533579791
My Children First: Choices Made by Welfare Mothers
About Participation in Adult Education
Dr. Mary Ziegler
Dr. Olga Ebert
Jane Henry
Prepared by the Center for Literacy Studies
for the Tennessee Department of Human Services
Knoxville, TN
September, 2003
533579791
The University of Tennessee College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences
Center for Literacy Studies
The Center for Literacy Studies is located within the College of Education, Health, and
Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN. Since 1988, the
Center has been linking interdisciplinary efforts within the University with practitioners in
the field of adult literacy. The Center focuses on research, professional development,
and dissemination of resources to practitioners.
Acknowledgements
This study was made possible by the cooperation by staff in several local offices of the
Department of Human Services who assisted us in recruiting eligible participants for this
study. Of even more importance for the success of this project was the willingness of
the 23 women who were receiving welfare to share their experiences and views about
adult education participation. The authors would also like to thank Jackie Taylor, Gail
Cope, Donna Brian, Jean Stephens, Joe Valentine, and Charlotte Duncan from the
Center for Literacy Studies for their assistance in data collection, transcription, and
analysis.
The research documented in this report was funded by a grant from the Tennessee
Department of Human Services to the University of Tennessee Center for Literacy
Studies. The views encompassed in this research do not necessarily reflect those of the
Tennessee Department of Human Services.
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion,
national origin, age, disability or veteran status in provision of educational programs and services or
employment by and admission to the University.
The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or disability in the education programs and
activities pursuant to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) of 1990.
Inquiries and charges of violation concerning Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, ADA or the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA) or any of the above–referenced policies should be directed to the Office of
Equity and Diversity, 1840 Melrose Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996-3560, telephone (865) 974-2498 (TTY
available). Requests for accommodation of a disability should be directed to the ADA Coordinator at the
Office of Human Resources Management, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN 37996-4125.
The University of Tennessee
Center for Literacy Studies
600 Henley St., Suite 312
Knoxville, TH 37996-4135
(865) 974-4109/ Fax (865) 974-3857
http://cls.coe.utk.edu
533579791
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
METHOD ...................................................................................................................................... 5
GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH .................................................................................................. 5
SITE AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION ............................................................................................. 5
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL .................................................................................................... 6
Interviewing ............................................................................................................................ 7
Instrument ............................................................................................................................... 7
DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 8
Ensuring Credibility of the Data Analysis .............................................................................. 9
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 10
STUDY PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................ 11
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 12
ASPIRATIONS AND GOALS VERSUS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OF
POVERTY ................................................................................................................................... 13
A BETTER LIFE FOR MY CHILDREN ........................................................................................... 14
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ..................................................................................................... 14
GETTING A GOOD-PAYING JOB .................................................................................................. 15
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OF POVERTY ........................................................................... 16
Frequent Moving ................................................................................................................... 16
Community Issues ................................................................................................................. 17
533579791
Lack of Money ....................................................................................................................... 18
Trustworthy Childcare .......................................................................................................... 18
Lack of Reliable Transportation ........................................................................................... 18
FACILITATORS AND DETERRENTS THAT INFLUENCE PARTICIPATION ............ 19
PERSONAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................. 19
Sense of Self .......................................................................................................................... 20
Attitudes Toward School ....................................................................................................... 21
Perceptions of Learning Abilities ......................................................................................... 22
Health .................................................................................................................................... 23
RELATIONAL FACTORS .............................................................................................................. 24
Putting Children First ........................................................................................................... 24
Family Support...................................................................................................................... 26
Friends .................................................................................................................................. 28
Peer Relationships in AE ...................................................................................................... 29
Relationships With AE Teachers ........................................................................................... 29
Relationships With DHS Staff ............................................................................................... 30
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ........................................................................................................... 31
DHS: Procedures and Policies ............................................................................................. 32
DHS: Information About Programs and Services ................................................................ 33
AE: Instructional Methods .................................................................................................... 35
AE: Alternative Programs and Strategies............................................................................. 36
Employment: The School-Work Dilemma ............................................................................. 37
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 42
533579791
IMPLICATIONS FOR DHS POLICY ..................................................................................... 48
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 52
533579791
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to better understand the reasons why Families First
participants chose not to participate in such programs as adult education, programs with the
potential to help participants improve their basic skills and increase their options for employment
training and career advancement. Understanding nonparticipation could be of help in developing
a practical theory based on the participants’ perspectives and could assist program administrators
and policy makers in aligning programs and services to give Families First participants the
greatest probability for success. One key research question guided this study: “What are the
reasons that Families First participants give for choosing not to participate in adult basic
education?”
To answer this question, we approached Department of Human Services (DHS) staff
from several Tennessee counties asking them to help us identify Families First participants who
did not have a high school diploma and were not enrolled in Adult Education at the time of the
study. Ultimately, 23 Families First participants volunteered to participate in the study, 4 rural
and 19 urban. Semi-structured interviews and qualitative research methodology proved to be an
effective method for capturing the participants’ perspectives and for developing a theory about
participation that might be useful for practitioners who work with Families First participants.
The findings of this study seem to indicate that, depending on the circumstances,
personal, relational, and institutional factors in Families First participants’ lives can be either
facilitators or deterrents to participation in educational activities. In order to encourage
educational participation, the facilitators need to outweigh the deterrents. All the participants in
our study were at the stage where, on the contrary, deterrents outweighed facilitators. Figure
Forces That Influence Educational Participation (p. 44) demonstrates the complexity of these
533579791
ii
factors and how they affect an individual’s participation in educational activities.
Two countervailing forces seemed to dynamically affect the sample of women in this
study. First, the participants repeatedly identified a compelling aspiration to create a better life
for their children - a life where their children might have opportunities and experiences that they
did not have. Counterbalancing this aspiration is the pervasive economic deprivation they
experience and the corresponding difficulty of accessing jobs that have the potential to raise their
standard of living while surmounting challenges to their personal safety, health, and educational
attainment.
All participants saw their primary identity as mother, not worker or student, and their
primary task as caring for their children, making whatever personal sacrifices were necessary.
These mothers judged the value of education from their perspectives as mothers and reported that
their continued education, especially the receipt of a high school credential, could contribute to
the quality of life for their children. Although all participants valued education, they had varying
degrees of interest in attending an AE class and not all saw formal AE classes as the most
appropriate path to educational attainment for them. Many participants had unique strategies for
accomplishing their educational goals such as correspondence courses, independent study, and
study groups. When imagining the ideal AE class, participants said that it should include work
skills they could use on the job, prepare them to pass the new GED examination, be interesting,
have flexible hours so they could work and attend class, and provide childcare while classes were
in session. Many assumed that AE did not live up to this ideal.
The interrelationships among personal, relational, and institutional factors are made more
complex by the fact that Families First participants are often trying to balance single parenthood,
work, school, and, in some cases, elder care or extended-family care. Like most adults, they find
533579791
iii
it impossible to achieve balance. Almost half of the study participants explicitly stated that
they preferred to do “one thing at a time.” Current literature suggests that, for the working poor,
balancing multiple life roles may not be attainable. Secretan (2000) says it isn’t balance that
adults need, but integration. Otherwise, adults continually strive for balance—and fail. “Balance
implies either/or, that investing in one role requires taking something away from the other” (p.
29). Motherhood is the most salient role for Families First participants; therefore they face the
dilemma because they see education and preparation for long-term employment as competing
with their primary life role. Focusing on integration through education and training could enable
mothers to maintain their primary role and not see it in conflict with other roles. Educational
programs can also give them knowledge about various life roles in order for these roles to be as
salient as that of a mother. For example, if people are expected to be workers, they need
knowledge about and participation in a worker role. Being a student in a typical AE program is
often seen by Families First participants as something to balance against rather than integrate
with the worker role. Various strategies need to be developed to enable people to simultaneously
assume both worker and student roles along with their parent role. Knowing participants’
aspirations for their lives and focusing on increasing the forces that facilitate change in addition
to decreasing the forces that are deterrents may result in a closer alignment of the goals of both
participants and policy makers.
533579791
1
Introduction
Participation is one of the most researched areas of the field of adult education (AE),
indicating that it continues to perplex those responsible for funding and delivering educational
programs for adults. Because more than 45% of welfare recipients in Tennessee did not have a
high school credential (Fox, Cunningham, Thacker, & Vickers, 2001), adult basic education was
included as an approved employment preparation activity in Tennessee’s pioneering welfare
reform legislation, Families First. Eligible adults could spend 20 hours a week in basic skills
classes to improve their skills and prepare to pass the General Educational Development (GED)
Tests. A high school diploma or its equivalent is a basic requirement for the types of
employment that enable an individual to become self-supporting. Although the opportunity to
increase basic skills was available, not all Families First participants have taken advantage of it.
The reasons for this phenomenon are complex; research has documented the heterogeneous
characteristics of the welfare population that defies stereotypes (Monroe & Tiller, 2001). Yet,
policy makers who worked to fund literacy programs for welfare recipients want to know if they
are being fully utilized. The question remains, “Are women on welfare taking advantage of the
opportunity to raise their basic skills and prepare to take the high school equivalency
examination?” This study stepped into this multifaceted, complex problem by directly asking
Families First participants why they do not attend an adult education program when policy
supports educational activities as a means to increasing employment options.
Nonparticipation or lack of attendance affects many publicly funded programs that
provide assistance. The phrase from the movie Field of Dreams, (Gordon, Gordon, & Robinson,
1989) “If you build it, they will come,” does not hold true for adult education programs. Cross
(1981) studied this phenomenon and developed a theory that categorized the obstacles and
533579791
2
barriers to participation according to three types: situational, institutional, and dispositional.
Although Cross developed this model from research in higher education, many adult basic
education researchers have adopted the model’s conceptual framework for their investigations
into participation (Beder, 1990; Quigley, 1993; Silva, Cahalan, & Lacireno-Paquet, 1998;
Ziegahn, 1992). Situational barriers are generally defined as those obstacles arising from the
situation of a person’s life at the time, such as lack of daycare, transportation, or illness of a
family member. Institutional barriers are issues directly related to and in the control of the
learning provider, such as hours of operation or the location of classes available to potential
participants. Dispositional barriers are attitudes and perceptions within the learners about
themselves, such as level of confidence or self-efficacy for an academic task, or the environment,
such as attitudes toward school, that cause them to choose not to participate (Cross, 1981).
Research on barriers to participation provides evidence of the complexity of the issues
facing individuals with low literacy skills and the difficulty of integrating the perception that
welfare recipients have of their needs with the public policies intended to benefit them. Adults
who receive public assistance are not a homogeneous group and cannot be viewed as a kind of
problem to solve (Beder & Valentine, 1990; Hayes, 1988; Quigley, 1993; Valentine &
Darkenwald, 1990). Although some studies have found that demographic data (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, age, employment status, number and age of children, educational background) do not
seem to be predictive of participants’ persistence in AE programs (Comings, Parrella, &
Soricone, 1999; Hayes, 1988), others have found that certain deterrents (e.g., situational barriers
and low perception of need for adult education) do correlate with such demographics as
employment and number of children in the family (Beder, 1990; Beder & Valentine, 1990).
Assumptions of homogeneity can result in ineffective policies and practices. In a
533579791
3
qualitative study, Jensen, Haleman, Goldstein, and Anderman (2000) identified the following
fallacious assumptions about welfare recipients: They do not value education or what it can do
for them; and they do not participate because of shame, fear, laziness, or lack of motivation.
Quigley (1997) confirmed that common assumptions about welfare recipients were erroneous in
a qualitative study of adults enrolling in an adult basic education program. Stereotyping adults
with low literacy skills can “diminish perceived capacity for human agency among nonparticipants and tend to reinforce stereotypes of [them] as fearful, suspicious, victims of
socioeconomic circumstances who are incapable of utilizing the educational opportunities
extended to them” (Quigley, 1990, p. 103). Even though “adults with low literacy skills resist
neither learning nor the accumulation of knowledge,” (Ziegahn, 1992, p. 48), negative pre-adult
school experiences in which they were seen by themselves and others as failures are a
dispositional barrier to participation (Cervero & Kirkpatrick, 1990; Norland, 1992; Quigley,
1993, 1997; Ziegahn, 1992). Comings et al. (1999), in a study of adults who persisted in adult
basic education classes, found that “school experience does not appear to be associated with
persistence” (p. 60). Although many of their study participants reported negative school
experiences that caused them to drop out, researchers postulated that their participation in adult
basic education may show that they have overcome this negative experience. Although the
literature provides ample descriptions of institutional and situational barriers, Cross (1981)
contended that dispositional barriers are underestimated. Persons with a strong motivation to
attend will be able to overcome “modest barriers” and, in contrast, if weakly motivated, the same
“modest barriers” will keep them from choosing to participate (p. 127).
Jensen et al. (2000) found that three other factors also affected decision making:
generational differences, gender differences, and the local economic context. Each of these
533579791
4
influenced how adult decision makers viewed their roles, priorities, goals, and chance of
success. Ziegahn’s (1992) findings echoed that the differences in gender affect priorities of the
decision maker.
The concept of nonparticipation in literacy research has evolved into an understanding
that adults with low literacy skills make a decision not to participate in response to many
complex forces—some negative and some positive. Cross (1981) identified a “Chain of
Response” model that described not only the discrete variables that affect participation but how
the interrelationship of these variables influences the adult decision maker. For example, “Adults
who hated schools as children…are unlikely to return voluntarily to the scene of their former
embarrassment” (p. 125). Positive forces facilitate participation and negative forces deter
participation (Comings et al., 1999; Jensen et al., 2000; Norland, 1992; Van Tilberg & DuBois,
1989; Ziegahn, 1992).
The purpose of this study is to better understand the reasons that Families First
participants choose not to participate in such programs as adult education, programs that have the
potential to help participants improve their basic skills and increase their options for employment
training and career advancement. Understanding nonparticipation will be of help in developing a
practical theory based on the participants’ perspectives and can assist program administrators and
policy makers in aligning programs and services to give Families First participants the greatest
probability for success. One key research question guided this study: “What are the reasons that
Families First participants give for choosing not to participate in adult basic education?” Use of a
rigorous qualitative research methodology proved to be the most effective method for capturing
the participants’ perspectives and for developing a theory about participation that will be useful
for practitioners who work with Families First participants.
533579791
5
Method
Qualitative research methods help researchers and evaluators understand people and the
social contexts within which they live. The goal of understanding a phenomenon from the point
of view of the participants and their particular social context is largely lost when data are
quantified. A greater understanding of the complexity of the decisions made by Families First
participants to enroll or not enroll in an educational program can potentially improve the
alignment between program services and participants’ needs.
Grounded Theory Approach
Grounded theory was the systematic qualitative method selected for this inquiry because
this approach relies on discovering the underlying social forces that shape human behavior,
constantly compares and integrates data into an emerging conceptual framework, and generates a
theory that is grounded in the data (Glaser, 1978; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Use of the grounded
theory approach enabled us to develop a theoretical account of welfare recipients’
nonparticipation in educational programs that was based in the perceptions of the participants.
The main difference between grounded theory and other qualitative methods is its specific
approach to theory development. Theory evolves during the actual research through the
continuous interplay between analysis and data collection (Strauss & Corbin, 1998); this
approach is theory generation rather than theory testing.
Site and Participant Selection
Since we sought the perspectives of Families First participants who were eligible for
adult education but were not attending, we decided that the most cost-effective way to locate a
diverse group of individuals would be to visit local DHS offices where participants would go for
533579791
6
routine appointments. DHS state staff suggested a visit to offices in all four urban counties and
a sample of eight representative rural counties in Tennessee for this study. A letter of
introduction to local agencies informed them of the purpose of the research. Identifying potential
participants depended on whether the county was rural or urban. In rural counties, case managers
were able to suggest days and times when individuals who met the criteria were scheduled for a
routine appointment. In urban counties, flyers describing the research and asking for their help in
recruiting eligible clients were distributed to the case managers. Families First participants who
met the criteria were invited to volunteer to participate in the study. The criteria were: no high
school diploma, not currently participating in AE, no long-term exemption, and not a case where
only the child receives welfare benefits.
Although the original study design included conducting as many as 50 interviews,
recruiting 50 participants was not feasible within the time constraints of the study. In urban
counties, the large offices and case loads made it difficult to coordinate efforts with case
managers and other staff who were helping recruit potential study participants. In some rural
counties, case managers reported that all clients without a high school diploma were enrolled in
AE. The reason, according to one caseworker, was that there were almost no employment
opportunities for a person without a high school credential in that county. Ultimately, 23
Families First participants volunteered to participate in the study, 4 rural and 19 urban.
Data Collection Protocol
Interviewing, a basic mode of inquiry, is one of the most common methods of data
collection used in the grounded theory approach. We chose the interview as a primary source of
data because it offered the best opportunity to elicit the participants’ perceptions and
experiences. The protocol of the interview is attached as Appendix 1.
533579791
7
Interviewing
The purpose of interviewing Families First participants was to understand their
experiences and the meanings they made of those experiences (McCracken, 1988; Seidman,
1991; Spradley, 1979). The intent of most interviewing is to determine what is in and on
someone else’s mind (Patton, 1990). Patton felt that qualitative interviewing begins with the
assumption that the perspective of the participants is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made
explicit. An assumption underlying the use of interviews as a method is that even one person’s
perspective or formulation of a problem can reveal a wider reality. In addition to the individual
interview, group interviews have become increasingly popular in applied research. The
interviewer acts as a group facilitator and moderator, managing the interactions among the
participants (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998).
Instrument
The team of researchers for this study designed a semistructured interview guide. Since
the purpose was to elicit perceptions, interviewers agreed to follow emerging themes rather that
strictly adhere to the interview guide. After reviewing protocols used in other studies (Beder,
1990; Jensen, et al., 2000), we decided to focus on family background, past schooling
experiences, education, and experiences with Families First activities. Interview questions, as
recommended by Merriam (1998), were open-ended and nonthreatening. The interview as a
method is directly connected to the interviewer, who becomes the primary instrument of data
collection and interprets reality through observation and interviews.
Individual interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes. The group interview lasted about
an hour and a half. In return for their time, each participant was given a $15 gift certificate to a
popular retail establishment. Even though the physical location of the DHS office put some
533579791
8
constraints on the process, the participants seemed to enjoy the opportunity of taking part in the
interview. The group interview with four participants was conducted in an urban county. The
majority of the interviews were taped. In three cases, the interviewer took detailed notes. All
tapes and notes were transcribed verbatim and transcriptions were entered into QSR NVivo 1.2,
software designed for qualitative data analysis.
Data Analysis
Following the recommendation of Miles and Huberman (1994), we began coding and analyzing
the data as we collected them. The constant comparative method of coding involved open coding
by dividing the data into concepts. Through axial coding, we reorganized into categories of
concepts, assigning properties to categories and placing dimensions of properties along a
continuum. Following Merriam’s (2002) guidelines, rigorous coding procedures guided the
analysis to develop theoretically informed interpretations of the data. Additional questions
evolved from this coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A contact summary form and a
document summary form were completed for each interview, and the findings were summarized
immediately after the data were collected. Codes are units of data deemed meaningful; and,
although we developed codes by analyzing the data as they were collected, we began with a list
of codes based on the conceptual framework of nonparticipation from the literature. Being open
to adding other codes as the research progressed enabled the process to be dynamic and stay
grounded in the data.
The following are the stages of the data analysis process:
1. Read individual transcripts and conducted preliminary open coding: Interview
transcripts were entered into the QSR NVivo 1.2 program and each member of the
research team read the same selected transcripts and developed preliminary broad-
533579791
9
coding schemes.
2. Collaboratively developed coding structure: The team met together, each member
with his or her individual coding scheme, and used a consensus model to jointly
construct a comprehensive coding scheme. We used the technique of starting with
very narrow coding to create a large number of categories to be folded into broader
categories later.
3. Final QSR NVivo 1.2 coding and refining the coding structure: The comprehensive
coding scheme was used by two researchers to code all of the transcripts. Both
researchers coded each transcript and merged their categories using QSR Merge for
NVivo. In the coding process, further categories became apparent and were added.
4. Reading codes and developing emergent broad categories: QSR NVivo 1.2 sorted all
the transcripts by categories of the coding scheme and created lists of transcript
sections on each of the categories. We collapsed 70 narrow categories into 8 broad
categories through an axial-coding process.
5. Collaborative process for refining categories and identifying emergent themes: Four
researchers each read and analyzed data fragments from two of the eight broad
categories with the purpose of interpreting the data and identifying the themes. To
cross-validate, each analysis was read and commented on by an additional team
member. The team again used the consensus model to resolve differences in
interpretation, to summarize the results of the analysis, and to define the overarching
themes.
Ensuring Credibility of the Data Analysis
Qualitative researchers use a different paradigm for determining the validity and
533579791
10
reliability of a study than traditional quantitative researchers (Creswell, 1994). Using general
guidelines from the literature assured the credibility of the methods used (Creswell, 1994; Goetz
& LeCompte, 1984; Merriam, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Wolcott, 1990). We compared
multiple sources of data across participants, times, and sites; compared the results of multiple
independent investigators; made explicit the methods and procedures for collecting and
thematizing the data; and linked findings directly to the data. Ultimately, results must be
consistent with the data collected and lead to understanding and meaning (Merriam, 1998).
Limitations
The potential for researcher bias can influence the interpretation of the data. Members of
the research team who conducted this study identified a bias toward the value of education and a
possible bias based on our race, level of education, social class, and gender. Although it is
impossible to remove these sources of potential bias completely, by making them explicit and by
working collaboratively, we were able to minimize their impact on the data collection and
analysis. Although Families First participants volunteered to participate in the study, there is no
way to accurately measure their degree of openness in responding to the researchers’ questions.
The primary data collection method of interviewing has limitations. Respondents may not
have been willing to share certain information with the interviewer. There may be a lack of
communication and comprehension between interviewer and respondent because of jargon or
vocabulary. Further, respondents may not always be candid for reasons unknown to the
interviewer (Hall & Callery, 2001; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). In addition, the researchers’
probes may have influenced responses. The respondents may have been constrained by cultural
factors or by the researchers’ gender, age, or race. The location of the interviews in the local
DHS office may have been a barrier to frank and open conversation (Elwood & Martin, 2000).
533579791
11
Therefore, the data collected may only partially represent the perceptions of the subjects. We
did not obtain the perspective of the DHS caseworker or the AE teacher; their perceptions may
have expanded the findings.
Study Participants
The following table describes the participants: whether they had previously attended
Adult Education, their age range, county of residence, number of children, race, and whether
they are currently working. Identifiers are pseudonyms and are used throughout the remainder of
the document. Participants’ names are presented in alphabetical order.
533579791
12
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of research participants
Participant
Prior ABE
Age
group
County
Grade
completed
Number
of children
Race
Alana
Amy
Candy
Charlotte
Chrissie
Cynthia
Diane
Elsie
Janet
Janice
Jonnita
Kimberly
Lawrencia
Liz
Lucy
Marcia
Melissa
Michelle
Natasha
Robin
Rosa
Tameka
Tawanda
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
30-40
22-29
30-40
22-29
22-29
30-40
22-29
18-21
18-21
18-21
22-29
30-40
22-29
22-29
22-29
30-40
22-29
30-40
18-21
22-29
18-21
18-21
40+
urban
urban
rural
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
urban
urban
urban
11
10
9
10
9
8
11
10
12
10
9
11
12
11
12
9
11
10
8
10
8
9
10
3
3
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
4
4
1
2
3
1
3
3
5
4
1
2
5 over 18;
1 grandchild
Black
White
White
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
White
Black
White
Black
White
White
Black
Black
White
White
Black
Black
yes
alternative
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
alternative
yes
yes
Works
currently
Married
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
separated
no
yes
on temp list
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Note: Short biographies of participants can be found in Appendix 2.
The following section describes the findings that resulted from the interviews with
Families First participants. Words are used to express the following numerical categories: All
refers to 23 participants, almost all refers to 20–22 participants, most or the majority refers to
14–17 participants, about half refers to 9–15 participants, some refers to 5–8 participants, and
few refers to 2–4 participants. Many and several are more ambiguous categories, many
representing more participants than several.
Findings
Reasons for nonparticipation in adult educational activities are complex and enduring. All
533579791
13
Families First participants in this study had a compelling desire to create a better life for their
children; many believed that education and a good job were two ways they could do this. Given
the participants’ perspective, what are their explanations for not taking advantage of an
educational opportunity that would help them realize their goals? The reasons are as complex as
the Families First participants themselves are. Longer term goals of obtaining educational
credentials and getting a good-paying job compete with the normal challenges of raising a family
and maintaining a household. The level of competition increases dramatically when these daily
challenges are embedded in the social milieu of poverty.
The findings are presented in two sections. The first describes two ends of a continuum:
on one end is the aspiration of creating a better life for one’s children, and on the other end are
the situational barriers to achieving this aspiration that result from the social complexities of
poverty. The second section of the findings describes the personal, relational, and institutional
factors that facilitate or deter participants from realizing their aspiration. We have used the
participants’ names (pseudonyms) in the findings to personalize their perspectives.1
Aspirations and Goals Versus the Environmental Constraints of
Poverty
The participants’ dominant aspiration was to create a better life for their children. To
realize this aspiration, participants were able to articulate two primary goals - to obtain
educational credentials and a good-paying job.
1
Quotes from the participants are used to illustrate specific concepts. Participant pseudonyms can be linked to the
demographic table on page 12 and to their biographical highlights in Appendix 2.
533579791
14
A Better Life for My Children
A better life refers to a life for a child that is qualitatively better than the mother’s life.
Many participants described themselves as very dedicated mothers who lived for their children.
Numerous descriptors expanded on this theme; they want to set an example for their children,
respect and reassure them, spend time with them, help them with their homework, and develop a
special bond with them. As mothers, they were concerned with their children’s illnesses and
proud of their accomplishments in school. Most important, they wanted their children’s lives to
be better than theirs; they did not want to be on welfare and did not want their children to think
that welfare was an option for their lives either. Many equated getting a high school credential
with helping their children have a better life.
Educational Attainment
Almost all of the women in this study who were receiving welfare benefits reported that
they valued education. “Making it in the world these days” was linked to education. The GED,
Tameka said, “is good for everyone to have. But I wish I had stayed in school and did not have to
do that now because it is harder now.” Even though it is harder, the majority of the women we
interviewed were planning to attend an adult education class, take the GED test at some point in
the future, or both. Liz explained, “I plan on getting into a GED class…because I can’t go no
further up the ladder unless I get my GED.” In addition to planning to attend a GED class,
several others were studying or planning to study either on their own or with the help of another
person. Rosa expressed her plan to keep trying regardless of the obstacles:
I’m studying for my GED right now, and I’m not going to stop. Nothing is going
to make me stop, nothing is going to knock me down. I will just get right back up
533579791
15
and keep on going - that’s how I am.
In addition to the importance of education was the importance of getting a good job.
Getting a Good-Paying Job
Participants linked a good job with further education and training. Jonnita said, “When
you get an education, you know you can move further in life. You can get a better job. About
half of the participants made a distinction between a job that would pay a living wage and
provide benefits for them and their children and the type of job a person would get because they
needed money immediately. A job that met an immediate need was unrelated to a good job that
provided benefits. As explained by Melissa,
If you can find a really good-paying job and that’s going to help you out in life to
where you know you’ve got retirement, benefits, insurance, then you are doing
good. But you have to have your education, some kind of education, because, if
you think of it, they’re not going to hire someone with no education, no
experience.
Participants spoke enthusiastically about their dreams for a good-paying job, however, a few
people told the interviewers that they had given up their goals. Janice explained, “I had wanted to
be a designer first…design people’s houses…but I gave up that dream because I thought that
dream wasn’t going to happen, so I stopped thinking about it.”
The career choices that most people described had to do with helping people. Four people
were interested in nursing and one in being a pharmacy technician. Two more people dreamed
about becoming doctors. Two people were interested in social work and one in counseling.
533579791
16
Cosmetology, interior design, and veterinary medicine were each mentioned once. Participants
in this study were strongly attracted to the possibility of helping others, such as working in
nursing homes or working with children. Melissa described the altruistic nature that many
mothers have when she says,
It is the childcare what I would want to do. Help the children that have been in
DHS custody…because I’ve been there.…I know what they are feeling. Get them
in school…spend some time with them, sit and talk to them about what the
problem is. That’s what I want.…In order to make a difference you’ve got to
reach out, you’ve got to go around the whole circle.
On the opposite end of the continuum from realizing aspirations and goals are the challenges that
participants face because of the environmental constraints of poverty.
Environmental Constraints of Poverty
Participants faced a number of environmental deterrents that kept them from reaching
their goals. These constraints were frequent moving, community issues, lack of money,
trustworthy childcare, and reliable transportation.
Frequent Moving
Moving frequently was an issue for participants. About a third of the participants reported
that they moved several times during their childhood and youth and, consequently, did not stay
in the same school for more than a year. Often, they moved to be nearer extended family
members. Changing schools for some meant that they were routinely behind academically. A
new school in a different county or state meant that the regulations were different. Because of
533579791
17
this, Charlotte was not able to qualify for a high school diploma. Lucy reported that there were
big differences between schools, even within the same city. When she changed to a school on a
different side of town, “I had to learn to defend myself. I had to learn to do a lot of things that I
didn’t want to do. Because I had to.” In addition to moving frequently, other community issues
interfered with participants’ aspirations.
Community Issues
Community issues of inadequate housing, discrimination, and the educational
requirement for good jobs, or lack of good jobs, were challenging barriers. Inadequate housing
was an issue for some. Tameka said of her housing, “It ain’t worth living in.” Her house was
burglarized to the point where she no longer had the desire to have anything valuable because it
would be stolen. Participants from urban counties experienced difficulties with gangs and “bad”
people that influenced them. Rosa explained, “How can I change when they’re living just right
next door or in my house, you know. It’s difficult to change. It was and it still is.” Discrimination
was a common experience for some participants. Marcia, from a rural county, explained, “It just
depends on what your last name is…and how long you have lived in the community as to
whether you are hired or not.” Almost all of the participants agreed that in their communities,
there were few jobs available for an individual without a high school credential. Diane stated
that, in her community, even people with a GED or a college diploma worked in fast food
restaurants without benefits because better jobs were not available. These community issues
agree with existing research findings that women who leave welfare for work are often in worse
shape financially than when they were on welfare, and that many ultimately return to financial
assistance (Edin & Lein, 1997; Hershey & Pavetti, 1997).
533579791
18
Lack of Money
Few of the mothers in this study received child support from their children’s fathers.
According to some parents, “Children [are] very expensive” and “Welfare doesn’t do it” in terms
of bills and other needs associated with raising children. Lucy described her situation as “barely
making ends meet.” Rosa and Natasha, both around 20 years old, said they were very poor
growing up. Natasha said, “We had to wear the same clothes over and over again.…We didn’t
hardly have no food in the house…it was very hard.” For Tawanda, thinking about bills could
lead to depression.
Trustworthy Childcare
In order to work or attend AE, parents who have children under the age of 12 need
childcare. Some of the women seemed to have satisfactory solutions for childcare. Two women
had made the choice to stay home with their children because they felt daycare options were
unacceptable. Melissa felt so strongly about the hazards of daycare that she said, “Before I would
put my child in daycare…I would have to have a video camera with them…because I don’t trust
[the daycare staff].” Childcare by family members was, in a few cases, only a temporary
solution. In addition to a general distrust of childcare, other parents needed childcare in the
evening so they could work during the day and attend classes in the evening.
Lack of Reliable Transportation
Transportation remains a situational barrier for many people living in poverty.
Participants see a personal car (in working order) as the only option for getting from place to
place in Tennessee. Melissa said,
533579791
19
It’s hard. We don’t have transportation right now. Our car broke down on us, and it’s
kind of hard to get a job if you don’t get a car because they expect you to be there
and be there on time.
Lack of reliable transportation caused innumerable problems for participants. Buses and public
vans are perceived as unreliable and problematic because of incompetent drivers. Public buses
with their complex routes and schedules were intimidating for Diane, who said, “I’m not getting
on no bus. I’m terrified of the bus. I’ll be somewhere else where I ain’t suppose to be.” Amy
explained, “They’d offer bus tickets, but I had to take kids to daycare and everything so I didn’t
use the bus.” When a participant must bring her children to daycare on the way to class, public
transportation with multiple transfers becomes particularly difficult to use (Taylor, 2001).
Environmental constraints impact the aspirations that Families First participants have to
create a better life for their children through education and a good-paying job. The next section
of the findings describes other factors that influence participants’ participation in educational
activities. These factors can either facilitate the realization of their aspiration or deter it.
Facilitators and Deterrents That Influence Participation
The analysis of the data resulted in a complex set of interacting factors that both facilitate
and deter participants from realizing their goals. These factors clustered into three main areas
which we describe as personal, relational, or institutional. The next section examines these
factors.
Personal Factors
Personal factors relate specifically to the individual. Factors that either facilitate or deter
533579791
20
participants from realizing their goals include a sense of self, attitudes toward school,
perceptions of learning abilities, and health.
Sense of Self
Having a strong sense of self is empowering and leads to self-advocacy. A sense of self
refers to an individual’s belief that she has rights and can control some of the events in her life. A
person’s sense of self may be context dependent. In their roles as parents, Families First
participants appear to have a strong sense of self. For example, Michelle described visiting
several daycare centers until she found one that was the most convenient. Lucy was proactive in
getting information. “I called the Board of Education myself.” Many other comments that
participants made had a similar tone. Those who described a strong sense of self were active on
their own behalf, took a proactive role in pursuing their goals, and had a sense of some control
over their environment. In contrast, other participants’ comments suggested that their sense of
self is more passive, and they are less likely to be active in establishing and pursuing goals.
Marcia said, “My first husband made me choose. It was between school or him, so I quit school
to be with him.” Lacking a strong sense of self can lead to a feeling of powerlessness. For
example, Natasha explained that she did not understand why the court placed one of her children
in foster care. Fears were also connected to a sense of self and in some cases were the result of
traumatic experiences. These included a fear for one’s safety, fear of taking a bus, and fear of
failing. Participants who had a strong sense of self were more likely to have taken some concrete
steps toward completing their high school requirements or they actively chose not to participate
because of other priorities in their lives. Those with less of a sense of self were more likely to
find reasons external to themselves for not participating in an adult education class.
533579791
21
Attitudes Toward School
Most participants in this study had some positive experiences in school. Candy explained,
“I liked social studies and history. I liked learning stuff, you know. I liked learning about what
happened years ago.” A similar sentiment was expressed by Rosa when she said, “I was actually
ahead in class a lot…especially in science, social studies, and health.” When asked about their
experiences at school, many participants said that school was either “good” or “okay.” Even
those participants who were sent to an alternative school described their experiences positively.
According to Melissa, “It was really a good school. It helped kids that didn’t fit into the regular
schools.…Give them something that they know they can do. It helped a lot of kids stay out of
trouble.”
Dislike of school was not the reason that most participants dropped out of high school;
the reasons were pregnancy or family issues. Marcia explained, “I couldn’t deal with a household
and a baby on the way, and then a husband, and schoolwork on top of all of it.” Melissa had
similar family responsibilities that she implied were overwhelming.
I ended up quitting high school because my father died when I was 16 years old,
and I ended up having to take care of my baby and help take care of my
grandmother, too, because that helped my mom. So I was kind of stuck. It was
either me quit school, me go to work, or me having to take care of my
grandmother. I couldn’t do it all at the same time.
Some did not graduate because they lacked credits, did not pass state competency tests, or
because they had gotten into trouble as adolescents. Only a few said that they did not like school,
although some felt that they did not know if they had the ability to complete high school
533579791
22
requirements. Describing their reasons for dropping out, Candy said, “I just didn’t like the
school.…To me it seemed as if they just didn’t care if I was in school or not.” Diane conveyed a
similar sentiment when she said, “I just got sick of it.”
Perceptions of Learning Abilities
Participants viewed their abilities quite differently. Some participants reported that they
are fast learners, have good basic skills, and could prepare for the GED test on their own. For
example, Elsie, speaking of her experience in AE, said “I am faster [than other learners].”
According to Tameka, “Some people want to advance and make it go quicker so they can take
the test and get it over with.” A greater percentage had less of a clear sense of their abilities and
whether or not they could succeed in an adult education class. According to Cynthia, “But I’m
kind of slow in class and…that’s why I don’t know if I am able to pass.” Diane reported, “On
that piece of paper, I think they said that more likely I wouldn’t get my GED.” Although
participants wanted to be able to help their children with their homework, several felt that they
were not capable of doing do. Natasha lamented,
I would have a good life if I knew how to read and do math. My son…when he
come home and he have homework, some of it…I can’t understand so I have to
tell him to go to his grandmama.
Based on their descriptions, many participants may have a learning difficulty. Amy confirmed
this when she said, “Cause I had this thing, you know, where I would see everything backwards.
It was like dyslexia.” With help, this participant was able to learn more effectively in an adult
education class, but she did not finish. Janice expressed the belief that it was difficult for her to
learn. “I can read a paragraph and then when I have to explain…what I read, I can’t do it. And
533579791
23
then I have to read it all over again sometimes.…It’s so embarrassing.” This participant
implied that attending an adult education class would be difficult for her because other people
would witness her struggle. The final personal factor is health.
Health
About half of the participants talked about various health problems. Good health is
invisible and therefore not seen as a support for reaching one’s goals. Illness, on the other hand,
is clearly a deterrent. Rosa said, “I constantly have headaches when I wake up and when I go to
sleep at night. It gets to the point where I can’t eat nothing, and I just sit and shiver and just
shake because my head is hurting so bad.” Another person talked about having seizures.
Depression was an issue for two women; thyroid problems, diabetes, and chronic fatigue for
others. “You just feel tired all the time. Walk a couple of steps and just be out of breath.”
Dealing with chronic health problems takes precedence over any other activity.
Table 2 describes the personal forces that are facilitators and deterrents to participation in
adult education, including sense of self, attitudes toward school, perceptions of abilities, and
health. Each of these factors is shown with a component that is a facilitator of participation in
adult education and a deterrent to participation. Each facilitator and deterrant has a quote from
the interviews that represents that item.
Table 2: Personal Factors
Facilitators
Sense of self
Proactive:
I’m searching for good daycare
because I am very picky.
Deterrents
Reactive:
My first husband made me choose. It
was between school or him, so I quit
school to be with him.
533579791
24
Facilitators
Deterrents
Attitudes toward
school
Positive school experience:
I was actually ahead in class a lot.
Negative school experience:
I just didn’t like school.…To me, it
seemed as if they [the teacher] just
didn’t care if I was in school or not.
Perceptions of
abilities
Seeing oneself as a fast learner:
Some people want to advance and make
it quicker so they can take the test and
get it over with.
Difficulty learning:
Cause I had this thing…where I would
see everything backwards.
Health
Good health:
(Good health is invisible. When it is
present, it is taken for granted.)
Illness:
I constantly have headaches when I
wake up and when I go to sleep at
night.
Note: In the table, each of these factors has a component that is a facilitator or deterrent. A quote taken
from the interviews illustrates each facilitator and deterrent.
The strength of personal factors makes a difference in the types of decisions women
make about attending adult education. If these factors are positive, they act as facilitators for
participants to achieve their educational goals, even if they are postponing them temporarily.
Negative factors are deterrents. Personal factors are interrelated with relational factors.
Relational Factors
Relational factors involve participants and other individuals in their lives. These factors
include putting children first, family support, supportive friends, and classroom relationships.
Putting Children First
The desire to put children first is a strong motivating factor for achieving goals. One key
support for a Families First participant to continue her education is to be a model for her
children. Being a model for children means that mothers want their children to think well of
them. They do not want their children to have the same experiences in life that they have had. “I
533579791
25
need to get my education for my children. I don’t want them to think, ‘Well, it’s okay to be on
food stamps or welfare or something. Mommy and Daddy were.’ I don’t want them to feel that
way.” Melissa went on to describe the kind of life she would like to provide for her children so
she can help them have good memories of their childhood:
You get your education. You get you a job and you are going to work for what
you want. That way you can take your children…to [fun places] or amusement
parks or wherever they want to go. You don’t have to worry about, well, I can’t
go because I ain’t got the money. I have some memories for you. My children
need that.
Willingness to sacrifice for the sake of one’s children is commonplace among the welfare
mothers in this study. Rosa explained, “If, when I looked at my son and he was hungry and I had
a piece [of bread] in my hand for myself, I’d give it to him.” Children’s needs are more
important than parents’ needs.
Although participants are clear that the GED will help them get a better job with benefits,
competing priorities interfere. Participants do not all agree that they can simultaneously put their
children first and get an education. Some of the mothers see their role as a parent in conflict with
their desire to get an education. According to Melissa, “You can always go back every day…for
your education, but your children, once they’re gone, they’re gone.…You can’t bring them back,
and I am not about to have that happen.” She was very clear about her children being her first
priority: “If something is wrong with my kids, I’m going to pick my kids over school.”
The perception of being a good mother and putting children first is in conflict with
placing children in daycare. As Amy explained, “And my kids are too little to be in school all
533579791
26
day to where I could just go to all the training.…They’re in daycare now, and I hate that.”
Some felt that they could not trust the daycare that was available to them; a few parents even
described daycare as dangerous for their children. Melissa highlighted the importance of quality
daycare when she said,
Decent. How can I say that? I mean, someone who really cares about your kids
and not being there just because they have to.…I am not about to put my children
in daycare when I don’t know what’s going on with them.
Lucy emphasized other qualities she looked for in a daycare. “I’m very picky. It would
have to be clean, kept up. I want to see their scores. I want to see how clean they are. I want to
just one day just pop up there and see what be going on.” Leaving their children in daycare was a
predominant concern for most mothers; only a few had positive experiences with daycare.
Putting children first meant that, even though children could motivate a participant, children’s
needs often received a higher priority than either educational attainment or obtaining
employment.
Family Support
Children are a major source of support for their mothers. Many participants spoke
proudly of their children in terms of helping out at home, providing encouragement and support,
and giving their mothers a sense of purpose. Children even encouraged their mothers to continue
their education. One of the group interview participants said, “My little boy said to me, ‘You
know, Mom, it’s not too late for you to go back and get your GED.…Mom, don’t you want a
better job?’” In the eyes of the child, the status of the mother improved when she had a GED and
a good job.
533579791
27
Participants cited immediate family most frequently as being supportive. Family
members offered advice and encouragement, as well as tangible assistance, such as childcare,
transportation, clothing, food, and housing. According to participants, mothers often provided
supportive relationships. Kimberly explained, “Oh, my mom, my mom is great. I couldn’t ask for
a better mom. She would do anything for me.”
For some, however, their relationship with their mothers was a source of discouragement.
Either they were abandoned at an early age or their mothers came in and out of their lives and
were not individuals upon whom they could depend for support. Liz felt she had no support:
I mean, it’s hard when you need money and you got kids and you’re the only
person taking care of your kids; there ain’t nobody else helping you.…I had to get
a job. It was the only choice I had.
For a few participants, fathers were also supportive. Candy’s father lived with her and
helped with her children. However, fathers were mentioned much less frequently and, in some
cases, negatively. Siblings who lived nearby were mentioned frequently as being supportive and
encouraging. An older brother of Lucy “used himself as an example to show us, like, ‘Hey, if I
can do it [go to school], you can do it too.’” Some of the participants lived near their families for
support. Four participants still lived with their mother or father.
Husbands or boyfriends are sources of support for many participants. All four of the
participants who were married reported that their husband provided encouragement and support.
Amy said, “My boyfriend helps me more than anyone else does.” Chrissie spoke of her fiancé as
her best friend. Melissa said,
He is going to be adopting [my daughter] and that’s the only daddy she
533579791
28
knows…and my husband, I feel like has gone above and beyond because there is not
that many men out there who would take care of another man’s child.
In contrast, ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends who were fathers of the participants’ children
were not supportive financially or otherwise. Robin, who had been married several times,
reported that none of her ex-husbands provided any child support. This lack of financial support
put pressure on mothers. As Marcia said, “Child support is not that important to him. So I have
to get a job to pay my bills.” Speaking in general terms about absent fathers, Melissa said,
“These days girls believe in what the guy says…‘I love you, I’ll spend the rest of my life with
you if you have this baby’ and blah, blah, blah.…It doesn’t work that way.”
Friends
A few of the participants mentioned that they have supportive friendships. Michelle had
friends and a study group that met together to prepare for the GED. Friends supply information.
Lucy said, “My girlfriend was telling me all kinds of good things about [a vocational school].”
Although friends were important to several participants, others saw themselves as loners. They
preferred being a loner or were proud to be independent and on their own with only one or two
people, other than their children, close to them. Liz said, “I have always stayed to myself. I
mean, I talk to Jane [Family Services Counseling counselor]. That’s it. Other than that…I am on
my own.”
Rather than relationships with friends, some participants have relationships only with
family. Rosa explained that she did not need friends because her husband and her mother filled
that role in her life. Diane described the way she stayed to herself as “a little cage,” implying that
it is not always a comfortable place to be. Elsie explained that she chose not to have any friends
533579791
29
“because you go hanging around a lot of women, it causes chaos. Kin [are] going to do it, too,
so my best bet is just to stick to myself.”
Peer Relationships in AE
Relational experiences, whether negative or positive, were important to those participants
who had a prior experience of attending an AE class. Tawanda liked the other participants.
However, classroom relationships could become deterrents to participation. Marcia explained,
It’s just some of the women that are in the class that distracts the class.…They
were either arguing or telling what they done on the weekend or that night. I could
care less about their lives. Bad enough I’ve got to live my own.
Other students could be not simply disruptive, but antagonistic. According to Natasha,
“Folks made fun of me and stuff like that.…People in class, making fun of my reading and my
math.”
Relationships With AE Teachers
For some, teachers are key role models who listen to them and help them solve problems.
Others believed that teachers treat adults as children. Diane said, “Teachers listen to what you
have to say, come see what kind of problems you’re having.” Tawanda, describing an AE teacher
she had, said, “She was the best teacher that anyone could ever [have], you know. Everybody
was, you know, so nice.” Many participants also reported AE teachers’ responsiveness to their
needs and goals. Amy said,
I like that he, my teacher, had time to sit down and show me how to do it, just
533579791
30
instead of acting like all the other [high school] teachers and just saying that I’m not
going to do it.…He actually sat down and thought the problem, helped me with
the problem that I had.
Even though Tawanda experienced seizures, she explained that she was treated with respect and
kindness. In contrast, another participant said, “When you go to school, like, I’m 30 years old,
and the teacher may be 35 or whatever. She need to treat me like I’m 30 instead of her trying to
treat me like I’m an elementary children.”
A few of the women mentioned that teachers were not responsive to their needs. For
example, Lucy said, “I mean, like I said, I can catch on real easy. It’s just getting the right person
to be able to teach it to me.” In the group interview, Alana recalled her experience: “Them
teachers not really teaching you. Some of them teachers can’t pass that test themselves.”
Relationships With DHS Staff
Having good relationships with DHS staff was important. Cynthia explained, “Mr.
[caseworker], he do everything. They take care of us. They help us out good. You go to school,
you’re still going to get your certificate and stuff.” Liz, who described herself as “staying to
herself,” reported that her FSC (Family Services Counseling) counselor was the only person she
really talked to. Nobody reported a negative relationship with DHS staff members, but it should
be noted that all of the interviews were conducted in the DHS offices, perhaps affecting the
willingness of participants to take the risk of criticizing their caseworkers.
Table 3 describes the personal factors that are facilitators and deterrents to participation
in adult education, including putting children first, support from family, and support from
friends.
533579791
31
Table 3: Relational Factors
Facilitators
Deterrents
Putting children first
Children as motivator:
I need to get my education for my
children.
Children alone at risk:
If something is wrong with my kids, I
am going to pick my kids over school.
Family support
Provide help:
Oh, my mom is great. I couldn’t ask for
a better mom. She would do anything
for me.
Abandonment:
You are the only person taking care of
your kids; there ain’t nobody else
helping you.
Support from friends
Give support & information:
My next-door neighbor, see, we done
got real close lately and she told me
she just took her GED.
Isolation:
I have always stayed to myself.
Peer relationships in
AE
Compatible:
Everybody was so nice.
Antagonistic:
I don’t want to be in a class with
students with children’s mentalities.
Staff relationships in
AE and DHS
Constructive:
AE: I liked to talk to my teacher.
DHS: They help us out good.
Destructive
AE: It’s like they push you.
DHS: No negative data
Note: In the table, each of these factors has a component that is a facilitator of participation in Adult
Education and a deterrent to participation. A quote taken from the interviews illustrates each facilitator
and deterrent.
Playing the multiple roles of parent, student, job seeker, and family member requires
support. Children, other family members, friends, peers, AE teachers, and DHS staff can play a
pivotal role in helping to make “doing it all” possible. When these positive relationships are not
in place, isolation becomes a significant deterrent.
Institutional Factors
Institutional factors that facilitate or deter participants from realizing the aspiration to
create a better life for their children are structural in that they deal with service delivery or the
types of services that participants perceived that they needed. We separated institutional factors
533579791
32
into those that pertain to DHS, AE, and employment in order to describe them; however, they
overlap and are interrelated. The institutional factors that pertain to DHS include policies and
procedures, giving and receiving program information, and matching services to needs. Factors
that pertain to AE include instructional methods and alternative programs and strategies. The
work-school dilemma is the key employment factor.
DHS: Procedures and Policies
Policies and procedures are helpful for some participants, especially those that see DHS
as “a place to turn to” when they are in need. Rosa said,
I didn’t have no where else to turn but here.…They had to help me out through
the hard times.…You know, without them [DHS], I’d probably have nothing to
give my son to eat or anything.…If that means get on welfare, then that means I
thank God that the state does care.
In contrast, many other participants had an experience that can be described as a “glitch”
in the system. These system glitches often had to do with participants’ perception of referrals;
some do not make sense to participants, some are incorrect, and others do not directly meet the
participants’ needs. One group interview participant said,
I was working 37 hours a week, and I had to go to school for three hours [to meet
her 40-hour work requirement]. That was a waste of time. And I told them I
wasn’t going to risk myself going to [the other side of the city, perceived as a bad
part of town] at night time for these three hours for these little bitty food stamps
ya’ll give me.
533579791
33
Melissa reported that she finally gave up because of a misunderstanding about her AE referral,
“The [AE program staff] said I wasn’t even supposed to be there.…They had me going all over
the place, and I thought, ‘I’m going to die.’ Well, it was a glitch in the computer system. It was
awful.” Diane, who thought that she was referred to an AE class, was sent to Fresh Start. Lucy,
who only needed to pass a state math competency test to receive a high school diploma reported
that DHS staff did not help her find a math tutor that would help her pass the test. She said “See
it’s stuff that I need that the program don’t actually provide, so…you know, we can’t do nothing
but just go on and face it and go by the rules.” The same sentiment was echoed by Tameka, who
explained,
My mother keeps my children.…They [DHS staff] do not pay her. I pay her. They
had told me when I first asked them if they could pay her, they told me that she
needed her own bank account. And how am I supposed to get her her own bank
account when I don’t even have enough money to open my own?
DHS: Information About Programs and Services
Almost all participants were aware of Families First AE classes; however, many lacked
complete information or had incorrect information. Some were not sure what time the classes
met; others did not think that they were eligible. Some participants lacked a clear understanding
about the length of time that could be needed to pass the GED. Diane reported having been told
by her FSC counselor that she would never pass the GED, while Amy and Tameka thought that
there was a “fixed” time period that it would take to pass. Charlotte did not know AE classes
were free, and Michelle thought they were only offered in the evening. Jonnita, who worked in
the morning, said she did not think that afternoon or evening classes were available in her urban
533579791
34
area. Most participants reported that they saw AE classes as a means to get a GED; only a few
mentioned AE as a means to improve the basic skills needed for work or family life.
Families First participants receive program information at orientation and routine
appointments with DHS staff. Because of the wide disparity in understanding DHS policies and
procedures, it seems evident that participants may not remember or understand the information
they receive. This is especially true for participants who may have learning difficulties or
disabilities. As many as 50% of the welfare population may have undiagnosed learning
disabilities (Young, Gerber, Reder, & Cooper, 1996). The issue is further exacerbated by
participants’ relying on what others tell them. Amy said,
They said on that little paper, it says [GED can take] up to 15 weeks. I’m like, is
this 15 weeks? And they’re like, well, it depends on you. You can go up all the
way to 15 weeks; hopefully it won’t take that long.
During the group interview, participants began spontaneously telling each other what they
thought the policy on enrolling into AE was. Most had only partial information. Although many
had transportation problems, few understood their transportation options or such programs as
First Wheels.
According to DHS policy, “Families will be given the opportunity to complete high
school or to earn a GED and advance their skills, provided they are working” (Tennessee
Department of Human Services, 1999, p. 7). This policy is muddy to participants since they did
not perceive that DHS staff could help them make educational choices that would improve their
employment opportunities. Liz was the only participant who reported that an Families Services
Counselor searched for the best educational option for her that resulted in a referral to a
533579791
35
vocational program. Although each participant has an individual Personal Responsibility Plan,
their perspective is that there is little customization to meet their specific educational or
vocational needs.
AE: Instructional Methods
Almost all of the participants in this study had attended an AE class of some sort in the
past; only two reported that they had never attended. Based on the experiences of those who had
attended, two types of institutional factors influence their participation in adult educational
activities. These factors are the formal AE classes and the multiple alternative programs and
strategies that participants have for obtaining a high school credential.
Some participants found formal AE classes and teaching methods to be congruent with
their needs. Janice said,
You can go to this little help thing…and it helps you on the computer. But if you
can’t do it…you just call one of them teachers in there and they help you. They
real good with helping people up there.
In contrast other participants did not experience AE teaching methods as helpful. Some felt
pushed; others felt that AE took too long. Others reported that teachers were not responsive to
their learning needs. As Tameka said,
I done been to every GED class there is in [urban area] and they don’t help you…they
just throw you a book…if it is an illiterate person, you can’t throw no book to an illiterate
person because they don’t know what to do… Everybody is not on the same level.
533579791
36
AE: Alternative Programs and Strategies
Although most participants wanted a high school credential, about half found ways to
prepare themselves with methods other than formal AE programs. Several participants believed
that alternative programs were available that would enable them to get a high school diploma
rather than a GED. For example, Lucy and Liz attended classes through a rehabilitation program.
Another participant wanted to go to a high school summer program, but the cost was too high.
Lucy called the Board of Education and used the yellow pages to locate a tutor but found that
“You have to pay, and how can you pay for a tutor if you not making any money?” Rosa,
Charlotte, and Tameka said that they would like to save enough money to enroll in one of the
high school courses offered by private companies that provide materials and guidance for
independent basic skills study. Rosa had experience with this type of program:
I did go to that one school, that was a mailing school, that they mailed your books
to you and when you get done, you send your stuff back in.…But it ended up the
bill was about $400, and I was, like, how can it be 400 bucks, when they told me
that we are sending you the supplies and the books and everything, but you do
[pay for] your test.…So I paid the $400, and that knocked me back down.
Some of the participants expressed the desire to prepare for the GED examination
independently. Melissa and Rosa both studied with the help of their husbands. Rosa has “been
studying for [the GED] for about 5 months now.” She was “going to keep on studying till I get
down every single detail on it, then I am going to go in and try to take the test.” Tameka and
Elsie described their attempts to study independently with the help of their siblings. Marcia said,
533579791
37
I don’t get a lot out of sitting around with a bunch of people trying to learn.…And if I
do it on my own at home, I get a lot out of it. But if I get stuck or something like
that, I’ll wait and I’ll ask the teacher.
Preparing on one’s own would be easier with a GED practice manual, according to several
participants. Michelle described in detail her “home-study” group. She started several years ago
with two other women, but now there were seven of them preparing together for the GED. They
meet weekly and provide mutual help and support. Michelle indicated that for her the GED was
“an unfinished business,” and preparing on her own would help her achieve a personal victory
and a “closure.”
Employment: The School-Work Dilemma
Although having a high school credential is seen as very important, participants consider
a variety of alternative strategies for achieving their educational goals in addition to AE classes.
However, most face the school/work dilemma. All of the participants who wanted a high school
credential were caught in an irreconcilable dilemma of equal but conflicting priorities. On the
one hand, most participants needed employment to supplement their public assistance.
I only got $185 a month and it…pays your bills at the first of the month and that’s
it. I really ain’t got diaper money, wipes, clothes, little things you need for your
house. That’s the reason that people does not stay in school.
Attending school was a long-term investment that was difficult to afford. “School can’t get you
paid except down the years later.…You wait two weeks till you get paid. You’re going to go to
school and you’re going to wait two years to get paid.” On the other hand, participants reasoned
533579791
38
that going to AE would help them achieve their goal of getting a good job.
Without a diploma, you can find a job okay, but not a good job.…If you get
thrown off your job, go looking for another one, and you got your education;
you’re going to get you one. You get judged by your education.
Consequently, many women took jobs on a short-term basis, tiring jobs, jobs they neither liked
nor planned to keep long, such as a fast-food job. These jobs were expendable because they fell
far short of the participants’ perception of a good job. Amy gave a practical example of the
conflicting priorities between choosing a job she could do now and choosing to go to school to
get a job she wants. “
I know I need a GED because I don’t want to do CNA [certified nurse’s assistant].
I want to do LPN [licensed practical nurse]. I need a GED to do that.…If I don’t
want to go to GED classes, it’s because I need a job right away and they are
offering CNA training. And I wouldn’t have to have a GED to do that. And I
could already have that training and go and get a job sooner than I would if I just
went to get my GED and go through that LPN and everything.”
The goal of getting a good job depends on a high school credential because good jobs
require some type of specialized training, and entry into the specialized training generally
requires a high school credential. For some, the good job was not a specific job; but, according to
Lucy, “I want to get a job I know I am going to like, and I am going to stay there for a while, and
it’s going to be beneficial for me and the children.” Others were more specific. For example,
Michelle realized that, in order to accomplish her goal to become a designer of computer games
533579791
39
and courses for children, she would need both to receive a GED and to complete computer
training. According to a group interview participant, “That’s why I want my diploma. I want to
be a pharmacy technician. I don’t want to work as no cashier.” Jonnita said, “I really want a desk
job…but I got to get my GED to do that.…It’d be working on the computer and typing.” Amy
realized that “going to get my GED and going to LPN training will probably be better for the
future instead of going on just being a CNA.”
Based on the interviews, many participants were caught between the two options of
searching for a position to meet immediate needs, even if the position was seen as undesirable or
short term, or enrolling in an AE program as a means to achieve skills and a credential that may
eventually help them to find a position that was desirable but only available in the future. The
first option had immediate positive weights of visible financial gain and achieving employment
status. Participants could see the long-term advantages of the second option. It was also attractive
as an option because it “filled the void” and contributed to their sense of self. However, the lack
of certainty that AE participation would, in fact, bring about a good job with full benefits (as
would probably be provided by such occupations as nursing, social work, and clerical positions)
were negative weights. Torn between these two options and supplied with often-contradictory
advice of family members, DHS staff, friends, and neighbors, participants found it difficult to
determine and choose the path to take. And, rather than make a choice, many wanted to do it all:
be a good mother, find a good job, and earn a high school credential.
Table 4 summarizes the institutional factors that are facilitators and deterrents to
participation in adult education, separated into those that pertain to DHS, AE, and employment.
533579791
40
Table 4: Summary of Institutional Factors
Factor
Facilitators
Deterrents
DHS: Procedures
and policies
The system is a life saver:
Without them [DHS], I’d probably
have nothing to give my son to eat
or anything.…If that means get on
welfare, then that means I thank
God that the state does care.
Glitches in the system:
They had me going all over the
place and I thought, ‘I’m going to
die.’ It was a glitch in the computer
system. It was awful.
DHS: Supplying
program
information
DHS staff provide needed services:
They help out good. You go to
school, you’re still going to get your
certificate and stuff.
DHS staff do not provide needed
services:
It says GED can take up to 15
weeks. [I said] is this 15 weeks?
[They said] It depends on you. You
can go all the way up to 15 weeks;
hopefully, it won’t take that long.
AE: Instructional
method
Method is effective:
But if you can’t do it…you just call
one of them teachers in there and
they help you. They real good with
helping people up there.
Method is ineffective:
I done been to every GED
class…they don’t help you…they
just throw you a book.
AE: Alternative
programs and
strategies
Independent strategies effective:
Been studying for the GED for 5
months now…going to keep on
studying till I get down every single
detail on it then I’m going to pass
the test.
Independent strategies ineffective:
You have to pay, and how can you
pay for a tutor if you not making
any money?
Employment:
School-work
dilemma
Long-term employment goals:
Going to get my GED [and] then
going to LPN training will probably
be better to the future instead of
going on just being a CNA.
Immediate income need:
Get this job and you are going to
wait two weeks till you get
paid.…Go to school and you are
going to wait two years to get paid.
Note: In the table, each of these factors has a component that is a facilitator of participation in Adult
Education and a deterrent to participation. A quote taken from the interviews illustrates each facilitator
and deterrent.
533579791
41
Personal, relational, and institutional factors play a role in either helping or deterring a
participant from achieving her goals. Table 5 provides a summary of the three factors.
Table 5: Summary of Factors That Influence Participation in AE
Factors
Facilitators
Deterrents
Personal
Sense of self
Proactive
Reactive
School attitudes
Positive school attitude
Negative school attitude
Perceived abilities
Learn easily
Difficulty learning
Health
Healthy
Sick
Children
Children motivate parents
Children “at risk” if alone
Family
Provide support
Abandonment
Friends
Information providers
Absent
AE Peer relationships
Compatible peers
Antagonistic peers
Relationships with staff
Provide guidance
Criticize
DHS procedures & policies
System as life saver
Glitches in the system
DHS supplying program info
Useful information
Misinformation
AE instructional method
Effective, relevant methods
Ineffective, boring methods
AE alternative programs
Useful strategies
Costly strategies
Employment: School-work
Long-term career
Immediate income need
Relational
Institutional
dilemma
The findings of this study seem to indicate that, depending on the circumstances,
personal, relational, and institutional factors in Families First participants’ lives can be either
facilitators or deterrents to participation in educational activities. For example, a proactive stance
may help a person to make a decision to enroll in AE, while a reactive stance may shift the
533579791
42
weight toward the decision to “keep things as they are” and not to start a new educational
undertaking. However, none of these factors is independent of the others. In order to encourage
educational participation, the facilitators need to outweigh the deterrents. All the participants in
our study were at the stage where, on the contrary, deterrents outweighed facilitators.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to better understand the reasons that Families First
participants choose not to participate in programs like adult education, and, based on their
perspectives, to develop a theory of participation grounded in their experiences. The findings
identified two countervailing forces that dynamically affect the sample of women in this study.
First, the participants repeatedly identified a compelling aspiration to create a better life for their
children - a life where their children might have opportunities and experiences that they did not
have. Counterbalancing this aspiration is the pervasive economic deprivation they experience
and the corresponding difficulty of accessing jobs that have the potential to raise their standard
of living while surmounting challenges to their personal safety, health, and educational
attainment. A key question arising from this study is this: How do Families First participants
move from economic deprivation and realize their aspiration to create a better life for their
children?
Providing educational activities is one way Families First policy makers have sought to
address this issue. Policy assumes that adult educational activities are a tool for increasing
employment opportunities because of the link between educational level and higher wages
(American Council on Education, 2000; Boesel et al., 1998; Boudett et al., 2000; Kerckhoff,
Raudenbush, & Glennie, 2001; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). Participants
generally agree with policy makers, confirming the findings of Jensen et al., (2000) about the
533579791
43
false assumption that welfare recipients do not value education or what it can do for them.
Families First participants describe education as an effective tool that will enable them to obtain
the training necessary to get a good job with wages and benefits that can help them provide for
their children. In contrast to other research (Cervero & Kirkpatrick, 1990; Norland, 1992;
Quigley, 1993, 1997; Ziegahn, 1992), the majority of participants in this study viewed school
positively. Where the participants’ perspectives differed from policy was that their aspirations
were not to achieve self-sufficiency, but, rather, to provide a better life for their children. All
participants saw their primary identity as mother, not worker or student, and their primary task as
caring for their children, making whatever personal sacrifices were necessary. These mothers
judged the value of education from their perspectives as mothers and reported that their
continued education, especially the receipt of a high school credential, could contribute to the
quality of life for their children. However, three sets of factors (personal, relational, and
institutional) affected the likelihood that Families First participants would participate in
educational activities. These factors presented a type of force field (Lewin, 1965),
simultaneously pushing participants toward realizing their aspiration and pulling them back to
the chaos of poverty.
Figure 1 demonstrates the complexity of these factors and how they affect an individual’s
participation in educational activities. Personal, relational, and institutional factors seem to fall
on a continuum from facilitative to deterring; the strength of the factor in one direction or
another influences participation positively or negatively. Participation is complex, and no one
factor for nonparticipation prevails; rather, factors are dynamic and interrelated.
533579791
44
to
Ed
uc
a
tio
n
Figure 1: Forces That Influence Educational Participation
re
nt
s
Goals
Restraining Institutional
Factors
O
ay
W
A
As
io
n
uc
at
Ed
to
Ed
uc
at
io
n
- AE Meets Needs
- Experience DHS as Helpful
- Employment as Motivator
lia
to
rs
- Children as Motivators
- Family Support
- Help from Other People
Fo
Sense of Self:
- Proactive stance
- Positive School Experience
- Perception of Learning Ableness
- Good Health
rc
es
Th
at
Ar
e
Fa
ci
Driving Relational Factors
Driving Personal Factors
Restraining Personal
Factors
Environmental Constraints
Mothers on
Welfare
in the
Poverty Milieu
ut
Restrainiing Relational
Factors
Sense of Self:
- Reactive stance
- Negative School Experience
- Perception as Learning Disabled
- Health Problems
Driving Institutional Factors
Fo
rc
es
Th
at
A
re
D
et
er
- AE Does Not Meet Needs
- Experience DHS as Unhelpful
- Dead End Employment
- Children's Needs Come First
- No Family Support
- Isolation: Feeling alone
Inadequate:
- Transportation
- Childcare
- Housing
- Job Opportunities
- Improved
Basic Skills
- GED
- Good Job
- Better Life
533579791
45
Personal factors that facilitated or deterred participation in education had to do with an
individual’s propensity to be a self-advocate, her prior learning experiences, her perception of
herself as a learner, and the state of her health. For example, an individual who viewed herself as
a good learner could picture herself in an AE class or in some type of self-directed study. An
individual who thought of herself as having learning problems and expressed doubt about her
ability to succeed might be reluctant to participate. Similarly, an individual who experienced
chronic illness would focus on her health even though she planned at some point to pursue her
education. Personal factors, attitudinal or physical, interacted with relational factors.
Relational factors identified in this study were relationships with children, family,
friends, and both AE and DHS program staff. The most important relational factor for Families
First participants was their relationship with their children. In the face of mandatory work
requirements, women expressed ambivalence about working or going to school if it meant that
they could not properly supervise their children. This corresponds to the findings of Scott, Edin,
London, and Mazelis (2001) that identified the same compelling identity shaped by motherhood.
Mothers saw themselves as more appropriate caregivers than paid childcare workers. Having
supportive relationships with family and friends sometimes mitigated this sense of obligation for
children; alternatively, a perceived lack of support or abusive family members heightened it. In
addition to family and friends, participants’ relationships with program staff also impacted their
participation in educational activities. Staff either gave participants guidance that helped them
make decisions about education that met their needs, or they made comments that discouraged
participation in involvement and achievement. The impact that relational factors have on
participation in adult education activities is not well documented in the literature (Comings et al.,
1999).
533579791
46
The institutional factors related to DHS concerned policies and procedures and
availability of information about programs and services. Participants experienced numerous
glitches in the system that led to confusion and frustration, such as an incorrect referral or
incomplete information. Although participants valued the services they received for their
children, few saw Families First policies as guiding them to the educational options that would
lead them to the good job they desired. Rather, policies supported participants’ desire to take a
short-term position for immediate cash rather than plan specific steps that would help them
ultimately find a good job. Studies have shown that women who leave public assistance for work
often suffer financially and may ultimately re-enter the welfare system (Edin & Lein, 1997;
Hershey & Pavetti, 1997). The participants perceived the only type of job that will enable them
to leave welfare is a good job, and that means a job with benefits and a living wage. Most good
jobs require a high school credential, and, for most, that meant passing the GED examination.
“Because welfare recipients have low skills, if they are to find jobs, move to better jobs, and
move out of poverty, strategies to upgrade basic and job skills will be required” (Martinson &
Strawn, 2002, p. 9). AE classes are one way to upgrade basic skills.
The institutional factors related to AE were instructional methods, alternative programs,
and self-directed learning strategies. Participants had varying degrees of interest in attending an
AE class. When imagining the ideal AE class, participants said that it should include work skills
they could use on the job, prepare them to pass the new GED examination, be interesting, have
flexible hours so they could work and attend class, and provide childcare while classes were in
session. Many assumed that AE did not live up to this ideal.
Although all participants valued education, not all saw formal AE classes as the most
appropriate path to educational attainment for them. Many participants had unique strategies for
533579791
47
accomplishing their educational goals such as correspondence courses, independent study, and
study groups. Neither DHS nor AE formally supports these nontraditional methods of
educational attainment. Besides formal 20-hour-a-week AE classes, Families First participants
have few alternatives for learning basic skills, integrating work and basic skills, or preparing to
take the GED examination.
These personal, relational, and institutional factors are made more complex by the fact
that Families First participants are often trying to balance single parenthood, work, school, and,
in some cases, elder care or extended-family care. Like most adults, they find it impossible to
achieve balance. Almost half of the study participants explicitly stated that they preferred to do
“one thing at a time.” For the working poor, balancing multiple life roles may be a luxury; they
“are likely to be far more circumspect in how they can commit their resources to family needs”
(Niles, 2001, p. 13). Cognitive research suggests that achieving balance of life roles is an
inappropriate goal because the demands of contemporary society require more than balance,
more than the acquisition of specific skills or the mastery of particular knowledge; it requires
thinking differently about one’s situation (Kegan, 1994). Secretan (2000) says it isn’t balance
that adults need, but integration. Otherwise, adults continually strive for balance—and fail.
“Balance implies either/or, that investing in one role requires taking something away from the
other” (p. 29). Motherhood is the most salient role for Families First participants; therefore they
face the dilemma because they see education and preparation for long-term employment as
competing with their primary life role. Focusing on integration through education and training
could enable mothers to maintain their primary role and not see it in conflict with other roles.
Findings show that personal, relational, and institutional factors act as either facilitators
or deterrents to participation in Adult Education or other educational activities. Families First
533579791
48
policy has focused on removing barriers to participation. Equally important is focusing on the
facilitators of participation in personal, relational, and institutional areas and aligning policy
goals with the participants’ aspiration to create a better life for their children. Adults who receive
public assistance are not a homogeneous group and cannot be viewed as a kind of problem to
solve (Beder & Valentine, 1990; Hayes, 1988; Quigley, 1993; Valentine & Darkenwald, 1990).
Rather, focusing on the unique strengths of participants can help them achieve their aspiration to
provide a better life for their children. The next section provides implications for practice.
Implications for DHS Policy
Existing DHS policy gives Families First participants an opportunity to engage in adult
education. Integrating the educational role with other roles can be challenging for adults.
Many Families First participants continue to encounter environmental constraints (e.g.,
inadequate childcare, housing, and transportation) that make it difficult to simultaneously
perform the roles of parent and student and worker. Reducing the severity of these constraints
should continue to be the focus of public policy.
Participants have many personal strengths that act as facilitators for them to achieve their
goals. Understanding these strengths and working to increase them could lead to a better fit
between services provided and participants’ needs. Participants have diverse perceptions of their
abilities; some think of themselves as “faster” or “slower” than the targeted middle and may feel
a traditional AE class is not the most effective way for them to learn. Awareness of the many
personal factors that affect participants’ choices and decisions can help DHS program staff
customize services that better meet their needs. Families First participants may benefit from an
introductory program that is a prerequisite to enrollment in AE classes, for example, Parenting
and Consumer Education (PACE). A part of this program focuses on being a working parent and
533579791
49
on childcare issues. Other programs that deal with integrating multiple roles are the Learning
Skills Curriculum published by the Center for Literacy Studies and the Equipped for the Future
framework as an instructional methodology for basic skills.
Together with personal factors, interpersonal relationships play an important role in
participants’ choices and decisions. A key relational factor is support, a critical component for
participants to pursue educational goals. Some participants have ample support from family and
friends while others feel very isolated. Support is especially important when multiple deterrents
are present in a person’s life. Participants may need help in learning how to develop a network of
relationships that can provide support for them as they navigate their way towards long-term
employment. This is one of many components that should be included in workforce preparation
and training activities. Personal relationships with DHS and AE staff also make a difference in
participants’ trust of the services they receive. Staff who convey an attitude of caring and are
committed to matching services with participants’ individual needs may be most effective at
facilitating participants’ progress toward their goals of self sufficiency.
Besides the personal relationship factors, there are institutional factors that are an
inherent part of programs designed to serve Families First participants. What stood out from this
study was that Marcia was different from Tameka who was different from Robin. Families First
participants are a very diverse group; and, therefore, many programmatic practices are not
helpful for everybody they are designed to serve. For example, when designing a way to tell
participants about adult education options, it would be important to provide clear information
about educational options both orally and in writing. Rather than a “flyer” that says where a class
is located and what the rules for attending are, other information pieces could be developed that
place education in the context of the participants’ aspiration to create a better life for their
533579791
50
children. In regard to Families First adult education, instructional methods may serve the
needs of a student with a certain learning style and aptitude. Research suggests that putting basic
education in the context of employment training may make attending AE classes seem more
realistic to some participants and more effective in producing long-term outcomes (Martinson &
Strawn, 2002). In addition to contextualized learning, providing alternative methods of delivery
could make AE options more flexible and appealing to participants who have deterrents to
attending traditional programs. Examples of alternative methods of delivery might include GED
TV, computerized programs, or self-study with the GED manual with periodic sessions with a
teacher.
Incorporating existing program models could provide additional flexible solutions. To
meet the needs of parents with young children, family literacy programs offer promise as a
strategy for providing services to parents and children simultaneously. Offering vocational
training for those who have very low basic skills and including basic skills education in a
specific occupational context would enable these participants to enter the workforce.
Conclusions
The findings suggest a coherent nonparticipation theory that can be tested for
generalizability in future research and can be used by program staff to improve services. The
results of this study will be of interest to those involved in Families First but should not be
generalized to groups or contexts beyond the ones studied. However, the purpose of using the
grounded-theory approach was to develop a theory that explained the phenomenon of
nonparticipation in adult education by Tennessee Families First participants.
All of our participants valued work and education. According to Super (1980, as cited in
Niles, Herr, & Niles, 2001), however, valuing and commitment are not enough. One also needs
533579791
51
knowledge about and participation in a life role in order for a role to be salient.
If people are expected to be workers, they need knowledge about and participation in a
worker role. However, the AE program as it is now is often seen as something to balance against
rather than integrate with the worker role. Various strategies (see previous Implications section)
need to be developed to enable people to simultaneously assume both worker and student roles
along with their parent role. Knowing participants’ aspirations for their lives and focusing on
increasing the forces that facilitate change in addition to decreasing the forces that are deterrents
may result in a closer alignment of the goals of both participants and policy makers.
533579791
52
References
American Council on Education. (2000). Facts in brief: Earnings continue to rise for college
graduates. Higher Education and National Affairs, 49(1), 1–4.
Beder, H. (1990). Reasons for nonparticipation in adult basic education. Adult Education
Quarterly, 40, 207–218
Beder, H. W., & Valentine, T. (1990, Winter). Motivational profiles of adult basic education
students. Adult Education Quarterly, 40, 78–94.
Boesel, D., Alsalam, N., & Smith, T. M. (1998). Educational and labor market performance of
GED recipients. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Boudett, K. P., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2000). “Second-chance” strategies for women
who drop out of school. Monthly Labor Review, 123, 19–31.
Cervero, R. M., & Kirkpatrick, T. E. (1990). The enduring effects of family role and schooling
on participation in adult education. American Journal of Education, 99(1), 77–94.
Comings, J. P., Parrella, A., & Soricone, L. (1999). Persistence among adult basic education
students in pre-GED classes (NCSALL Report #12). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate
School of Education, The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and lowwage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
533579791
53
Elwood, S. A., & Martin, D. G. (2000, November). “Placing” interviews: Location and scales
of power in qualitative research. The Professional Geographer (52)4, 649-657.
Fox, W. F., Cunningham, M. A., Thacker, A. R., & Vickers, B. B. (December, 2001). Families
First case characteristics study. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, Center for
Business and Economic Research.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
Gordon, L., Gordon, C. (Producers) & Robinson, P. (Director). (1989). Field of dreams [Motion
picture]. United States: Universal Studios.
Hall, W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: incorporating
reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research 11(2): 257-72.
Hayes, E. (1988). A typology of low-literate adults based on perceptions of deterrents to
participation in adult basic education. Adult Education Quarterly, 39, 1–10.
Hershey, A. M., & Pavetti, L. A. (1997). Turning job finders into job keepers. Future of
Children, (7)1, 74-86.
Jensen, J., Haleman, D., Goldstein, B., & Anderman, E. (2000). Reasonable choices:
Understanding why undereducated individuals choose not to participate in adult
education: Summary report for the Department for Adult Education and Literacy.
Lexington: University of Kentucky, College of Education.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
533579791
54
Kerckhoff, A., Raudenbush, S., & Glennie, E. (2001). Education, cognitive skill, and labor
force outcomes. Sociology of Education, 74(1), 1–24.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.).
New York: Harper & Row.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Martinson, K., & Strawn, J. (2002). Built to last: Why skills matter for long-run success in
welfare reform. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview (Vol.13 of the series Qualitative Research
Methods). London: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam. S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Monroe, P. A., & Tiller, V. V. (2001). Commitment to work among welfare-reliant women.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 816–828.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000, April). Employment of young adults, by
educational attainment. Retrieved August 5, 2001, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000007.pdf
533579791
55
Niles, S. G., Herr, E. L., and Hartung, P. J. (2001). Achieving life balance: Myths, realities,
and developmental perspectives. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career,
and Vocational Education. Retrieved March 27, 2003 from
http://ericacve.org/mp_niles_01.asp
Norland, E. V. T. (1992). Why adults participate. Journal of Extension, 30(3), 1–4.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Quigley, B. A. (1990). Hidden logic: Reproduction and resistance in adult literacy and adult
basic education. Adult Education Quarterly, 40, 103–115.
Quigley, B. A. (1993). Seeking a voice: Resistance to schooling and literacy. Adult Basic
Education, 3(2), 77–90.
Quigley, B. A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education: The critical need for practice-based
change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Scott, E. K, Edin, K., London, A. S., & Mazelis, J. M. (2001). My children come first: Welfarereliant women’s post-TANF views of work-family trade-offs and marriage. Retrieved
March 27, 2003 from
http://www.mdrc.org/NextGeneration/Working_paper_series/NG_WkgPpr_4/NG_WkgP
pr_4.htm
Secretan, L. (2000, June 12). Integration, not balance. Industry Week, 249, 11.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
533579791
56
Silva, T., Cahalan, M., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (1998, August). Adult education participation
decisions and barriers: Review of conceptual frameworks and empirical studies.
Retrieved March 27, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/9810.pdf
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2001). Orientation to teaching Families First. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee, Center for Literacy Studies.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods (3rd Ed.), New
York: Wiley.
Tennessee Department of Human Services. (1999). State of Tennessee Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program (TANF): Plan of operation. Nashville: Author.
Valentine, T., & Darkenwald, G. G. (1990). Deterrents to participation in adult education: Profile
of potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(1), 29–42.
Van Tilberg, E., & DuBois, J. (1989, April). Literacy students’ perceptions of successful
participation in adult education: A cross-cultural approach through expectancy valence.
Paper presented at the 30th annual Adult Education Research Conference, Madison:
University of Wisconsin.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking and rejecting validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner
& A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–
152). New York: Teachers College Press.
533579791
57
Young, G., Gerber, P. J., Reder, S., & Cooper, R. (1996, March). Learning disabilities and its
impact on poverty and adult literacy programs. Paper presented at the World Conference
on Literacy, Philadelphia, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416305)
Ziegahn, L. (1992). Learning, literacy, and participation: Sorting out priorities. Adult Education
Quarterly, 43, 30–50.
533579791
58
Appendix One
Interview Protocol
We started some of the questions with ratings and/or scenarios to help introduce them. The order
could be changed. The following probes were asked, particularly when participants mentioned
something of importance to them: “Tell me more about it;” “What was that like?” etc.
1. Tell me about your children.
1a. Do you work? (Will need this for later).
1b. Tell me about your job.
1c. Would you rather do something else?
2. How long have you been in this state program?
2a. What kinds of training and educational opportunities do you have in Families First?
2b. (If they have not told before): how did you find out about these opportunities?
2c. Are you required to go to school?
2d. How many hours a week are you required to work in this program?
3. What was it like growing up?
4. Tell me about your high school years.
4a. (If they have not told before): What did you like?
4b. (If they have not told before): What did you dislike?
4c. (ONLY if they have not told before): What were the reasons for leaving school?
5. Have you ever though about getting the GED?
533579791
59
5a. Why or why not?
5b. (If applicable). Have you studied for the GED on your own or in some other way?
6. [THIS QUESTION MAY BE SKIPPED DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY SAY IN 2] Do you
have an option to attend ABE or GED classes?
6a. (Optional): How did you learn about ABE? (caseworker, word of mouth, flyer, etc.)
7. Do you ever think you would like to brush up on your reading and math skills?
8. Do people in this program have daycare and transportation provided if they go to ABE or
GED classes?
9. Why do you think people do not go to ABE or GED class even when they can get
transportation and child care if they go?
10. [WHENEVER PERSON MENTIONS THAT HER LIFE IS HARD]. Tell me about it (what
makes your life especially hard at this point)?
11. At this point in your life, what would you have to give up or change if you decided to get
more education?
12. How would your life be different if you got a GED?
12a. [DEPENDING ON THE ANSWER TO 1C]. What do you see yourself doing five
years from now? What will it take to achieve it?
12b. What kind of (educational) skills would you need to achieve this goal? (Also see 1
a-c).
13. What or who keeps you from doing some of the things you need to do or would like to do?
[LET THEM TALK; ASK THE FOLLOWING PROBES IF NECESSARY]:
533579791
60
9a. Tell me about your and your children’s health.
9b. Do you children attend daycare? What if they are sick?
9c. Do you have reliable transportation to get you where you need to go?
9d. Is there a person in your life that is giving you trouble (makes it difficult to you to do
something?
14. Who are the people in your life that are really supportive?
10a. How do they help you?
10b. [IF BEFORE YOU DID NOT GET A GOOD ANSWER TO 9D, IT CAN ALSO
GO HERE AS A PROBE:] Is there anyone who is not supportive?
15. (If they have not told before) Tell me about your friends.
11a. What do they think about ABE?
11b. (If they have not told before) Tell me about your family.
11c. What do your family members think about going to school?
16. If you could imagine an adult education program that was really great and that people wanted
to go to every day, what do you think it would be like?
If it comes up that a person is not aware that she can attend ABE, ask question 17 first
17. Do you want to go to ABE or GED classes? Why or why not?
533579791
61
Appendix Two
Participants’ Biographical Highlights
Amy credited her school problems and not being able to finish anything to “moving around a
lot.” Now she’s torn between short-term CNA training and a job or the longer-term investment of
GED and LPN training. Her present boyfriend is more supportive of her and her children than
her ex-husband. He also encourages her to get some kind training for a job. She describes all of
her children, which are preschool age, as “real smart.”
Candy has multiple health problems that keep her from working. Her children’s father left her
after 13 years and provides nothing in the way of support. Candy dropped out of high school
because her teachers didn’t seem to care whether she was there or not. She’s trying to find a job
that fits her. She doesn’t want to have a “sit still” job “I got to be moving all of the time. So I got
to find something that I am moving, walking, or something.”
Charlotte’s ultimate dream was to be an actor. In the short-term, she’s looking for a job in a
warehouse doing assembly line work. She had previously worked in warehouse jobs and fast
food and preferred the warehouse work. Charlotte dropped out of high school when her teacher
told her that she would get a special education diploma instead of a “regular diploma.” She still
wants a “regular diploma” and to someday go to college. She has help since her son was born
from her immediate family but none from her son’s father.
Cynthia had multiple health problems after a bad car wreck. Walking was very painful for her.
533579791
62
Her 3 children ranged in age from elementary to adult and were all living with her. Her
immediate focus to get her drivers license back, to keep up with her children [the youngest was
having serious problems in school], and to get her disability started. She thought that she was
dropped from AE because of her problems with her driver’s license and her parenting. Cynthia
described herself as having a hard time reading and that her middle school daughter helps her
“with big words and subtraction and stuff too.” Her faith helps her, “when you help people you
get a lot of blessings coming to you.”
Diane was in special education in high school. She remembers that she dropped out of high
school because she “got tired of getting up in the morning.” She constantly fought health
problems that caused chronic fatigue. Her parents and siblings all had jobs, and some had college
degrees. She enjoyed all the social activities of high school but found reading to be very
frustrating. She felt that her one son would need to go to special ed.
Elsie liked to “do people’s hair.” She did mention that it would be nice to get a high school
diploma so that she could “teach her kids more” and perhaps get a job or go to “hair school.” She
found Adult Ed. classes boring. She felt that “hanging around” with other people caused chaos in
your life and her preference is to “stick to myself.” She did not think daycare was a safe place for
her small children and cared for them herself with help from her mother.
Janice dropped out of school in the 11th grade. She’d moved to a school that she didn’t like
“‘cause everybody used to act a fool all the time, you couldn’t ever learn nothing. Also she had a
baby was born with asthma and lots of health problems. She said it would really make her happy
533579791
63
to have a high school diploma or a GED. She always wanted to design people’s houses but she
gave it up when she decided it wasn’t ever going to happen. When asked if she reads to her 2year-old son, she said “He’s got so many books, but I had stopped doing it because one time I
was trying to read a book and I couldn’t read and it made me angry.”
Jonnita works at a warehouse job thirty hours a week. She didn’t want to do that the rest of her
life and really wanted a desk job using the computer and said she had to get her GED to get it.
She was looking for evening classes that she could take after work. She described her husband as
supportive and encouraging her to go back to school. She said that her friends had high school
diplomas and good jobs. Her mother-in-law was willing to watch her children—2 were school
age and 2 were in Head Start.
Kimberly had had multiple health problems in the past. She would rather work now. She didn’t
have time to go to school as a single mother with four children who are now all school age. She
got training to as a certified nursing assistant and then cosmetology. She doesn’t like
cosmetology but does like nursing. When her children grow up, she wants to get her RN.
Kimberly described herself as rebellious when she was young and dropped out of high school
when she ran away from home. She feels very supported by her mom, “Moms are angels I’ve
decided. I couldn’t have a better mom.”
Liz had no support from any family or friends. Her mother gave her to a distant relative when
she was seven years old and afterwards she was “bounced here, there, everywhere.” She was
working in a nursing home and she was attending CNA training. She dropped out of high school
533579791
64
because her boyfriend insisted that she watch their baby herself. Her goal was get her GED so
that she could enroll in LPN classes and maybe eventually get her RN. She used public
transportation and had some help with transportation from her ex-boyfriend.
Lucy was the only participant that had completed 12th grade but she hadn’t passed the state math
competency test so she had not received her diploma. After “doing OK” for several years, she
recently ended up in a shelter program for pregnant homeless women. She seemed to operate
from a proactive stance actively working on solutions for her life problems. Earlier in her life,
she had an ambition to be a physician, but recently, after visiting a technology center, she
decided that accounting was a more achievable goal for her.
Marcia dropped out of high school because her “first husband made me choose. It was between
school or him.” Later, with a second husband, she worked three jobs at one time to make ends
meet and finally her body just quit. She left her husband in another state to come “home” so that
family could help her recover. She has a son that she’s very proud of and has a good relationship
with. She feels that she’s very good with old people and “kids” and they like to talk to her.
Melissa dropped out of a vocational high school because she had to take care of both her baby
and her grandmother. She knew without a doubt that her children were her first priority and her
education options were limited because she felt she couldn’t trust day care. She did have a long
term goal of having a good job with benefits, and was dreaming about working with children in
group homes and foster homes because she had experienced them herself as a child, having been
abandoned by her parents. She had a good relationship with her husband and his family.
533579791
65
Michelle preferred to do her GED preparation on her own. She described her diligence at
budgeting, spending “quality time” with her children, searching out quality daycare, studying
and getting things in order. Her goal was to learn computer graphics so that someday she could
design children’s computer programs.
Natasha was a young mother with five children. She had help with her children from her
husband, family members, and her church. One of her children’s fathers endangered the child’s
life when she was in his care. This was very upsetting for Natasha. Getting the GED was
something Natasha wanted to do, but she also felt that her basic skills were so low that she didn’t
hold much hope for the outcome. Her wish for herself was to learn to read. Both the
overwhelming responsibilities of parenting and her own embarrassment in class because of her
low reading skills were deterrents to her attending adult education.
Robin described herself as having had men problems all her life beginning with sexual assault in
her middle school years. She admitted to “getting wild” after that and eventually dropped out of
high school after another incident. She was proud she didn’t get pregnant until she was nineteen.
None of her ex-husbands pay any child support. A member of her family has custody of one of
her children.
Rosa dropped out of high school when she began to move with the wrong crowd and got
pregnant. Now she has a 2-year-old son and a husband who supports her emotionally and
financially when he can. Jobs always seem temporary because of health, the weather (for
533579791
66
construction jobs), her husband’s injury in a car wreck, and interpersonal relations on the job.
Taking care of one’s children is perhaps her highest value. She admires her mother and feels
supported by her, but regrets the day she moved out: “I’ve been having bad luck ever since I
moved out of my mama’s house. I wished I’d never moved out of my mama’s house.” She has a
dream of being a doctor someday and wants a telescope when they can find some spare money.
Tameka wants to be a secretary in an office so she is interested in taking Computer Operations
Technology but it takes 12 months and she really needs money now. She dropped out of high
school when her daughter was born sick and got very dehydrated. Her mother is encouraging her
to go on to school and work. “She wants to see me do better.” Her mother keeps her children, but
Tameka felt it was important for her to supervise her daughter’s homework. Tameka seemed
determined to study to pass her GED and go on to get a job with benefits and be able to buy a
house and a car.
Tawanda dropped out of high school when she had her first baby. She wishes that she had
stayed in school and learned more; she said she liked learning things. She was proud of her
mothering all by herself. She worked until she developed severe health problems.
Now because she can’t drive, members of her family drive her places. She proudly recounted
when one of her daughters said “’Momma, if nothing else, I’m going to make you proud. I’m
going to get you a diploma.’ And she got me one too. [Dream about being social worker??]
533579791
67
Focus Group:
Alana dropped out of school in the second semester of the 12th grade because of serious
complications with her second pregnancy caused by a car wreck. She shared that her family was
too poor to afford “homebound” instruction but did not qualify for welfare. Alana was starting a
new job at the time of the interview. She also felt ready to take her GED and was going to try to
schedule it soon. She expressed her love for home economics when she was in school and how
she still enjoys cooking. She has three children who are all school age. Her mother and her
boyfriend help her.
Crissie has been “on her own” since she had a baby in the ninth grade and had to drop out of
school to take care of it. She had to get a job to pay the bills and could not go to school because
of the work hours. She said her fiancé encourages her to go back to school. He had been to
college and is self-employed now. Besides three school-aged children of her own, she also keeps
a niece who has a baby. She likes working but has never kept a job long because she “got tired of
it.” It was not what she wanted to do. She hopes getting her GED will give her more options.
Janet remembered school as being easy and enjoyable; she loved math. After her baby was born,
she went to a high school for adolescent parents where they had a daycare, but she didn’t like
that school because it wasn’t academic enough, “We didn’t do nothing, just sit in class, write all
day, talk about [babies].” She did not get her diploma because she perceived that the school did
not have the right courses. Her mother would help with her two young children, but she said,
“I’m going to do it on my own.”
533579791
68
Lawrencia enjoyed her high school years and made the honor role but did not graduate because
she was “one credit short.” She described the reason as “…cause they didn’t care up there. They
just let me go to school, do my work, and I [didn’t] know I didn’t have enough subjects.” She
doesn’t see herself going back to school. Her father is off work healing from an injury so he is
helping take care of her preschool child for now.