A life course study of education and family formation among vulnerable young adults in Norway

Author(s):

Jon Olav Myklebust(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

14 SES 05 A, Vulnerable Young Adult´s Life Course Transitions

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

13:30-15:00

Room:

K3.21

Chair:

Linda Mary Hargreaves

Contribution

Introduction

In most European countries there is widespread concern about dropout and non-completion of upper secondary education (cf. Cedefop 2016). Naturally enough, these phenomena have also been interpreted within life course perspectives (cf. Dupéré et al. 2015). Educational shortcomings may often have negative consequences, especially in the sphere of work. However, education also influences adaptation in other domains of life, for example family formation, that is, transitions into romantic relationships and parenthood. The purpose of this paper is to examine how education – in interaction with other circumstances – influence family formation among vulnerable people. The analyses are based on 253 adolescents who received special adapted teaching in upper secondary education. These individuals have been followed prospectively for 20 years through school and into different domains of adult life.

Background and theoretical approaches

This longitudinal research on students with special educational needs draws inspiration from life span psychology as well as life course sociology. The first of these includes the proximal context (e.g., family and social relationships), whereas the second approach includes more distal features (e.g., structural and cultural context). The combination of proximal and distal contexts “supplies a set of space-time coordinates, which differently shape the timing and form of the transitions through which the life course is constructed” (Bynner 2008: 219). Strong arguments for closer integration between these theoretical orientations are found, for example, in Diewald and Mayer (2009) and Elder and Giele (2009).

Most young people in Norway attend upper secondary school. In this country more than 95% of those leaving lower secondary school in the spring of a particular year start upper secondary education in the autumn. This is also the case for most vulnerable youth, those at risk for later adverse development, e.g., students with special educational needs.

Analyses of transitions and trajectories have demonstrated what happens to former students with special educational needs in Norway. Selected examples from the project that provides data for the present paper, are competence attainment (Myklebust 2007), employment and economic independence (Myklebust and Båtevik 2005), social security dependence (Myklebust 2013, Skjong and Myklebust 2016), and pregnancy and reproduction (Myklebust and Solvang 2005). These analyses reveal the significance of a life course perspective, which emphasises how prior conditions and transitions – in education, for example – influence present adaptation (cf. Pallas 2003). This approach is useful when analysing how individuals adapt to historical contexts, local environments and structural arrangements, e.g., support given in school to students with special needs. In these studies, pattern of cumulative advantage and disadvantage may be revealed, for example how disabilities and educational outcomes influence subsequent adaptation to adult life (cf. O´Rand 2009:121 – 140). Processes of cumulative disadvantage are often connected with so-called off-time transitions (see Settersten 2009), changes often experienced by vulnerable people who have difficulties in keeping track with their peers. Whether this is also the case in the domain of family formation is one of the topics investigated in this paper.

Method

Method and materials In the beginning of 1996, information was collected on almost all students who started upper secondary education with special educational needs in six Norwegian counties. The information covered a population of approximately 2,000 individuals. A simplified reminder form had to be sent out to obtain information on many of these individuals. The comprehensive registration form provided detailed information on 760 students, and these individuals were included as the main sample in the subsequent follow-ups, yearly through the school years and afterwards about every fifth year. At the age of 36 to 37 years 253 of these individuals were interviewed by telephone or answered postal questionnaires. In the present paper this is called the analytic sample. The response rate was only 33% of the original follow-up sample. However, the response rate was 68.6% of the 369 individuals who were then available. (The schools that originally kept lists of the names and identification numbers of the students, would not or could not provide 118 names when the interview stage began. Another problem was that the Data Inspectorate allowed us to contact only those participants who in the 2007 survey had consented to remain in the longitudinal study. In addition, 13 of the participants died during the period under investigation.) A special challenge in many longitudinal studies is the high drop-out rate. This difficulty, however, can be reduced by controlling for any bias in the material, as has been carried out by Myklebust et. al (2016). The analysis demonstrates that the sex balance is exactly the same in the analytic sample and the population (62% males and 38 females). The majority began vocational courses, and the percentage starting in these courses is nearly the same in the analytic sample and in the population (79%). However, those who started upper secondary education in special classes are overrepresented, whereas those who initially began in academic courses are underrepresented in the analytic sample compared to the population. Compared to most studies of young people with disabilities, the present study has some assets. The sample is relatively large and the time span is long, ranging from the age of 17 to the age of 37. For similar studies, see Gerber 2012, 41 – 42) and Robert, Seguin and O´Connor (2010, 192).

Expected Outcomes

Expected outcomes The topic of this paper – how family formation at the age of 37 is influenced by education and other relevant covariates – is investigated by both bivariate and multivariate analyses. The model contains six independent variables (covariates) with different time distance to the dependent variable. An important distinction is between distal covariates, for example functional level at the age of 17, and proximal covariates, for example competence attainment at the age of 28. Preliminary analyses indicate that competence attainment from upper secondary school is a strong predictor for subsequent family formation. Those with successful education are parents and live in marriage or cohabitation to a much greater degree than those who failed in school. The analyses also show that competence attainment is especially important for men in this domain of life. Further analyses will investigate this gender difference more closely.

References

Bynner, J. (2008): Developmental Science in the Melting Pot. Journal of Social Issues.Vol. 64, No. 1 (219 – 225). Cedefop (2016). Leaving education early: putting vocational education and training centre stage. Volume I: investigating causes and extent. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop research paper; No 57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2801/893397. Diewald, M. and K.U. Mayer (2009): The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Integrated paradigm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course research 14:5 – 14. Dupéré, V. et al. (2015). Stressors and Turning Points in High School and Dropout: A Stress Process, Life Course Framework. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 85, No. 4:589 – 629. Elder, G.H. and J.Z. Giele (2009): Life Course Studies: An Evolving Field. In: Elder, G.H. and J.Z. Giele (eds.): The Craft of Life Curse Research. New York: The Guilford Press. Gerber, P.J. (2012). The Impact of Learning Disabilities on Adulthood: A Review of the Evidence-Based Literature for Research and Practice in Adult Education. Journal of Learning Disabilites, Vol 45, No 1: 31 – 46. Myklebust, J.O. (2007): Divergent Paths: Competence attainment among students with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Vol. 11 No. 2: 215 – 231. Myklebust, J.O. (2013). Disability and adult life: dependence on social security among former students with special educational needs in their late twenties. British Journal of Special Education. Vol. 40. No. 1:4 –12. Myklebust, J.O. and F.O. Båtevik (2005). Economic independence for adolescents with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20 (3):271 – 86. O´Rand, A. M. (2009). Cumulative Processes in the Life Course. In: G.H. Elder & J. Z. Giele (red.). The Craft of the Life Course. New York: The Guilford Press. Pallas, Aa. M. (2003): Educational Transitions, Trajectories, and Pathways. In: Mortimer, J.T. and M.J. Shanahan: Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Robert, M., M. Séguin and K. O´Connor (2010). The evolution of the study of life trajectories in social sciences over the past five years: A state of the art review. Advances in Mental Health. Vol. 9, Issue 2: 190 – 210 Settersten, R.A. Jr. (2009. It takes two to tango: The (un)easy dance between life-course sociology and life-span psychology. Advances in Life Course Research. Vol.14:74 – 81. Skjong, G. and J.O. Myklebust (2016): Men in limbo: former students with special educational needs caught between economic independence and social security dependence. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31 (3):302 – 313.

Author Information

Jon Olav Myklebust (presenting / submitting)

Volda University College

Volda

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.