity (Reiss, 1981). However, the present findings fail to establish an indirect link between race and school-to-work transition readiness through characteristic patterns of family functioning for either adolescents or adults. This finding is evident in spite of the fact that whites and nonwhites apparently saw their families differently in terms of selected attributes such as proactive functioning and parent participation in schooling (in the adolescent model) and intensity of family work values (in the adult models).

One further similarity between the derived adolescent and adult models is that neither links more general educational processes to development of readiness for school-to-work transition. In the adolescent model, family is shown as contributing in a number of ways to both academic and social integration in school. Such school integration, in itself, however, is not linked to readiness for transition from school to work. In the adult family of origin model, family characteristics are linked to smoothness of the post-high school transition experience, but again, a link to readiness for school-to-work transition is not apparent.

Although current state and federal policy frequently seeks to make transitions between educational levels smoother or more efficient, the results of testing the adult family of origin model in the present study do not suggest that the smoothness of the transition from high school to postsecondary education will necessarily enhance adult readiness for transition to work. Efficiency of the post-high school transition, at least as assessed in this study (length of time and consistency between secondary and postsecondary plans), apparently does not guarantee readiness for school-to-work transition during adulthood. Although the findings may support the widespread belief that past efforts to foster meaningful post-high school transitions have fallen short, they are, nonetheless, consistent with recent adult development literature which suggests that career development is a lifelong process characterized by several, rather than just one, period of career-related questioning and decision-making (Riverin-Simard, 1990). Because the present study used a cross-sectional, rather than a longitudinal, design, it is not possible to draw conclusions about these sorts of changes over time.

In any case, the finding of no direct linkages between school transition smoothness and school-to-work transition readiness for adults, and between integration in school and transition readiness for adolescents, do lend support for two sets of educational reform recommendations currently being discussed. One group of recommendations suggests that secondary schools should expand educational options for bridging the gap from school to work in addition to emphasizing pursuit of further education (Hoachlander, 1995; William T. Grant Foundation, 1988). A second set of recommendations proposes that more attention be given to providing access to work-related learning that extends throughout the lifespan (Bragg & Layton, 1995; The William T. Grant Foundation, 1988).

Differences Among the Models

Although there are a number of similar linkages among comparable constructs in the adolescent and adult models, some variations among them are also worth noting. Two important differences concern the role of learners' sex and socioeconomic status in the three models examined. Another difference concerns varying views of family functioning represented in the three models. A final difference relates to the notion of family as currently experienced by adolescents and adults versus family as recollected by adults.

As can be seen in the models, sex exerted significant direct, indirect, and total effects on transition readiness for adolescents, but no significant effects for sex were evident in either of the adult models of readiness for school-to-work transition. Much literature supports these adolescent-related findings. For example, adolescent females have been found to possess greater degrees of career maturity than adolescent males (Herr & Cramer, 1991; Neely, 1980; Westbrook et al., 1980), and adolescent males and females are known to experience at least some aspects of the family differently (Brooks-Gunn & Reiter, 1990). Although there were sex-based differences among adults in how they viewed the functioning of their present families and families of origin, these differences were not strong enough to affect transition readiness within either adult model. Since prior research has indicated that there are important differences in the ways males and females form their work commitments and enact their work roles (e.g., Kline & Cowan, 1989; Orthner & Pittman, 1986; Pittman & Orthner, 1989), the finding was somewhat surprising. Gender-based differences in such family characteristics as family functioning style, perceived family work values, and family career development support may well be less important in adult career development than other gender-based experience differences within or outside the family.

Socioeconomic status exerted quite different effects in each of the three models tested; significant indirect effects, but no total effects in the adolescent model; no effects at all in the adult family of origin model; and significant total and direct effects, but no indirect effects in the present family model. The different role of socioeconomic status in the adult present family model and the adolescent model is especially interesting. Clearly, for adults, present socioeconomic status contributes directly and positively to transition readiness (though notably still not as strongly as learning strategies and family functioning style). Yet for adolescents, socioeconomic status contributes only indirectly to transition readiness through the relational aspects of the family.

As indicated earlier, socioeconomic status may affect family functioning in a variety of ways--for example, by mediating the family's access to intellectual, cultural, and recreational resources; its ability to deal with psychological strains; and its opportunities to interact with partners outside the family.

The present findings suggest that these factors seem to be more important to the development of school-to-work transition readiness during adolescence than during adulthood. Such a view would be consistent with both the attachment and individuation models of development (Ainsworth, 1979; Baumrind, 1982; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986, 1988; Hartup, 1978). These models suggest that children who develop secure attachments with others in their family during early childhood will then become free to explore worlds outside the family as they grow and develop. Perhaps once individuals have developed the competence to leave home with security to make initial school-to-work transitions, they maintain the capacity for subsequent transitions without regard for present family functioning characteristics. Such a speculation must be tentative, however, given that the findings of the present study are based on cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data.

Conclusions and Implications

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. First, the findings seem to suggest that within educational policy and practice, it is appropriate to view preparation for occupational work in connection with the work that is carried out in other life contexts such as the family. Results illustrate, for example, the cyclical interaction between socioeconomic status (partially determined by work roles), family functioning, development of learning strategies, and preparation of family members for further work roles. Work skills which will upgrade socioeconomic status are certainly critical today. The present findings suggest, however, that these alone will not be the simple magic gateway often sought for ensuring bright occupational futures for subsequent generations. One's success in preparing for occupational work appears to be mediated by the family workplace and how it functions; high socioeconomic status will assist, but not guarantee, effective family functioning, strategies needed for learning, and readiness for school-to-work transition. It seems to make good sense to include families as partners in initiatives designed to improve the transition from school to work.

Secondly, results imply that approaches to involving the family in school-to-work transition (when they are considered at all) have thus far been too limited. Families contribute to school-to-work transition readiness in a number of ways: through their intentional interactions with children about careers and through participation in their children's schooling. But, as shown, parents also contribute to school-to-work transition through the strength of their work values, and the manner in which they go about the day-to-day work of family life.

The present findings indicate that family functioning affects transition readiness both directly and indirectly, through its effect on the development of strategies available for learning. The findings bolster prior research indicating that families have the capacity to function in different ways on a day-to-day basis, and that some of these forms of family functioning are more effective than others in facilitating positive developmental outcomes for members. Thus, it can not be assumed that all families will just naturally possess the capacity to nurture readiness for school-to-work transition.

The most helpful kind of family functioning in facilitating readiness for school-to-work transition is that which we have labeled proactive. These kinds of families are cohesive and have a sense of control over their lives. They are well-organized, they speak their mind and manage conflict positively, they seek out ways to grow and to have fun, and they make decisions through reasoned discussion and democratic negotiation. The least helpful kind of family functioning is that which is inactive. These families, which actually work against the development of transition readiness, provide a weak or unreasoned foundation for action by members; for example, they may have no framework(s) for decision making, or they may be unable to pursue interests that involve other places or persons outside the family. Families which function in a dominating sort of way through autocratic dictates and stern punishment are effective in only limited ways; for example, by ensuring that adolescents can articulate some post-high school plans. However, these types of families may not contribute to school-to-work transition readiness when it comes to having work effectiveness skills and the maturity to make meaningful independent career decisions.

Although much more needs to be learned, study data points to the notion that the family context may actually provide a more direct link to readiness for school-to-work transition than integration in the school context. While the family context was found to be linked directly and indirectly to school-to-work transition readiness, no links were documented in this study between transition readiness and general academic and social integration in school. An important aspect of the work/family/education relationship is that the family is in a position to exert influence much before and much after job preparation interventions are undertaken by educational institutions and other agencies. A new and richer vision of parent/family involvement is needed in designing future school-to-work transition initiatives. This view should include helping families become more proactive in their day-to-day functioning; ensuring that families undertake their role in the establishment of work values; nurturing parent involvement in education, such as in helping their children with homework, having discussions about careers, and participating in educational planning.

Beyond considering a new and richer vision of parent/family involvement in designing future school-to-work initiatives, it may also be desirable to consider ways of actually duplicating helpful types of family-like functioning in other settings such as schools. Scholars such as Jane Roland Martin (1995), for example, have argued for the creation of schoolhomes or school contexts that serve as a moral equivalent of home. Such settings, emphasizing family-like characteristics as security, safety, nurturance, and affection, would not replace the home, but would fill a domestic vacuum that exists for many children today.

Results suggest that both single-parent families and dual-parent families contribute readiness for transition from school to work. Not surprisingly, however, it does appear that dual-parent families may find it easier to function in proactive ways, interact with their children about careers, and participate in schooling processes. Future policy should give special attention to ways of supporting families with single parents in their efforts to develop learners' capacity for transition from school to work.

The findings of the study further suggest that the experiences of males and females and of majority and minority students differ as they prepare for transition from school to work. Sex and race have significant direct effects on readiness for school-to-work transition, and sex has significant indirect effects also. Future policy should acknowledge possible gender and race-based differences in work-related learning to ensure that programs are sensitive to the unique life experiences of individuals. The use of a male experience standard (Noddings, 1992), an idealized view of the family, and an instrumental approach to work education are perspectives which may have obscured important differences in the manner by which people prepare for work.

This research lends further substance to an emerging body of literature which has begun to question the adequacy of the conceptualizations of work reflected in state and federal workforce policy (Felstehausen & Schultz, 1991; Rehm, 1989; Way & Rossmann, 1994). In this century, both policy and practice have largely reflected an assumption of separation of occupational work and other life work roles (Chow & Berheide, 1988). This framework, which may have been functional during the industrial era, now appears to be outdated.

Some authors (Coontz, 1992; 1995) have suggested that it is misguided to point to the family as the source of social problems such as blocked access to jobs. They point out that family bashing, like school bashing, is currently a popular activity among both the political left and right, and that simplistic responses to the perceived "breakdown of the family" will not substitute for structural economic and political reform needed to improve well-being. We couldn't agree more.

Our view that more substantive attention should be given to the family in workforce education initiatives should not be interpreted as an assignation of guilt for any real or perceived failings of the family. While our findings do suggest that family functioning is both directly and indirectly predictive of school-to-work transition readiness, we have made no attempt to evaluate the success or failure of past education-for-work programs. Neither have we attempted to assess the weight of the family, relative to the full range of other social, political, and economic structures, in ensuring the success of education for work initiatives. The research does suggest that the family makes important contributions to workforce education in a manner beyond that which is typically recognized. Disregarding or oversimplifying the role of the family in occupational preparation may lead to missed opportunities to nurture and support work-related learning among children and adults and/or to actual interference with it. Much more needs to be learned about how family interacts with other social systems in the development of personal work readiness capacities.

This study raises a number of questions that can be addressed only through implementation of a future workforce education research agenda which acknowledges the interrelationships among work and family. Past workforce education research appears to have been seriously hampered by a number of perspectives which mediate against viewing work and family as interacting spheres of human activity. These include ideologies associated with scientific management, vocational education as instrumental action, the differentiation of social roles according to gender, and an idealized notion of the family. The present study represents a beginning in what should be a full future agenda of research regarding work/family connections in education.

Elsewhere, we have outlined a framework for an agenda (Way & Rossmann, 1994) which suggests giving attention to such issues as how work and family are conceptualized in present educational programs and policies; what is currently taught, and what males and females learn about work and family in current workforce education programs; what social support systems are currently available to individuals and families as they prepare for work and family roles; and what conceptions of evaluation are appropriate for examining the outcomes of workforce education programs that acknowledge work/family interactions. The present study suggests, however, that the challenges ahead are methodological as well as conceptual in nature. Future research is needed that is based on fully representative samples of individuals and families and that permits longitudinal as well as cross-sectional comparisons of school-to-work outcomes in addition to transition processes.

Today's unparalleled discussions regarding educational reform provide an ideal context for giving more substantive attention to linkages between occupational work and other life roles in policy, practice, and research. Doing so will probably require confronting, and giving up, some of our most comfortable ways of thinking about education and life's work roles. However, the present study suggests that there are intriguing possibilities for enhancing workforce education through further exploration of the influences of the family--life's first teacher.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more effective as persons and parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75.

Bempechat, J. (1990). The role of parent involvement in children's academic achievement: A review of the literature. New York: Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Columbia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 285)

Bennett, K. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Berryman, S. E., & Bailey, T. R. (1992). The double helix of education and the economy. New York: The Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 539-556.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24, 225-239.

Bogenschneider, K., Young, R., Melli, M. S., & Fleming, W. M. (1993). Building policies that put families first: A Wisconsin perspective. Madison: Center for Family Studies, School of Family Resources and Consumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. New York: Longman.

Bragg, D. D., & Layton, J. D. (1995). The role of the urban community college in educational reform. Education and Urban Society, 27, 294-312.

Brandtstadter, J. (1984). Action development and development through action. Human Development, 27, 115-118.

Brecher, E. J. (1995, March 12). Working hurts case of mothers: Custody rulings place women in no-win position. Wisconsin State Journal, pp. A1, A12-A13.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Reiter, E. O. (1990). The role of pubertal processes. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 16-53). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruno, R. R., & Adams, A. (1994). School enrollment: Social and economic characteristics of students: October 1993. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics (P20-479). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Brustein, M., & Mahler, M. (1994). AVA guide to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Alexandria, VA: American Vocational Association.

Burge, P. L. (1991). Single parents' work and family demands. In G. Felstehausen &
J. B. Schultz (Eds.), Work and family: Educational implications (pp. 186-199). Peoria, IL: Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Chapman, M. (1984). Intentional action as a paradigm for developmental psychology: A symposium. Human Development, 27, 113-115.

Chow, E. N., & Berheide, C. W. (1988). The interdependence of family and work: A framework for family life education, policy, and practice. Family Relations, 37, 23-28.

College Entrance Examination Board. (1978). Career skills assessment program. New York: Author.

Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990). America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

Coontz, S. (1995). The American family and the nostalgia trap. Phi Delta KAPPAN, 76(7), K1-K20.

Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425-442.

DelCampo, R. L. (1994). Work, stress and families: Introduction to the special collection. Family Relations, 43, 117-118.

Digest of Education Statistics-1993. (1994). EdSearch: Education statistics on disk [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Dornbusch, S., Carlsmith, J., Bushwall, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Hastorf, A., & Gross, R. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341.

Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

Eastman, G. (1988). Family involvement in education (Bulletin No. 8926). Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Entwisle, D. R. (1990). Schools and the adolescent. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 197-224). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1984). School policy and parent involvement: Research results. Educational Horizons, 62(2), 70-72.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 119-136.

Ethington, C. A. (1990). A psychological model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 31(3), 279-293.

Felstehausen, G., & Schultz, J. B. (1991). Work and family: Educational implications. Peoria, IL: Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Furstenberg, F. F. (1990). Coming of age in a changing family system. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 147-170). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gansemer, L. P. (1977). Family background and occupational attainment: A longitudinal study of rural-reared Pennsylvania males. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37(11-A), 7350.

Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single mothers and their children: A new American dilemma. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. E. (Eds.). (1987). Families and work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1971). Phenomenology and experimental psychology. In A. Giorgi, W. Fischner, & R. Von Eckartsberg (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology (pp. 6-29). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Goldsmith, E. B. (Ed.). (1989). Work and family: Theory, research, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Gray, K. (1993). Why we will lose: Taylorism in America's high schools. Phi Delta KAPPAN, 74, 370-374.

Greene, W. H. (1991). LIMDEP (Version 6.1) [Computer Software]. New York: Econometric Software.

Grissmer, D. W., Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: A guide to methods and measures. New York: Guilford Press.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective of individual differences in the development of identity and notetaking skills in adolescence. Human Development, 29, 82-100.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1988). The role of family experience in career exploration. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life span development and behavior, Volume 8 (pp. 231-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (1981). The persistent frustrations of vocational solutions to youth problems. In K. B. Greenwood (Ed.), Contemporary challenges for vocational education (pp. 115-128). Arlington, VA: American Vocational Association.

Hageman, M. B., & Gladding, S. T. (1983). The art of career exploration: Occupational sex-role stereotyping among elementary school children. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 17, 280-287.

Hartman, B. W., Fuqua, D. R., Blum, C. R., & Hartman, P. T. (1985). A study of the predictive validity of the career decision scale in identifying longitudinal patterns of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 202-209.

Hartup, W. W. (1978). Perspectives on child and family interactions: Past, present, and future. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction (pp. 233-246). New York: Academic Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1986). On relationships and development. In W. W. Hartup and
Z. Rubin (Eds.). In Relationships and development (p. 2-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harvey, M. G., & Kerin, R. A. (1978). The influence of social stratification and age on occupational aspirations of adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 262-266.

Henderson, A. (1988). Parents are a schools's best friend. Phi Delta KAPPAN, 70, 148-153.

Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. (1992). Career guidance and counseling through the life span: Systematic approaches. New York: HarperCollins.

Hoachlander, E. G. (1995). New directions for policy on education for work. Education and Urban Society, 27, 353-362.

Hoffman, L. W. (1984). Work, family and the socialization of the child. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Review of child development research, Vol. 7: The family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1985). My vocational situation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some diagnostic scales for research in decision making and personality: Identity information and barriers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1191-1200.

Holland, M. (1981). Relationships between vocational development and self-concept in sixth grade students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 228-236.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Department of Sociology, Yale University.

Husserl, E. (1913/1962). Ideas. London: George Allen and Unwin. (Republished, New York: Colliers.)

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). DOS EXTENDER LISREL (Version 8.12a) [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kazis, R. (1993). Improving the transition from school to work in the United States. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Kerr, C. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: The 1990's and beyond. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kinnier, R. T., Brigman, S. L., & Noble, F. C. (1990). Career indecision and family enmeshment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 309-312.

Kliebard, H. M. (1990). Vocational education as symbolic action: Connecting schooling with the workplace. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 9-26.

Kline, M., & Cowan, P. A. (1989). Re-thinking the connections among "work and family" and well-being: A model for investigating employment and family work contexts. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 61-90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study in values (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Ballantine Books.

Lips, H. M. (1988). Sex and gender: An introduction. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Long, R. (1986). Developing parental involvement in primary schools. London: Macmillan.

Lucas, E. B., Gysbers, N. C., Buescher, K. L., & Heppner, P. P. (1988). My vocational situation: Normative, psychometric, and comparative data. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 20, 162-170.

Maccoby, E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

MacKay, W. R., & Miller, C. A. (1982). Relations of socioeconomic status and sex variables to the complexity of worker functions in the occupational choices of elementary school children. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 20, 31-39.

Mann, J. W. (1994). The difference: Growing up female in America. New York: Warner Books.

Marini, M. M., & Greenberger, E. (1978). Sex differences in occupational aspirations and expectations. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5, 147-178.

Marshall, R., & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of nations. New York: Basic Books.

Martin, J. R. (1995). A philosophy of education for the year 2000. Phi Delta KAPPAN, 76, 355-359.

May, M. (1987). The historical problem of the family wage: The Ford Motor Company and the five dollar day. In N. Gerstel & H. E. Gross (Eds.), Families and work (pp. 111-131). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Single mothers and psychological well-being: A test of the stress and vulnerability hypotheses. Research in Community Mental Health, 5, 253-266.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B. G., Guerney, B., Rosman, B. L., & Schumer, F. (1967). Families of the slums: An exploration of their structure and treatment. New York: Basic Books.

Mortimer, J. T. (1974). Patterns of intergenerational occupational movements: A smallest-space analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 1278-1295.

Mortimer, J. T. (1976). Social class, work and family: Some implications of the father's occupation for family relationships and son's career decisions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 241-256.

Mortimer, J. T., Lorence, I., & Kumka, D. S. (1986). Work, family, and personality. Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing.

Neely, M. A. (1980). Career maturity inventory interpretations for grade 9 boys and girls. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 29(2), 113-124.

Nickols, S. Y. (1988). Families: Diverse but enduring. Journal of Home Economics, 80(3), 49-57.

Noddings, N. (1992). The gender issue. Educational Leadership, 49(4), 65-70.

Norton, A. J., & Glick, P. C. (1986). One-parent families: A social and economic profile. Family Relations, 35(1), 9-17.

Norusis, M. J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ advanced statistics 4.0 [Computer Software]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Olson, D. H., & Hanson, M. K. (Eds.). (1990). 2001: Preparing families for the future. Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.

Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 573-581.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. J. (1980). The career decision scale (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting and Press.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Penick, N. I., & Jepsen, D. A. (1992). Family functioning and adolescent career development. Career Development Quarterly, 40(3), 208-222.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Pittman, J. F., & Orthner, D. K. (1989). Gender differences in the prediction of job commitment. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: Theory, research and applications (pp. 227-248). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Forces, 24, 417-427.

Preston, S. H. (1984). Children and the elderly in the U.S. Scientific American, 251, 44-50.

Rehm, M. (1989). Emancipatory vocational education: Pedagogy for the work of individuals and society. Journal of Education, 171(3), 109-123.

Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Riverin-Simard, D. (1990). Adult vocational trajectory. The Career Development Quarterly, 39, 129-142.

Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.

Schulenberg, J. E., Vondracek, F. W., & Crouter, A. C. (1984). The influence of the family on vocational development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 129-143.

Schutz, A. (1977). Concepts and theory formation in the social sciences. In F. R. Dallmayr & T. A. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding and social inquiry (pp. 225-239). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Secretary's Commission on Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Shedd, J. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as professionals and the management of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, T. M., Rogers, G. T., Alsalam, N., Perie, M., Mahoney, R. P., & Martin, V. (1994). The condition of education (NCES 94-149). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Smolak, L. (1993). Adult development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In
S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Super, D. E. (1984). Career and life development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (pp. 192-234). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Marital status and living arrangements, March 1992. Current Population Report (Series P20-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1987). U.S. children and their families: Current conditions and recent trends. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta KAPPAN, 65(6), 397-400.

Walters, M. (1988). Single-parent, female-headed households. In M. Walters, B. Carter, P. Papp, & O. Silverstein (Eds.), The invisible webb (pp. 289-332). New York: Guilford Press.

Way, W. L., & Rossmann, M. M. (1994). The interrelation of work and family: A missing piece of the vocational education research agenda. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 19(2), 1-24.

Westbrook, B. W., Cutts, C. C., Madison, S. S., & Arcia, M. (1980). The validity of the Crites model of career maturity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 249-281.

The William T. Grant Foundation on Work, Family and Citizenship, Youth and America's Future. (1988). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America's youth and young families. Washington, DC: Author.

Wirth, A. G. (1992). Education and work for the year 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Young, R. A. (1994). Helping adolescents with career development: The active role of parents. The Career Development Quarterly, 42, 195-203.

Young, R. A., & Friesen, J. D. (1992). The intentions of parents in influencing the career development of their children. Career Development Quarterly, 40, 198-207.

Young, R. A., Friesen, J. D., & Dillabough, J. M. (1991). Activities and interpersonal relations as dimensions of parental behavior in the career development of adolescents. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 25, 183-190.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[1] Data gathering instruments contained copyrighted materials. Copyright permissions do not permit further publication beyond the data gathering period.