"On the Way to the Future": The Relationship between Family
Environment, School Environment and between Choosing Career Path
among Arab Youth in Israel
SAMI MAHAJNA
The main purpose of this study is to examine to what extent family environment,
school environment, inner personality variables, and future orientation variables, predict
career choice. The study examined a three-step structural model: the first step is, family and
school environment variables predict inner personality variables (perception obstacles
religious beliefs, psychological empowerment, and self-esteem). Step two examined inner
personality variables that predict future orientation variables (motivational, cognitive and
behavioral), which, in turn, predict choosing a career path as a third step. In addition, the
study examines the contribution of the immediate environmental factors (family, school and
peers) on choosing a career path as well as the contribution of the personality factors
(future orientation , self-efficacy and psychological empowerment) on choosing a career
path.
Population sample consisted of 388 have participants 73.20% of them are girls and
26.80% are boys. 43 % of them completed their high school studies in the Academic year
of2012- 2013 and 57 % of them graduated from high school at the academic year of
2011/2012. The participants studied at four Arab high schools in Israel: one in the north, two
schools inthe northern triangle area (one of these two schools was for girls only, and the
second was common for both girls and boys). The fourth school was in the centre (the
Southern Triangle). The research instruments included five sets of questionnaires focusing
on: family environment variables, school environment variables, inner personality variables,
future orientation variables and career choosing variables. All the instruments used in the
study showed a high level of internal reliability rangingbetween75. to 94.
The report results were divided into three parts: (a) Means and standard deviations
of variables, and the differences between girls and boys, (b) The distribution of the study
participants into four groups according to two dimensions: participants who work and
participants who study (not only at academic institutions). This section also examined the
difference between the four groups that were created by the combination of these two
dimensions: (1) participants who work and study, (2) participants who work but do not
study, (3) participants who do not work but study and (4) the inaction participants who do
not work and do not study. (c) Part C focused on testing the research model using the
structural equation modeling.
In the first part, the results showed that the means of the various variables of
the study were moderate and ranged from 2.15 and 4.07. Regarding the differences
between boys and girls, the results indicated that girls more than boys: identified
with school, reported a strong relationship with friends, feel more empowerment,
express more hope about continuing their higher education in the future, and
express more fears about continuing their higher education in the future. On the
other hand, boys more than girls expressed concern about gender-based
discrimination and ethnic-based discrimination as difficulties in obtaining future
1
work. In addition, more boys than girls expressed a high level of confusion about
choosing a future career path.
Regarding the status of the participants according to the dimensions of work
and study, we found that only 29.2 percent of the participants have work and the
rest (70.8 percent) are not in any work setting. At the same time, we found that 38
percent of the participants are studying (not only at academic settings) and the
remaining 62 percent are not in any studying setting. The combinations between the
two dimensions work and study created four groups of participants: "studying and
working" (1 %), "studying and do not working" (37 %), "working and do not studying"
(28.10 %) and (the inaction group)"not working and not studying" (33.90 %). It
should be noted that the distribution of boys and girls shows significant differences.
Among the girls (40%) are "not working and not studying" compared to only 20 %
among boys.. We found also that there are about 55% of the boys who are
"studying and not working" compared to girls (30%).
Examining the differences between the groups showed that the group of "not
studying and not working" has a lower level than the group of "studying and not
working" in the following variables: commitment to continuing higher education,
expectation for success of their future plans related to higher education,
psychological empowerment and self-esteem. On the other hand, "not studying and
not working" has higher level than the group of "studying and not working" in the
following variables: fears related to family domain of the future orientation, failure
to make a decision about career path and parental interference in their future plans.
Regarding the differences between the "not studying and not working" group
and the "working and not studying" group we found that there are three major
differences: the first, the "working and not studying" group scored higher than the
"not studying and not working" group on the variable of expectation to succeed in
continuing higher education. Second, "not studying and not working" group scored
higher on the variables of fears related to family domain of future orientation, and
failure to make a decision about career path.
Regarding the study model, the structural equation analysis showed similar
trends between boys and girls when the structural model included the education
domain of future orientation variables, while the model containing the family
domain variables, indicated more differences between the two groups. In the
education models, we can see that the similarity between boys and girls almost
complete in predicting choosing a career path. Apart from the specific difference
between the two groups in the intrapersonal variables: internal religiosity entered
the girls' model (and not the boys' model) and parents support entered the boys'
model (and not the girls' model).
In parallel, structural equation analysis related to the family domain of future
orientation showed greater differences between boys and girls. We can point to
three main differences between the two models predicting failure to make decision
2
about a career path. The first, only in the girls' model, family hopes items entered
the equation model as predictors, while in the boys' model, family hopes and fears
did not enter the equation as predictors. Second, the relationship between the
behavioral component of future orientation and failure to make a decision on a
career path is not significant in the girls' model while it is significant in the boys'
model. Third, there is a significant correlation between the cognitive component
expressed by family hope and failure to make a decision on a career path only as it
relates to the girls' model.
These results relating to the differences between boys and girls can indicate
two directions: the first direction pertains to the results that showed that Arab boys
perceive the existences of ethnic and gender barriers and difficulties in choosing a
career path more than Arab girls. It should be noted that previous studies (LipshitzBraziler & Tatar, 2012) reported that Arab girls are those who actually reported
perception of ethnic and gender obstacles in paving their way to the future. We
believe that the current results do not contradict previous results. Despite that, we
should not reject the possibility of reversing trends in which Arab girls have reported
fewer perceptions of ethnic and gender discrimination more than Arab boys, and
have reported more personal and psychological strengths than Arab boys.
In the second direction, Arab Girls reported more personal and psychological
strengths that help them cope with the difficulties and obstacles to pave their ways
into the future. This personal strengthening and empowerment does not in itself
constitute a change in the inferior status of Arab women, but rather reflects it. It
means that, Arab women raised awareness about their inferior status in relation to
Arab boys and relative to Israeli boys and girls, causes them to strengthen
themselves so they can achieve their future goals especially that they are aware that
their proximal environment will not really help them. This explanation is supported
by the fact that on one hand, Arab girls emphasize hopes about continuing their
future higher education more than boys; they have also highlighted and expressed
more fears about continuing their future higher education than boys.
Regarding the phenomenon of "in action", the present results are similar to
those of Eckstein and Dahan (2011). We believe that the Idleness phenomenon
symbolize the weakness of Arab society that cannot produce suitable frameworks for
its young people immediately after completion of their formal high schools. Besides
that, it should be noted that during this period, Arab girls in particular and Arab
youth in general, are engaged in vocational training through higher educational
attainment. It should be noted also that higher education constitutes the main path
for Arab girls through which they can raise their chances to enter the labor market
(Eckstein and Dahan, 2011; Seginer & Mahajna, 2012).
3