Both teenage pregnancy and vocational education have long been of concern to policymakers, youth advocates, and the general public. In many respects, however, these concerns have been independent ones. Early vocational education efforts focused largely on males, who were widely viewed as the key to reducing poverty, unemployment, and welfare dependence (Simms and Leitch, 1983). As growing numbers of women have entered the workforce in recent years, it has become apparent that women would benefit as well from training and job assistance. By the late 1970s, women were enrolling in federal job training programs at rates equal to or above those of men (Westat, 1980). Nevertheless, our society continues to be ambivalent about whether employment by mothers of very young children is appropriate or ultimately beneficial to children, mothers, or society. This ambivalence has been evidenced in programs for teenage mothers, which, until recently, have rarely offered or brokered vocational education or employment-related services to enrollees (Polit, 1986). It has also been evident in the debate surrounding welfare reform, particularly whether mothers of very young children should be required to work or receive job training as a condition of receiving welfare (e.g., Sanger, 1990).
Although rates of teenage childbearing have been declining in recent years (e.g., GAO, 1986; Baldwin, 1981; O'Connell and Rogers, 1984), recent data indicate that this downturn may be ending. Between 1984 and 1985 the birth rate among teenage women rose nationally by 1 percent (NCHS, 1985). In 1988 the teenage birth rate rose again; the sharpest increase was among those aged 15-17 (NCHS, 1990).
Whether this increase continues or not, teenage pregnancy and parenthood will continue to be a major concern to policymakers, service providers, and researchers for several reasons. First, large numbers of young women become teenage mothers (Zelnik and Kantner, 1980). There were nearly one-half million births to women under age 20 in 1985 alone (Hughes et al., 1988).
Second, in recent years births to teenagers have come to represent an increasing percentage of all births. In some larger cities and among certain ethnic groups, the teen birth rate is as high as 20.1 percent of all births (Hughes et al., 1988).
Third, out-of-wedlock births to women under age 20 rose from under 100,000 in 1960 to almost 250,000 in 1978 (NCHS, 1980). By 1985, 34 percent of all unmarried mothers were teens (Hughes et al., 1988). This upturn, however, is not so much the result of an increased rate of conceptions to unmarried women as it is of choices of pregnant teenagers not to marry (Baldwin, 1977). Indeed, the proportion of births to married teens has fallen from 70 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 1980, and 36 percent in 1987 (Miller and Moore, 1990). More than 90 percent of black teens who deliver babies are unmarried (Moore, 1988). Many applaud the decreasing incidence of marriage; they cite studies indicating that early and precipitous marriage usually worsens the long-term outlook for the teenage mother and her child (e.g., Moore and Caldwell, 1981).
Finally, relinquishment of infants is, in effect, not an option for most pregnant teenagers, and particularly for blacks. Data from surveys in 1971, 1976, and 1982 indicate that relinquishment rates for unmarried white mothers fell from 18 percent in 1971 to 7 percent in 1976 and 1982. Among unmarried black mothers, the proportion over this same period declined from 2 percent to less than 1 percent (Bachrach, 1986). These declines have occurred despite recent data suggesting that relinquishment results in better outcomes for the birth mother, including delayed marriage, increased likelihood of employment six and twelve months after the birth, and greater likelihood of living in a higher-income household (McLaughlin, Manninen, and Winges, 1988).
Recent research increasingly points to the many negative consequences of single teenage parenthood to mothers, their babies, and society. Women who begin childbearing as teenagers are more likely than young women who postpone a first birth to have low educational attainment, to be poor, and to depend on welfare for longer periods of time (e.g., Brindis and Jeremy, 1988; Hofferth, 1987). These young women are more likely to have rapid additional pregnancies as well.
The children of teenage mothers also suffer. Incidence of low birthweight infants and infant mortality rates are higher among the offspring of young mothers (NCHS, 1980). Children of young parents are also disadvantaged in a number of developmental domains (Miller and Moore, 1990). The children of teenage mothers tend to lag cognitively behind demographically similar peers (e.g., Baldwin and Cain, 1980). Such findings have been attributed to poorer-quality interactions between adolescents and their children, and less-positive attitudes about being parents. Several studies find that adolescents score lower than older mothers on the HOME (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment) scale, and participate less in play and vocalization when observed with their infants (Coll, Hoffman, and Oh, 1987; Lester and Rhoades, 1989; Culp et al., 1989).
Early evidence pointed to higher rates of emotional and behavioral difficulties among the children of teenage mothers (e.g., Kellam et al., 1982). Recent studies point to more negative perceptions of their infants by teen mothers as a possible contributor. Most (63 to 67 percent) adolescents report moderately difficult to difficult infant temperaments; only 10 to 28 percent of older mothers report this (Benn and Saltz, 1989; Zeanah et al., 1987; Carey and McDevitt, 1978). Other data suggest that children seen as difficult by their parents are at much higher risk for developing behavior problems (Bates, Maslin, and Trankel, 1985; Chess and Thomas, 1984).
Pregnancy remains a major precipitator of school dropout among female students (McGee, 1988b; Mauldon and Morrison, 1989). Some evidence indicates that the majority of pregnant teenagers drop out of school (Haggstrom et al., 1981). Estimates suggest that pregnant and parenting students constitute half or more of the female dropout population in most school districts (McGee, 1988b). Further, data from Mott and Marsiglio (1985) suggest that dropout rates are higher the younger the teenage mother. For example, 70 percent of students who were younger than 15 at the time of a first birth left school, whereas the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds was about half. These same data indicate that eventually receiving a general equivalency diploma (GED) or graduating from high school remained least likely for the youngest mothers.
Recent data suggest that as many as 40 percent of high school dropouts return to school at a later point and complete their high school education (Mauldon and Morrison, 1989; Congressional Research Service, 1988; Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, and Morgan, 1987). Having a baby after leaving school is a strong predictor of nonresumption. However, mothers who gave birth while enrolled in school and then left were as likely to resume schooling as their nonparenting peers (Mauldon and Morrison, 1989).
A large literature finds that teenage mothers use welfare at high rates, indicating widespread poverty in families headed by young mothers. Women who were teenagers when they bore their first child account for more than half of the total budget for AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) (Ellwood, 1986; Maxfield and Rucci, 1986; Murray, 1986). In 1975, federal and state governments spent an estimated $8.6 billion on cash benefits, Food Stamps, and Medicaid services to mothers and children in AFDC families in which the mother was a teenager when she bore her first child (Moore and Burt, 1982). By 1989, the single year public cost for such families had increased to $21.55 billion, excluding housing subsidies, special education, foster care, or day care costs (Center for Population Options, 1990).
Although use of welfare is common among teenage mothers, being a teenage mother does not reduce the longer-term probability of labor force participation. Indeed, never-married women who had an early birth have an especially high probability of being employed (Haggstrom et al., 1981). But because employment is negatively correlated with having a young child, teenage mothers are unlikely to work in the years immediately after giving birth. Lack of earlier job experience and limited educational background appear to combine so that women who were teenage mothers are found in poorer-paying jobs.
Yet there is considerable research suggesting that delivering a baby as a teenager per se is not the direct and inevitable cause of the many problems outlined above. Rather, the pregnancy and delivery lead many mothers to make other choices that do cause problems later on. A key one is the decision to leave school. Numerous studies document a strong relationship between school dropout, reduced earnings, and welfare status (Feldstein and Ellwood, 1982; Polit, 1986; Brindis and Jeremy, 1988). In other words, being a teenage mother does not necessarily lead a young mother to a life of poverty, welfare, and several subsequent pregnancies. But what may lead her there are the often poorly considered, hasty, or uninformed decisions that follow in its wake.
As social acceptance of unwed pregnancy increased, growing numbers of pregnant young women began to appear on the streets of their own communities and in schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although many school districts chose to ignore this trend, some did respond. The programs that were developed in these early years were based on increasingly outmoded notions that unwed pregnancy was an embarrassment that could be fairly rapidly resolved through relinquishment for adoption. This orientation led programs to focus on promoting continuity of education during pregnancy and providing a supportive atmosphere in which to endure the short-lived crisis an early pregnancy precipitated. Programs generally isolated pregnant students from their nonpregnant peers to reduce community objections to serving this population. Programs tended to be time-limited, focusing their resources on the period of visible pregnancy, often ending very abruptly after delivery. Program planners viewed this short period as the time of greatest crisis, when young girls were most likely to need counseling and support.
As greater numbers of pregnant students began to keep and raise their babies, program content shifted to some degree: In particular, parenting education became a more important focus. The goal of parenting education efforts was to impart to young mothers some understanding of their babies' needs and some parenting skills. But program structure and underlying assumptions remained largely the same: Pregnancy was the time of greatest stress, thus programs should continue to focus limited resources on this period. Some recognition that many enrollees were keeping their babies was evidenced in new parenting curricula. But little attention was paid to the growing reality that many if not most of these young mothers would be the sole support of their babies. The same factors that caused vocational education to focus on boys rather than girls played out in special programs for pregnant students. In these short-term, crisis-oriented programs, impending motherhood and the need to care for an infant made career planning and vocational education at best peripheral concerns.
In recent years, societal notions about women's relationship to work have changed substantially. At least some of this change has reflected changes in middle class women's behavior. As growing numbers of women, and particularly married, middle class women with young children, have entered the workforce, women's economic role has changed and expanded (e.g., National Commission on Children, 1989; Couch et al., 1988). These changes have been most dramatic with regard to mothers of young children: Recent data indicate that the majority of women with children under age six are currently working (Current Population Survey, 1990). Growing evidence of the marginal economic status of families headed by single mothers, and the high cost of providing welfare benefits to these families (Hayes, 1987; Children's Defense Fund, 1987), have combined with these demographic shifts to make vocational education for female students and young women appear more salient and more legitimate.
These changes have occurred at a time marked by growing concern about sex discrimination and gender equity in school programs. Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments mandated that institutions receiving federal funds could not discriminate on the basis of gender in the allocation of resources or in access to programs and services. Although most commonly associated with athletics, Title IX had important implications for teenage mothers. It clarified that a pregnant student has the same rights and responsibilities as any other student; it specifically prohibited expulsion or exclusion of pregnant students from any programs, courses, or extracurricular activities. It affirmed the right of pregnant students to remain in regular school programs throughout pregnancy and after delivery. The Women's Education Equity Act of 1974 provided funding for projects to advance the education of women. This act specifically called for expansion and improvement of programs for female students in vocational and career education.
These demographic and legal changes have cast vocational education for female students in a new light. Federal funding, more open adolescent parenting, and more widespread concerns about gender equity in education have led to efforts to join vocational education and teen parenting programs.
From their inception, vocational education programs were expected to enhance both societal and individual economic gains. Society would benefit by creating an accessible pool of skilled workers prepared to maximize production, profits, and consumer purchasing power. Individuals would benefit from the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that would enable them to succeed in the labor force (Oakes, 1986a).
A number of noneconomic claims were also made for vocational education. Some believed that manual experience would benefit all students (Oakes, 1986a; Resnick, 1987) by providing multiple ways of understanding the world. Many saw vocational education as a carrot for retaining and engaging less able or academically oriented students. Vocational education would keep students in school; skills training would improve the chances that poor youth would gain the ability to earn a decent living. A vocational education track would also allow high schools to retain their subject-centered structure (Stern et al., 1985) and still provide educational opportunities for those less academically inclined.
Over time, the place and stature of vocational education in secondary schools have changed. As Oakes (1986b) notes, vocational education now exists as a "knee-jerk antonym" for academic education; vocational education represents the lowest rung on the curriculum ladder (Oakes, 1986b). National studies have consistently shown that vocational students tend to come from lower-income families and to score lower on achievement tests than other high school students (Oakes, 1983; Meyer, 1981).
Considerable evidence points to substantial gender segregation in specific vocational education courses. Males in the High School and Beyond dataset analyzed by NAVE (1988) were far more likely to enroll in introductory industrial and agricultural classes, and in all trade and industrial subjects. Female vocational education students were most likely to be found in consumer and homemaking education courses, in business support, health, and occupational home economics.
The kinds of vocational education classes in which female students enroll do not often lead to high-paying jobs. Stern et al. (1985) found that California secondary students who had completed programs in distributive education, accounting and computer, general secretarial, and machining and metals were more likely to be employed a year later than students who completed nurse's aide and child care training programs. The highest hourly wages were reported by those who had completed programs in agriculture, distributive education, auto mechanics, and machining and metals. Those students enrolled in the most traditionally female programs--nurse`s aide and child care--reported both the lowest rates of employment and the lowest expected hourly wages.
Gender-based enrollment patterns and their implications for employability and economic independence for women have led policymakers and educators to focus on issues of access to high-quality and gender-nontraditional vocational education for female students. This issue is complex. Although formal policies that prohibit open enrollments are no longer legal (under Title IX), the goal of equal access can be undermined in many ways, often unintentionally. A lack of effort to affirmatively promote the enrollment of female students in nontraditional vocational education programs permits unenlightened personal preferences and increasingly outdated societal norms to influence the choices that female students make. Moreover, certain groups of female students, most notably pregnant and parenting students, may need unequal treatment to insure equal access to some vocational education opportunities. For example, teen mothers may be unable to attend programs that have strict attendance requirements because of the demands of a baby (McGee, 1988a). Many teen mothers may be effectively excluded from programs that lack any provision for child care if they are unable to secure such care themselves. Or, they may be less inclined to take advantage of vocational training if it is offered off-site, away from the child care center.
The goal of equal, unrestricted access to high-quality vocational education has been consistently emphasized in federal legislation. Most recently, the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984, discussed below, has as one of its purposes reduction of the limiting effects of sex role stereotyping in occupations, job skills, levels of competency, and careers.
Vocational education exists in a larger secondary school context, which has itself undergone substantial changes in recent years. Of perhaps most relevance to vocational education has been the academic reform movement, a response to concerns about the declining educational preparation and skills of high school graduates. In response to calls for reform, graduation requirements have been increased in many subjects. Typically, students are now required to take additional units in core or academic courses to graduate. Minimum competency examinations and the introduction of advanced diplomas or special certificates for additional academic coursework are also common. As the NAVE (1988) report indicates, these reforms create additional and competing demands on students' time. These demands are most likely to affect students who are not college-oriented, as the college-bound in most cases were planning to take a large number of academic courses before the reforms. Vocational education students who have to add academic courses to their schedules must sacrifice other courses to do so. Declining enrollments in vocational education courses suggest that it is frequently these courses that are sacrificed. Competency exams may further affect vocational education students, who are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of lower-achieving students. To pass these exams, vocational education students may find themselves taking more remedial classes. In addition, specialized academic diplomas may keep college-bound students, who might have taken an additonal vocational education course or two, more involved with academic coursework. These factors have all devolved to reduce enrollments in vocational education more than in other programs of study (e.g., Franz et al., 1987, Guthrie et al., 1987).
Vocational education instructors have attempted to stem these disproportionate enrollment declines in several ways. Some research suggests that staff in comprehensive high schools are increasingly reluctant to refer vocational education students to Regional Occupational Centers, despite evidence that these centers provide superior vocational education programming (Stern et al., 1985). Some instructors have attempted to have their courses rechristened as academic offerings, e.g., redefining cosmetology as "applied chemistry," or drafting and mechanics as "applied math." Growing numbers of special education students appear to be enrolling in vocational education courses (NAVE, 1988), and in at least one state, vocational technical centers have dropout recruiters who attempt to enroll dropouts in vocational technical programs. There are no data concerning whether pregnant and parenting teenagers as a group are being actively recruited to raise enrollment figures.
The effect of vocational education on dropout prevention appears small but slightly positive. Mertens (1982), using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Labor Market Experience, found that the vocational education curriculum does slightly increase retention rates in high school. A study by Lotto (1982) of programs that were successful in reducing dropout rates found that these programs were characterized by not only vocational education but by instruction in basic skills and by career counseling and often additional support services. These latter findings suggest that a more comprehensive approach to vocational education may increase its effects on enrollees. Such integrated approaches to education and life skills are not uncommon in programs that serve pregnant and parenting students.
It is against this background of established need among pregnant and parenting students, gender inequality in the delivery of vocational education services, and the reality of a limited but measurable effect of vocational education training that we sought in this study to understand how and in what ways vocational education is currently offered and used by pregnant and parenting students in secondary schools.
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act, Public Law 98-524, passed in 1984, was in effect during our study.[1] It codified concerns about equal access to vocational education for women, and particularly single mothers, through its set-asides for single parents and for those seeking to enter gender-nontraditional occupations. Several provisions of the act were of particular significance for pregnant and parenting teens. First, Title I, which governs state administrative structures for vocational education, required that a full-time staff person be appointed to coordinate both the state vocational education sex equity program and the state vocational education program for single parents and homemakers.[2] It thus explicitly linked concerns about eliminating sex bias and increasing women's participation in nontraditional occupations with concerns about increasing opportunities for single parents. This linkage was also reflected in the programmatic provisions of the statute.
Title II of the act governed basic state grants for vocational education. It required that each state use a specific proportion of the federal basic grant funds to "meet the special needs of and to enhance the participation" of each of six target groups.[3] Two of these target groups are especially relevant for those concerned with pregnant and parenting programs: "individuals who are single parents or homemakers" and "individuals who participate in programs designed to eliminate sex bias and stereotyping in vocational education. . . ."[4] Eight and a half percent of the basic grant funds were set aside for single parents and homemakers ("single parent money") and 3-1/2 percent were set aside for individuals participating in programs designed to eliminate sex bias and stereotyping ("sex bias money").[5] A third set-aside, for the disadvantaged (22 percent), may also be a potential source of funding for pregnant and parenting teenagers.[6] For fiscal year 1988, single parent money was also available for single pregnant women.[7]
Single parent money could be used for vocational education services, including expansion of vocational education programs, that will provide single parents with marketable skills, for related support services, and for outreach to inform single parents of the availability of vocational education and related support services. An important feature to note is that the single parent funds could be used to "make vocational education and training more accessible to single parents and homemakers by assisting them with child care or transportation services or by organizing and scheduling the programs so that such programs are more accessible. . . ."[8] Sex bias money was also available for child care, transportation, and other support services, as well as for direct programs to eliminate sex bias and stereotyping in vocational education. The statute also specifically provided for use of sex bias funds for "vocational education programs, services, and activities for girls and women, aged 14 through 25, designed to enable the participants to support themselves and their families. . . ."[9]
Title II also provided for use of federal funds for vocational education program improvement, innovation, and expansion. One of 24 approved uses listed in the statute was "day care services for children of students in secondary and post-secondary vocational education programs. . . ."[10] It also permitted states to target single heads of household who are out of school for a range of services, including special student stipends to meet "acute economic needs which cannot be met under work-study programs. . . ."[11]
Title III of the act governed special programs and provided for consumer and homemaking education grants. These grants were to be used for a range of instructional topics, including child development and parenting education, and a range of activities, including outreach to underserved populations, and elimination of sex bias and stereotyping.[12]
By
providing special monies for designated groups of women (single parents,
displaced homemakers), requiring that each state coordinate its sex equity and
single parent programs, emphasizing the importance of marketable skills, and
recognizing the need for child care, transpor-
tation,
and special scheduling of classes, the act attempted to overcome some of the
problems of access and equity that women, and especially mothers, have faced in
their attempts to acquire the training necessary to get and hold well-paying
jobs.
The act was reauthorized and amended in 1990.[13] Some of the amendments were effective September 25, 1990; the rest were effective July 1, 1991. Although the amendments had not been implemented during our study, and their effect is not clear at this writing, they do have potential effects on access to vocational education for pregnant and parenting teens. There are several pertinent changes in the act. First, federal monies may be used only for programs that provide equal access to "special populations," including the disadvantaged and individuals who participate in programs designed to eliminate sex bias. Unfortunately, the definition of "special populations" does not explicitly include single parents or pregnant women. Although most pregnant and parenting teens will be eligible as "disadvantaged" persons, the failure to specifically list single parents and pregnant women may make it less likely that programs will address their needs. Unless there is particular awareness on the part of school districts, or extensive local advocacy, teen parents are likely to be overlooked. This is particularly disturbing, since school districts are required to adapt their programs to meet the needs of special populations; indeed, the bulk of Perkins Act funds will be governed by the special population provisions. As discussed below, in the reauthorization, set-asides are reduced and represent a small portion of the overall funds.
According to Congressional staff, there was no intent to exclude single parents from the definition of special populations in the reauthorization. A technical amendment would correct the exclusion and make it more likely that pregnant and parenting teens would benefit from the legislation.[14]
Second, pregnant women are now clearly included in the eligible population for single parent programs, which was unclear in the earlier legislation, and funds may be used for teen pregnancy prevention. Third, the single parent programs specifically include secondary as well as post-secondary programs. Fourth, state homemaker programs must include vocational and pre-vocational components, including comprehensive career guidance and counseling. Fifth, the powers of the state sex equity coordinators are more fully spelled out.
The total percentage of funds set aside for single parent and sex equity programs is reduced by 2 percent; the ultimate effect on funding levels of this percentage reduction is unclear, since the authorization figures are substantially higher than in the past. The actual dollar levels will depend on appropriations. All other set-asides were eliminated, in favor of detailed provisions strengthening access for special populations to basic vocational education programs. Single parent and sex equity funds continue to be distributed on a competitive basis, since the dollar amounts are still quite small. The basic program funds will now be distributed to local school systems through a formula that is partly based on poverty rates. There is a new provision for minimum grant sizes for basic grants; there is no such provision for single parent or sex equity grants. The amendments also require participatory planning and complaint procedures and regular review on local, state, and federal levels to determine whether equal access is being achieved and to identify and eliminate barriers to participation.[15]
In recent years, women's workforce behavior, their enrollments in training programs, and provisions in law have combined to legitimize vocational education among women and girls and to increase awareness of the need for their equal access to it. These same forces have converged, along with a strong emphasis in the Reagan era on reducing the costs of social welfare programs, to promote welfare reform efforts focused on making recipients work.[16] The Family Support Act of 1988[17] requires each state to develop a Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program designed to promote this end. States are given wide latitude in developing their programs, which may range from job search requirements to vocational skills training, on-the-job experience, and basic skills training. School-age parents receive special attention in this legislation.
To date, the effects of the Family Support Act are largely unknown. The effects on pregnant and parenting teens could be positive if sufficient resources and appropriate requirements are included in JOBS programs, e.g., more child care provided. Or, the effects could be negative if resources are limited and participation requirements restrictive; e.g., school attendance requirements that permit no unexcused absences and do not excuse an absence to look after a sick baby. In our work in the last year of this project, we focused on these effects, which are described in Sec. 5.
The purpose of this study was to examine the provision of vocational education opportunities to two groups of pregnant and parenting teenagers: those who remain in school and enroll in special school-based or school-sponsored programs for pregnant and parenting students and those who enroll at some point in a community-based program that serves pregnant and parenting teens. The study aims to examine the range of vocational education opportunities offered within the context of these programs and how these opportunities mesh with program goals. Since availability and use are not isomorphic, particularly for pregnant and parenting students, who frequently lack the experience or assertiveness to seize upon opportunities from which they are not specifically excluded (Polit, 1986; Zellman, 1981), we examine issues surrounding access and use of vocational education opportunities as well.
Because school and district policies concerning absences and requirements are likely to play a role in how, when, and why pregnant and parenting students avail themselves of vocational education, we also examine the policy context in the schools and districts included in our study.
In the first year of our study, we conducted telephone interviews in 49 representative school districts located in seven nationally representative states to explore district policies and procedures that facilitate or inhibit vocational education for teen mothers and the availability of special programs.
During the project's second year, we made site visits to 11 programs for pregnant and parenting students that were sponsored by schools or to which schools made a major contribution. These 11 programs were located in five of our study states. During these site visits we examined vocational education opportunities, access, and use in these special programs by interviewing special program staff, vocational educators, and teen mothers. In the third and final year of our project, we visited three community-based programs serving teen mothers. These visits were designed to clarify the extent to which school context bears on the availability and use of vocational education opportunities and the degree to which community-based programs offer a different approach to vocational education.
Finally, we analyzed the current and anticipated effects of the Family Support Act of 1988 on programs for pregnant and parenting teens. Although the goals of the Family Support Act and those of most programs for pregnant and parenting teens include increased earning capacity, little was known about how the Family Support Act would facilitate these goals in the context of existing teen pregnancy and parenting programs.
These varied efforts, described in more detail below, were oriented toward six specific objectives:
| 1. | To explore vocational education in the context of secondary school programs for pregnant and parenting high school and middle school students. To what extent and in what form does vocational education exist within these special programs? To what degree does the school context support the delivery of vocational education? |
| 2. | To examine the degree of access to vocational education available to pregnant and parenting students in secondary schools. To what extent have the unique problems and needs of teenage mothers (e.g., child care) been addressed in attempts to assure truly equal access to these opportunities? |
| 3. | To examine the attitudinal context in which pregnant and parenting students seek and enroll in vocational education. How committed are those who work most closely with pregnant and parenting students to promoting vocational education for them? How committed are teen mothers to vocational education? |
| 4. | To compare vocational education opportunities and access in special school programs with such opportunities and access in community-based programs. |
| 5. | To identify programs or efforts that appear to facilitate the acquisition of job-related skills among pregnant and parenting teenagers and increase their immediate or future employability. |
| 6. | To analyze the effects to date of the Family Support Act on teenage parents and on the programs that serve them. |
To our knowledge, no studies have focused on the intersection of vocational education and teenage pregnancy and parenting. Moreover, virtually no school districts identify teen parents as such, which makes rigorous evaluations of teen parent programs impossible.[18] Thus, our study necessarily has an exploratory flavor. We combine in our study exploratory telephone interviews around the country, semistructured telephone interviews in seven nationally representative states and seven representative school districts within each of these states, site visits to a small number of purposively sampled school- and community-based programs, and follow-up telephone interviews about the Family Support Act. This report presents results from each study component; study methods for each component are described below.
In the initial phase of the study, RAND staff with backgrounds in education, teen pregnancy, and policy research received detailed training about vocational education, teen pregnancy, and study goals. They then conducted telephone interviews with respondents across the country about pregnant and parenting students and vocational education. These individuals were contacted because of their involvement with research on pregnant and parenting students or vocational education, their positions as state or federal policymakers concerned with the provision of services to pregnant and parenting or vocational students, their role as advocates for pregnant and parenting students, or their involvement in delivering services to these groups, either within or outside of schools. We asked these individuals about the salience of vocational education for teen mothers, about major policy issues and research initiatives in this area, and about local community and school district efforts to develop innovative approaches to job-skills training for teen mothers. These first respondents in turn directed us to other respondents across the country. We interviewed a total of 164 people during this phase of the study. They included 26 state policymakers, 38 advocates, 18 researchers, 9 staff of local pregnancy and parenting programs, 54 other school staff, 13 community-based service providers, and 6 other respondents.
To produce school district-level data that could be generalized to the nation as a whole, we used stratified random sampling techniques to select the seven states and 49 local education agencies (LEAs) in which we would interview. The seven states were selected using the following procedures:
| 1. | We divided the country into three contiguous regions--West/Northern Plains, East/Midwest, and South/Border--that were as internally homogeneous as possible with regard to birth rates to women under age 20. States that bordered more than one potential "mega-region" were included in the region with an aggregate teen birth rate most similar to its own. |
| 2. | Within the West/Northern Plains and South/Border "mega-regions," we created two sets of states on the basis of population--big states with populations over 9 million, and the others. Within the East/Midwest region, we created three sets of states; Midwest states with populations over 9 million, Eastern states with populations over 9 million, and all others. The result was seven homogeneous regions, each of which included 30-40 million people. The set of small western states included 13 states but only 17 million people. |
| 3. | We selected one state at random from each of the seven sets of states. Within each region, the probability of selection was proportional to population. All selected states agreed to participate.[19] |
| 4. | Within selected states, we arrayed school districts in terms of secondary enrollment, then districts were divided into septiles, so that the first group accounted for one-seventh of secondary enrollment, the second group for an additional one-seventh, etc. Districts with fewer than 100 secondary school students were deleted from consideration. From each selected state we sampled seven school districts at random, one from each septile. These districts were selected with probability proportional to the number of secondary school students. In some cases, a single district enrolled one-seventh or more of the secondary school students in the state. In these instances, the district was selected with certainty. |
The resulting sample of states and districts provides a good mix of states, and a group of school districts that varies in terms of enrollments, ethnic distribution, and urban-rural location.
In each district included in our sample, interviewers selected up to two pregnant and parenting programs in which to interview directly. In two districts, no program was available in which to interview, and in 23 additional districts just one program existed and interviews were completed. In the 24 remaining districts, two programs were selected from among those available. These selections were made on the basis of two criteria. First, when there were pregnant and parenting programs of different types in a district, interviewers selected programs that represented different types. Second, programs that focused more directly on vocational education were selected over those that appeared to lack this focus, as we wanted to ensure that there were sufficient programs in the sample with a vocational education emphasis. These selections resulted in interviews in a total of 71 programs in 47 districts.[20] Interviews were conducted with a total of 327 LEA-based respondents in this phase of the study. Respondents included 61 staff of pregnant and parenting programs, including program heads, teachers, and counselors; 14 building principals; 2 teachers; 30 school counselors; 15 school nurses; 18 vocational educators; 82 district-level administrators; 60 other district staff; 30 community people; and 15 others.
These interviews focused on formal and informal district policies concerning participation by teen mothers in educational programs, access to vocational education by teen mothers, and the opportunities provided by special programs targeted to them.
In addition, in this phase of the study we conducted a total of 62 semistructured telephone interviews at the state level in selected states. These interviews included vocational education and pregnancy staff, state legislators and their staff, advocates, and other policymakers in related areas, e.g., State Department of Labor. These interviews focused on state legislation and policy relevant to the provision of services to teen mothers, the extent of state-level involvement in local district programs, and the level of state concern about the provision of vocational education to teen mothers.
Interview findings were coded to permit statistical analysis of interview data. More qualitative data derived from interviews were included on these forms as well.
Programs to be considered for site visits were identified from within seven states that had been included in an earlier telephone survey.[21] State- and local-level educators and policymakers were queried about school-based, school-sponsored, and community-based programs that they regarded as unusually innovative or effective either in terms of providing pregnant or parenting teens a range of services or in terms of their outcomes. Telephone interviews in school districts produced additional nominations. Nominated programs ranged along a continuum of school involvement, with some programs entirely school-sponsored and run, some a mix of school and community sponsorship, and some, on the other end of the continuum, entirely independent of the schools.
Two site visit samples were developed. The first included 11 programs based in or heavily supported by schools. The second sample included three community-based programs with little or no school involvement. Each sample is described below.
This sample includes both "pure" school programs, in which the program is located on school property and is funded largely or totally by the schools, and programs that were located at some distance along the school-community continuum from the "pure" school form. In these latter programs, the schools and community each play a major role.
Two conditions had to be met to consider programs eligible to be included in this sample. First, programs had to be sponsored by the schools or have major, formal school involvement. In all selected programs, program enrollees had to be officially enrolled in school.[22]
Second, the programs had to devote time and resources to vocational education, which could range from the provision of job-skills training to career information or counseling. As discussed below, we attempted to ensure some variation in the ways in which vocational education was provided.
Given the exploratory nature of the study, a statistical sampling procedure was ruled out. Instead, each sample was purposive and was designed to maximize both the breadth of our results and the amount we could learn from each site.
In selecting our school-based programs from among those eligible, we followed the diversity strategy described by Murphy (1980). First, we identified important dimensions along which the programs varied. Our earlier telephone survey of states and school districts was most helpful in identifying two important dimensions: program model and the kinds of vocational education opportunities available.
Program model was defined by the amount of regular contact between program enrollees and their nonparenting peers. Isolated comprehensive programs where enrollees have no regular contact with other students marked one extreme of this dimension. At the other extreme were programs in which pregnant and parenting students spent all or nearly all their time with nonparenting students, as no formal teen parent program existed.
The second dimension described programs in terms of the kind of vocational opportunities that were available to program enrollees. Programs were sorted into two categories: those that provided pre-training experiences, such as work socialization, career counseling, or opportunities to learn more about the world of work, including nontraditional careers, and those in which enrollees had access to specific workforce-oriented vocational skills training.
Then, we created a matrix based on these two dimensions. We identified 11 programs that fell into different cells of this matrix, as shown in Table 1.1. Seven of these programs were "pure" school programs and four involved school-community cooperation.
| Program Model | Specific Job-Skills Training and Guidance | Work Socialization or Guidance Only | |||||
| Comprehensive--all time spent with teen parents | 3 programs | 3 programs
| |||||
| Most time spent with teen parents only | 2 programs | ||||||
| Most time spent mainstreamed | 2 programs | ||||||
| Virtually all time spent mainstreamed (no formal program) | 1 "program" | ||||||
NOTE: Visited programs were promised anonymity. | |||||||
In selecting community-based programs, we wanted to find programs that had little or no school involvement. This presented more of a challenge than we had imagined: Virtually every community-based program contained a large educational component, many of which were funded by the schools. Even those programs initially designed to supplement or follow on existing educational programs or services found themselves compelled to offer educational services within the program because of the limited educational skills and achievements of program enrollees. What distinguished these programs from the school-sponsored programs, then, was not the absence of educational services but the programs' independence from the schools in their provision of them.
To be considered for selection into the community program sample, a community program had to:
| 1. | Represent a "pure form" of community program. Program administration had to be the responsibility of the community agency or the program, the program had to be housed in the community, and there could be only minimal or no school district involvement in program planning, implementation, or operations. |
| 2. | Serve dropouts. |
| 3. | Serve at least some teen parents who were school-aged, and thus replace school for at least some enrollees. |
| 4. | Provide a range of services to program enrollees. |
| 5. | Have made a major commitment to the provision of vocational education, job training, job counseling, or job placement. |
| 6. | Be located in one of the states originally sampled for the study. |
Given the very small number of community-based programs to be selected, we could not select these programs with even the rigor employed in selecting the school-based ones. We did, however, attempt to ensure that taken together, the three "pure" community programs and the four previously selected school/community ones provided a range of vocational education opportunities to program enrollees. Among the seven programs that include a significant community role, five indicated that they provide specific job skills, training, and guidance, and two programs provide work socialization or guidance only.
In choosing from among both school-based and community programs that met our selection criteria, we retained those that appeared to be unusually effective in providing services and meeting their own goals. Defining and selecting these programs was hindered by the paucity of outcome data on which we could rely; few pregnant and parenting adolescent programs have ongoing evaluation components (Stahler and DuCette, 1991). Many programs that claimed to collect outcome data did so only informally, relying on young mothers to return to the program and report on their successes. In a few programs, more rigorous data collection efforts had begun, but in each of these programs, the effort had started recently, and thus no post-program outcomes were available. In two school-based programs, however, good outcome evaluations were available because they were required by outside funders. The fact of an outcome evaluation was an indication that these programs were more focused on outcomes than most; the results of these evaluations revealed that these programs were doing quite well in retaining enrollees and improving their longer-term outcomes. We used these data, combined with information about program model and services, as a basis for selecting these two programs for site visits.
We selected from among the remaining programs those that appeared to most closely meet a set of process criteria that included:
| * | Quality of resources available to the program, |
| * | Level of community support, |
| * | Extent and quality of services provided, |
| * | Commitment of staff to program and program participants, and |
| * | Salience of and commitment to vocational education and eventual success in the workforce. |
RAND staff members visited selected programs for one to five days, depending on program characteristics and sponsorship. A total of 170 adult respondents were interviewed on-site. These interviews included 6 superintendents and assistant superintendents; 9 district-level supervisors of special programs; 7 principals; 3 vocational education coordinators; 9 counselors; 6 school nurses and social workers; 7 vocational education instructors; 5 other teachers; 24 teen parent program directors and staff; 1 community-based vocational education provider; 7 community agency personnel (including Jobs Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Private Industry Council (PIC), juvenile court, and welfare agency staff); 1 community teen parent advocate; and 1 newspaper reporter.
Forty-four teen parents were also interviewed. They varied in age from 14 to 21. Because they were selected for interviews by teen parent program staff, all but two were enrolled in school at the time of the interview--six in regular school and 36 in teen parent programs.[23] The former two had graduated the previous year. Of the 44 teen parents, 28 were white, seven were black, six were Hispanic, and three were of mixed ethnicity.[24] Most (84 percent) teen parents were unmarried, although a number of these had concrete marriage plans. Two thirds (66 percent) lived with their parent or parents; the married teens lived with their husband, and the remainder lived with other relatives or with their boyfriends.
Field staff used open-ended field interview guides to conduct interviews, and asked questions that tapped each respondent's unique expertise and perspective. On average, interviews lasted one hour. Interviews with adult respondents focused on the goals and operations of the teen parent program, the provision of vocational education, and the vocational opportunities available to teen parents, both within and outside the program. Interviews with teenagers focused on career planning and goals, school career decisionmaking, and vocational education experiences.
At the conclusion of the fieldwork, a case study was written for each program. A detailed outline was used in writing case studies to ensure that reports contained comparable information that allowed for comparisons across programs.
This report presents a descriptive summary and a synthesis of data collected in telephone interviews and in the course of site visits. The findings presented here are those that appear most consistently and compellingly in the data, although findings unique to a particular program or program type are often noted as such.
Three limitations of the analysis should be made explicit. First, since our sample of programs was not representative, we cannot presume to generalize our findings to all programs or school districts. Second, we have made no attempt to give equal weight to the data that we gathered. As we anticipated, some of the "exemplary" programs proved not to be so upon close examination. Moreover, some programs revealed more about the organization and delivery of vocational education to pregnant and parenting students. Third, our analyses mirror the reality of teen parent programs in focusing exclusively on teen mothers. Although most teen parent programs are formally available to teen fathers, they almost never participate.[25]
Section 2 explores school district policies relevant to pregnant and parenting students in the school districts included in our study. It also describes the teen parent programs these districts operate. Section 3 describes the availability and use of vocational education in these programs. Section 4 discusses the community programs we visited, comparing the vocational education opportunities and use we found in these programs to those available in the school-sponsored ones. Section 5 presents our analysis of the likely effects of the Family Support Act on teen parents and on the programs that serve them. Section 6 synthesizes study findings in its discussion of underlying issues and dilemmas in providing vocational education to young mothers.
[1]For this reason, we focus on that act in our discussion. In 1990, it was restructured and renamed the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Changes relevant to teen parents in the reauthorization are discussed below.
[2]20 U.S.C. 2321(b). Note that the act applies to single parents who may or may not be teenagers.
[3]20 U.S.C. 2331(b).
[4]20 U.S.C. 2331(b) (3) and (5).
[5]20 U.S.C. 2332(a) (4) and (5).
[6]20 U.S.C. 2331(b) (2) and 2332(a) (2).
[7]20 U.S.C. 2332(b).
[8]20 U.S.C. 2331(f).
[9]20 U.S.C. 2331(g).
[10]20 U.S.C. 2341(a) (190).
[11]20 U.S.C. 2341(a) (17).
[12]20 U.S.C. 2361 and 2362.
[13]Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-392.
[14]No such amendment was under way at this writing.
[15]The amendments also require consultation and cooperation between different programs and different agencies engaged in vocational training, e.g., Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), However, it is clear that in designing these requirements, the lawmakers thought of JOBS (the new welfare employment and training program, examined in Sec. 5) as an adult program. Coordination with JOBS is required only in the context of adult and postsecondary programs.
[16]There is substantial evidence that many welfare recipients prefer to work and are prevented from doing so by structural problems in the economy and barriers to employment rather than by lack of motivation. Some evidence for this may be found in the large numbers of AFDC recipients who chose to keep their low-paying jobs and lose their welfare benefits when the financial incentives for employment (the allowable deductions from earned income in calculating AFDC eligibility and benefits) were drastically decreased during the 1980s (Miller, 1990; Block et al., 1987).
[17]Family Support Act of 1988, Public Law 100-485.
[18]Many districts claim that such identification would violate the confidentiality of teen parents. Failure to track teen parents is consistent with a lack of effort to track dropouts more generally.
[19]Dfo1()States were promised anonymity as a condition of participation.
[20]Because these programs were not selected randomly, data concerning program distribution, components, and goals cannot be generalized to the universe of school districts or programs.
[21]To produce data from the telephone survey that could be generalized to the nation as a whole, we used stratified random sampling techniques to select the states.
[22]Participants could be regular school enrollees or enrolled as adult education students.
[23]Although program staff tried to recruit "representative" teen parents who varied in age and other attributes, the teen parent sample cannot be viewed as more than a convenience sample.
[24]The disproportionate number of white interviewees reflects our efforts to include programs in suburban and rural areas as well as those in large cities; the former programs had predominantly white enrollments.
[25]According to program staff, teen fathers sometimes are discouraged from participation by teen mothers who are discomfited by their presence. Many have not accepted the father role and see no point in becoming involved. All-female enrollments may serve to discourage participation as well.