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.
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).
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.
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.