Adults With Learning Disabilities it Has Been

Adults With Learning Disabilities

It has been estimated (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 that 50-80% of the students in Adult Basic Education and literacy programs are affected by learning disabilities (LD). Unfortunately, there has been little research on adults who have learning disabilities, leaving literacy practitioners with limited information on the unique manifestations of learning disabilities in adults.

One of the major goals of the (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 National

Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center (National ALLD Center) is to raise awareness among literacy practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and adult learners about the nature of learning disabilities and their impact on the provision of literacy services. This fact sheet provides: a definition of learning disabilities in adults; a list of common elements found in many useful LD definitions; and a list of areas in which LD may affect life situations of adults.

Background

In 1963, the term "learning disability" (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 was used to describe such disorders as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. In 1975 the passage of regulations accompanying Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, specifically included a definition of learning disabilities for children that served as a guideline to provide appropriate educational, legislative, and judicial relief. The federal definition was based on the needs of children with learning disabilities, not recognizing how their disability would affect them as adults.

It became apparent that (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 learning disabilities persist throughout an individual's life, and it became crucial to develop a definition that describes LD but did not limit the condition to children. Thus, professionals in education, psychology, neurology, biology, and child development have developed definitions that describe learning disabilities as a lifelong condition.

Definition

Many useful definitions for LD (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 have been accepted by educators, federal agencies, advocacy groups, and/or professional organizations. After reviewing several of these definitions, the National ALLD Center

Advisory Board selected the Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities' definition of learning disabilities for use by the National ALLD Center. Advisory Board members selected this definition because it reflects current information and issues associated with LD, allows for the presence of learning disabilities at any age, and has been accepted by a committee with broad representation in the LD community.

The Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities Definition

Learning disabilities is a generic (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or of social skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance), with socio-environmental influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), and especially attention deficit disorder, all of which may cause learning problems, a learning disability is not the direct result of those conditions or influences.

Definition Highlights

There are many variations of learning disabilities.

Learning disabilities involve difficulties in any of the following skills: listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, and mathematics.

Social skills may be affected by the learning disability.

Learning disabilities may be due to a central nervous system disorder.

Although a learning disability may be present with other disorders, these conditions are not the cause of the learning disability.

Common Elements in LD Definitions

The following concepts are (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 important to understanding the similarities and contrasts that exist among the many definitions of learning disabilities.

Some definitions suggest that learning disabilities exist when a person has uneven patterns of development. Other definitions suggest that learning disabilities are indicated by aptitude-achievement discrepancies.

Most definitions specify that the cause for learning disabilities is the result of a problem in the central nervous system.

Some definitions suggest that learning disabilities are caused by interference in the neurological processes that make proficient performance possible.

Most definitions imply that learning disabilities can be present at any age.

Most definitions specify that problems understanding spoken or written language can be caused by learning disabilities.

Some definitions specify that certain types of academic problems (e.g., those involving reading, writing, spelling, or math) can be caused by learning disabilities.

Some definitions specify that problems involving social skills, spatial orientation, sensory integration, or motor skills can be manifestations of learning disabilities.

Some definitions indicate that learning disabilities can coexist with other kinds of handicaps (e.g., emotional disturbance or sensory impairment). Other definitions are worded to eliminate the coexistence of learning disabilities with other disabling conditions.

Impacts of LD in Adults

The impacts of learning disabilities (Adult with Learning Disabilities) 1 may compound with age. While individuals with learning disabilities demonstrate some intellectual strengths, their areas of disability may prevent them from excelling as adults in certain life situations at the same level as their peers. Areas where learning disabilities may affect adults include:

Self-Esteem

Being criticized, put down, teased, or rejected because of failures in academic, vocational, or social endeavors often leave adults with learning disabilities with low self-esteem. Adults with low self-esteem tend not to take risks or strive to reach their potential. Also, adults with low self-esteem are less likely to advocate for themselves.

Education

Learning disabilities that may manifest themselves in difficulties in spoken or written language, arithmetic, reasoning, and organizational skills will affect adults in adult basic education, literacy, postsecondary, and vocational training settings. These students may perform at levels other than those expected of them. Adult educators are not always prepared to address the unique needs of learners with learning disabilities.

Vocation

Errors are commonly found in filling out employment applications be cause of poor reading or spelling skills. Job-related problems frequently arise due to learning disabilities that causes difficulties in organization, planning, scheduling, monitoring, language comprehension and expression, social skills, and inattention.

Social Interactions

Adults with learning disabilities may demonstrate poor judgment of others' moods and attitudes and appear to be less sensitive to others' thoughts and feelings. In social settings these adults may do or say inappropriate things and have problems comprehending humor, for example. They may have problems discriminating response requirements in social situations. These traits may result in a difficulty finding and keeping a job or developing long-term relationships.

Independent Living

Responsibilities such as writing checks, filling out tax forms, or taking phone messages may present problems for adults with learning disabilities. Adults with LD may find themselves without the support systems (parents, schools, social services, etc.) that they relied on as children and have to incorporate their own accommodations when necessary.

Employment issues

During the past fifteen years, (Ann Corley & M. Taymans) 2 numerous studies have reported the employment status of persons with LD. Peraino (1992), in reviewing eleven follow-up studies of persons with LD, found an average employment rate of 70%, with some studies reporting similar employment rates up to five years after high school for persons with LD and their non-disabled peers (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996).

Edgar (1995) found that the less-than-full-employment rate for non-disabled individuals zero to five years after high school was partially explained by their enrollment in postsecondary education programs and those individuals with LD engage in postsecondary education at a low rate. Persons with LD who obtain employment upon exiting high school often find themselves in low-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement and often without health insurance and other benefits (Blackorby & Wagner, (1997; Edgar, 1995).

Reder and Vogel (1997) (Ann Corley & M. Taymans) 2, in a secondary analysis of the NALS data, compared responses of subjects aged sixteen to sixty-four with self-reported learning disabilities (SRLD) with those of subjects who did not report having LD. Persons with SRLD were less likely to be employed full-time (39% versus 51%) and more likely to be unemployed (16% versus 6%). They also worked substantially fewer weeks per year, for lower wages, and in lower-status jobs than those in the non-disabled group. Reder (1995) reported that 42.2% of families of adults with SRLD were living in or near poverty, compared with only 16.2% of the families of their non-disabled peers. Positive outcomes have also been reported.

Employment opportunities seem to improve over time for individuals with LD, with a trend toward higher employment rates the longer youth are out of school (Blackorby & Wagner, 1997; Edgar, 1995; Frank, Sitlington, & Carson, 1995; Scuccimarra & Speece, 1990). Reiff et al. (1997) found that forty-three of forty-six highly successful adults with LD had an annual income of more than $50,000, with twenty-one making $100,000 or more.

Learning disabilities (Kerka, 2002)3 are generally defined as significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities (Michaels 1997; Ohler, Levinson, and Barker 1996). There are a number of types as well as major individual differences in severity, impact, and age of onset (Cummings, Maddux, and Casey 2000; Hitchings and Retish 2000)..There is no single story to tell about outcomes of students with disabilities (Blackorby and Wagner

1997, p. 58). Many people with LD have succeeded in the workplace, often as entrepreneurs, and recent legislation is intended to ease the process of disclosing a disability and obtaining on-the-job accommodations (Brown and Gerber 1994). Adults with LD are employed at the same rate as those with out disabilities, but many are underemployed in part-time, entry-level, minimum-wage jobs (Blackorby and Wagner

1997). Like other workers, people with LD must cope with workplace changes such as teamwork, productivity and skill demands, and technological advances (Brown and Gerber 1994).

In some of the literature (Kerka, 2002)3, on-the-job problems are framed in terms of individual deficits: persons with LD are said to encounter difficulties in establishing routines and processing information correctly (Ohler, Levinson, and Barker 1996); often exhibit low self-esteem and learned helplessness (ibid.); have impaired ability to assess strengths and weaknesses (ibid.); and lack career maturity and social awareness skills (Hitchings and Retish 2000).

Others recast employment issues (Kerka, 2002)3 as a function of the significant societal barriers faced by those who do not fit the norm, for example, biased attitudes, low expectations, or overprotected ness toward persons with disabilities (Michaels 1997).

Although IDEA mandates Individualized Education Programs and Individualized

Transition Plans, the latter often focus on academics, not career counseling or living skills; lack coordination among secondary, postsecondary, and community agencies; and are often developed too late in the educational process (Cummings et al. 2000).

Academic Experience

Academic difficulties faced by (Ann Corley & M. Taymans) 2 schoolchildren with LD persist throughout adulthood. Researchers who traced the academic profiles of persons with LD from elementary school into late adolescence and early adulthood found consistent pattern of lower-than-expected academic achievement (Spekman et al., 1992; (Raskind et al., 1999).Vogel and Reder (1998), in reviewing follow-up studies, found that the high school graduation rate for persons with LD ranged from 32% to 66%.

Ongoing academic difficulties can greatly affect participation and success in postsecondary education. Individuals with LD attend vocational and other non-college postsecondary programs at a higher rate than their non-disabled counterparts, who attend college and university programs at a higher rate (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 1000). It is not surprising that these persons, whose ways of learning often do not match typical school conditions, would gravitate to less academic forms of education. The discouraging news is that they successfully complete these programs at a low rate.

Hypothesis

For many individuals, learning disabilities are lifelong problems that continue into the adolescent and adult years. Secondary school program are increasing to serve adolescents with learning disabilities.

The school-to-work transition: problems and indicators

The school-to-work transition (Ryan, 2001)4 is a catch-all term for the activities of young people as they bounce around or struggle along between full-time schooling and fulltime, possibly career, employment. The activities in question include vocational education, work experience, unemployment, labor market programs, casual work, and fixed-term employment. The transition has become the focus of considerable interest, both academic and policy-oriented

In some accounts (Ryan, 2001)4, the school-to-work transition has become longer and more tortuous, in advanced economies at least (Organization for Economic Co- (operation and Development, 1996, 1998). A leading transition attributes youth status in the labor market, is said to have deteriorated in virtually all OECD countries (Blanchflower and Freeman, 2000). Others emphasize cross-country differences in transition patterns, with German and Japanese institutions performing particularly well.

Youth employment problems

The first stop in measuring (Ryan, 2001)4 the employment problems facing any age group has traditionally been the unemployment rate: the share of the labor force that lacks paid work, while showing sufficient interest in finding work and availability for work if it is found.

On that criterion (Ryan, 2001)4, youth employment problems appear serious in many advanced economies. The teenage unemployment rate stood in 1997 in double figures in all eight of the countries except Germany. It was particularly high in southern Europe: in Italy and Spain, around one-third of teenage workers were unemployed. In the same region, female rates were particularly high: unemployment accounted for around two-fifths of teenage workers in France and Spain, and fully three- fifths in Italy.

The problems facing (Ryan, 2001)4 an assessment of youth employment problems are illustrated here by focusing on two counties, France and the U.S.A., for which the familiar contemporary perception is one of labor market failure and success, respectively. Unemployment rates broadly support that view: teenage unemployment rates were much higher in France than in the U.S. In 1997, particularly for females. At the same time, as unemployment rates in the U.S. were hardly low by absolute standards, youth employment problems are apparent there too.

It is widely recognized (Ryan, 2001)4 that unemployment rates provide only a limited indicator of employment difficulties. In the case of young workers, the first limitation concerns the size of the youth labor force. When few young people are members of the labor force, as a result, e.g., of extensive participation in full-time education, not even a high unemployment rate involves many young people.

Returning to the Franco-American comparison (Ryan, 2001)4, against the much higher female youth rate in France must be set the fact that only 4% of teenage females participate in the labor force in France, as opposed to 51% in the U.S. The unemployed constitute therefore less than 2% of female teenagers in France, as against nearly 8% in the U.S. Youth employment difficulties appear less marked from this standpoint in France than in the U.S. In Spain and the U.K., however, serious problems remain visible, with at least 10% of the teenage population unemployed.

Secondly (Ryan, 2001)4, even when measured relative to population, unemployment offers only a partial guide to employment problems. The youth labor force shrinks when jobs are hard to find. The main dimension of adjustment is enrolment in full-time education. Enrolments rise as labor market slack increases, driven partly by the difficulty of finding work, and partly by improved prospects of finding work, through increased skills and educational credentials. In the U.S., the effect is weak, as many students work part-time; in France, strong, as few students do so (Blanchflower and Freeman, 2000).

Our Franco-American comparison of youth unemployment rates (Ryan, 2001)4, which became more favorable to France when the basis was changed from the labor force to the population, therefore swings back in favor of the U.S. The smallness of the teenage labor force and the high rate of educational enrolment in France do not just relieve the youth employment problem, they also reflect its severity.

Thirdly (Ryan, 2001)4, the definition of unemployment requires consideration.

How interested in work and available for work must a jobless person be in order to be considered an unemployed member of the labor force rather than an inactive nonmember? The ILO/OECD definition of unemployment requires at the time in question both some active job search during the previous four weeks and full readiness to start work during the coming two weeks. If either criterion is not satisfied, a workless individual is classed as inactive rather than unemployed.

The imposition (Ryan, 2001)4 of these interest and availability criteria classes as inactive of people whose labor market attachment fails either test but is not zero on either.

Low attachment is more common among the young than the middle aged, reflecting the greater importance of schooling, leisure, and labor market programs for young people, as well as the lower household responsibilities of youth. The issue has attracted particular attention in the U.S., where large numbers of young people, especially nonwhite inner- city residents, are economically inactive, lacking links either to school or legitimate employment, even in tight labor markets (Rees, 1986).

Even if a young person's (Ryan, 2001)4 work interest and availability are both zero, an employment-related problem may still be judged present. A teenager who is educationally as well as economically inactive may be seen as wasting his or her time at a formative stage of the life-cycle. A government that promotes self-reliance rather than dependence on public income support (or criminality) may view such a choice as mistaken, and seek to move such young people towards the labor market.

Such considerations favor the use of joblessness (Ryan, 2001)4, a potentially more comprehensive indicator of youth employment problems than unemployment (ibid.).

One variant is the total non-employment rate, measured on a population basis i.e., 1-(E/N), where E. is employment and N. is population). For teenagers, the usefulness of that indicator is reduced by high rates of educational participation, which are only partly attributable to employment problems. A superior indicator is provided by inactive joblessness, with inactivity defined with respect to education as well as to the labor market (i.e., 1-{(E+S)/N}, where'd is non-employed students).

Inactivity proves (Ryan, 2001)4 substantial in all eight countries, accounting for around one-half of teenage male joblessness in the group as a whole. Its importance varies considerably across countries. In the U.K. And Sweden, the approximately one- tenth of young males who are inactive actually outnumber their unemployed peers, and constitute a recognized policy problem (Bentley and Gurumurthy, 1999). The inactive also outnumber the unemployed in the U.S. And Germany, although smaller proportions of young people are involved than in Sweden and the U.K. In Spain and France, by contrast, most jobless youth are unemployed, and unemployment alone provides therefore less limited guide to youth employment problems than elsewhere.

Revisiting our Franco-American comparison (Ryan, 2001)4, the higher inactivity rate of youth in the U.S. than in France cancels any U.S. advantage in terms of unemployment alone. The French joblessness rate of 6.8% in 1997 suggests youth employment problems that for males at least were no worse, and possibly slightly better, than their counterparts in the U.S., where the rate was 7.7%.

The pursuit of more (Ryan, 2001)4 accurate measures of youth employment problems must however continue further. Three additional adjustments are potentially important. First, out-of-school inactivity may reflect choices (e.g., leisure and foreign travel) rather than constraints. Where constraints are involved, they may be independent of, rather than encouraged by, labor market slack. The ranks of the inactive should therefore be pared down further, by removing the former category in each dichotomy.

The evidence required for the task has yet to be compiled for most countries.

Our Franco-American comparison (Ryan, 2001)4 is potentially affected in this respect by compulsory military service for males in France and exceptionally high incarceration rates among young American males, both of which raise the national youth inactivity rate. An adjustment for these factors would probably favor France, not least because U.S. incarceration rates are themselves more readily attributable, if only in part, to poor youth labor market opportunities than are French conscription rates (Freeman, 1996).

Secondly (Ryan, 2001)4, in many countries labor market programs take some young people out of unemployment and inactivity without providing regular employment.

The share of young people participating in such programs most of whom would presumably have preferred employment has been higher in France than in the U.S.

Entrants to youth programs in 1997/98 amounted to 2.9% of (all age) employment in France, as opposed to only 0.6% in the U.S. (OECD, 1999, Annex Table H). Adjustment for public intervention increases the imbalance, in terms of youth employment disadvantages, of France relative to the U.S.

Finally (Ryan, 2001)4, the dynamics of joblessness are potentially important. Low outflows from joblessness and long spell durations therein are particularly likely to indicate employment problems, such as the inertia, stagnation and waste involved in long-term unemployment. High outflows and short spell durations suggest by contrast not so much employment problems as employment improvement, associated with job search and job-worker matching in the youth labor market.

This consideration (Ryan, 2001)4 pushes the Franco-American comparison even further in favor of the U.S.: in 1994 the outflow rate in youth (16- to 24-year-old) unemployment in the U.S. was more than ten times as large, and the long-term unemployment rate only one-eighth as large, as its French counterpart (OECD, 1995,

Tables 1.8, 1.9).

Moreover (Ryan, 2001)4, as France undoubtedly has a higher share of young workers following various sequences of unemployment, inactivity and labor market programs without finding employment, its comparative deficit in terms of long-term joblessness is even greater than that in long-term unemployment.

Our assessment of comparative (Ryan, 2001)4 Franco-American youth employment problems, which moved in favor of France when unemployment was replaced by inactive joblessness as the indicator, has swung back strongly in favor of the U.S. As a result of taking into account labor market programs and turnover among the jobless. A full research project would however be required for an exhaustive assessment of the issue. While this discussion has not attempted that task, it has illustrated the difficulty of measuring youth employment problems, and shown the desirability of supplementing data on youth unemployment with evidence the scale and dynamics of inactive joblessness in particular.

Rationale

The School-to-Work Transition: Issues for Further Investigation

Attributes and importance

This section considers (Ryan, 1999)5 leading attributes of transition patterns, the problems that they imply, and the reasons for taking them to be more or less important.

Transition duration

The measurement (Ryan, 1999)5 of the school-to-work transition has been advanced by recent work. The Thematic Report treats it as a national attribute, measured by the number of years between the highest age of compulsory full-time education and the age at which the proportion of young people who are employed and not in education rises past 50%. On this basis, transition durations rose substantially, from 5.5 to 7.4 years on average during 1990-96 for the15 OECD countries for which data are readily available. The indicator is both suggestive and useful, but it is open to criticism on two counts. Firstly, it increases with the dispersion of actual school-leaving ages, even when at the individual level there has been no change in the average time taken to move from full-time schooling to full-time employment. Secondly, it assumes that the transition starts at the compulsory schooling age, when in fact increasing numbers of young people remain in full-time education to higher ages (leading to overestimation of durations) and enter part-time employment before the compulsory schooling age (leading to underestimation).

Further refinement (Ryan, 1999)5 of the indicator appears desirable. One possibility would be to base it directly on the experiences of individuals in longitudinal datasets: e.g., the difference between the age of moving from 'full-time schooling without paid employment' and the age of 'ending contact with formal education', averaged across all young people.

Overall status: how goes it?

A central question posed (Ryan, 1999)5 to the November meeting was whether or not 'tears should be shed' for youth: i.e., are there serious problems in the transition area, particularly in comparison to the wider education and employment problems that face advanced economies?

All commentators agree (Ryan, 1999)5 on the presence of significant transition problems in all economies; and that their content that varies from country to country (e.g.

A structural youth joblessness in the U.S., cyclically high unemployment in Germany and Japan). The Thematic Review Report makes a valuable contribution with its fourteen indicators of transition success, and its ranking of countries according to comparative outcomes on each indicator. Only the 'apprenticeship countries' -- Switzerland and Germany -- show no sub-standard performance on any indicator, but they would be amongst the first to admit that they too face problems in particular areas, e.g., progression options between apprenticeship and tertiary education.

There remain nevertheless (Ryan, 1999)5 important differences in the interpretation of the overall condition of the transition in advanced economies. The Thematic Review Report adopts a stance of 'cautious optimism', noting high and rising levels of youth educational attainment, and teenage unemployment rates that lie nowadays below those of the 1980s. At the other pole, Richard Freeman's contribution to Preparing Youth depicts a general deterioration of youth labor market prospects, in terms of both employment and pay rates, and asks why young people have responded so passively to this misfortune. In between these poles, I note in my contribution to Preparing Youth that the deterioration of youth labor market positions, both absolute and relative to those of adults, varies greatly by country. It has been marked in terms of pay rates (but not employment) in the U.S., and in employment rates (but not pay) in France; but it has been insignificant in both respects in Japan, where young males though not females) did no worse than adults during the past twenty years. (Further work has since established that the UK joins the U.S. In the first group, Sweden joins France in the second, and the Netherlands and Germany join Japan in the relatively favorable third one).

Given the divergence in overall assessments (Ryan, 1999)5, there is some need for further discussion of the appropriate indicators to use. For example, changes in relative youth employment and pay do not feature in the fourteen criteria offered in the Thematic Review Report. Insofar as those indicators are seen as informative, the ranking of other countries, including those covered by the Thematic Review Report, should be investigated further.

Unemployment vs. inactivity similar difference of interpretation (Ryan, 1999)5 occurs over the extent of youth inactivity, defined in terms of participating neither in the labor market nor in formal education. Although the Thematic Review Report notes the potential importance of inactivity rates, it stresses their ambiguity and the danger of interpreting high inactivity as evidence of deficient transitions -- young people may, e.g., be doing unpaid voluntary work, traveling abroad or caring for other family members. The Report concentrates therefore on unemployed young people, particularly the long-term unemployed, for whom there can be no doubt that the transition is problematic.

By contrast (Ryan, 1999)5, the background paper in Preparing Youth sees potential danger in youth inactivity, which has risen markedly during the past decade in Denmark, Sweden and the UK in particular, though apparently much less in Japan,

France and Germany. What are these young people doing? Swedish evidence suggests that amongst 20- to 24-year-old males -- for whom family responsibilities are likely to be much less marked than amongst females -- in recent years between one quarter and three fifths of inactivity has been associated with compulsory military service, up to one quarter with travel abroad, and between one third and one half with 'other' causes, including rejection of the wider economic and educational system. The share of marginalized and alienated youth appears markedly higher in the UK nowadays, in association with increasing compulsion on jobless youth to participate in work experience or training in return for benefit eligibility. The need for more information on youth inactivity is pressing.

Quantity and quality dimensions

The relative importance (Ryan, 1999)5 of quantitative and qualitative indicators of transition outcomes was extensively discussed at the November meeting. Is a high youth employment rate, such as that in the U.S., sufficient to indicate a successful transition system? Does the quality of employment, in terms of pay and training, matter too -- maybe even more?

The tendency for youth (Ryan, 1999)5 employment to be relatively poorly rewarded, in terms variously of pay rates, hours of work and job security, attracts divergent interpretations. Commentators from North America and Australia tended to view such jobs as valuable sources of work experience and income for students who work part-time, or as stepping stones to better jobs for ex-students who work full-time. The potential value of work experience in a variety of less rewarding jobs for occupational choice and employer-worker matching is also recognized in some contributions to Preparing Youth.

Representatives of trade unions (Ryan, 1999)5 questioned however the appropriateness of the 'stepping stone' interpretation, and raised the prospect of permanent youth relegation to low skilled and low paid work, particularly for the disadvantaged. Commentators from Nordic countries tended to concur, insofar as they viewed such jobs as undesirable for young people. Thus a major goal of contemporary

Swedish policy is to keep young people out of the market for low paid, unskilled labor by encouraging them to remain in (or return to) school to acquire the qualifications that should make it possible for them to avoid unskilled work. (The problem is that the Swedish labor market has during the past thirty years increasing excluded even well qualified young workers from skilled work, raising therefore the dismal prospect of their exclusion from all work, skilled or unskilled). The extent to which young people in low skill, low pay jobs get trapped therein is a matter, on which more evidence is needed (as noted under state dependence, below).

This issue overlaps (Ryan, 1999)5 with another: the possible vanishing of youth options for unskilled work, a prospect that tends either to be feared or to be welcomed, according to the stance taken on the wider quality issue. The potential cause of an excision of unskilled opportunities for young people is typically seen as technical change, intensified by the export of unskilled work to poorer countries as a result of continuing globalization: and both factors do appear to be causing a general upskilling of the job structure. The question whether such a prospect should be welcomed or feared is however less than pressing, given that the burgeoning service sector can be expected to involve many low skill 'McJobs'. There is also the prospective benefit, for the minority of unqualified and unskilled young people, of decreasing competition for the continuing stratum of low skilled employment as their numbers dwindle with the general rise in educational participation and achievement.

Schooling and outcomes

Not enough attention has been (Ryan, 1999)5 paid to the link between schooling and labor market outcomes. Two levels must be distinguished: the individual and the aggregate. For the individual, in most OECD economies, acquiring more education means facing lower employment problems in subsequent working life. The benefit is not however universal. In the south European countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece) and in Korea, unemployment rates are above average for those who have undertaken tertiary education (Preparing Youth, background paper). The problem is still greater in the aggregate, at national level. The high and rising educational achievements of Swedish and French youth have not prevented a massive growth of youth joblessness in both countries. Even well qualified young people have found it increasingly hard to find stable, let alone skilled, employment. In those economies, acquiring more education still works for the individual young person, in terms of improving employment prospects; but the effect is weaker than it was the case for previous generations, and it has applied with decreasing force to young people as a whole. In an era of widespread policy orientation towards supply-oriented policies towards youth joblessness, the limitations of increasing education (and training) as solutions deserve particular attention.

Social disadvantage

The various dimensions of social disadvantage (Ryan, 1999)5, including gender, race, social class and disability, are known to be associated with inferior school-to-work outcomes. (The main exception is female unemployment, which lies below that of males in a few countries, including the UK).

But at least (Ryan, 1999)5 three issues require more information. Firstly, there is the importance of the various dimensions. For instance, although primary attention is often paid to gender-based disadvantage, the gap between youth outcomes for males and females, in both education and the labor market, has narrowed in some economies (e.g.

Germany), while that associated with social class may well have increased, particularly where income inequalities have widened (e.g., UK). Secondly, countries appear to differ greatly in the intensity of the effect of social disadvantage on transition outcomes.

Differences in youth unemployment rates by ethnicity, for example, are much greater in the UK and the U.S. than in Germany and Japan.

Thirdly (Ryan, 1999)5, returning to gender, there is evidence that the deterioration of the relative labor market position of youth during the past two decades, in terms of relative pay and employment rates, has been greater for females than for males in almost all the economies for which the issue has been studied. As relative female outcomes have by contrast improved in the adult labor markets of those countries, the reason for gender-specificity in deterioration for young people requires further study. Moreover, the extent to which the deterioration of youth outcomes has been female-specific has also varied greatly by country, being much higher in Japan, France and the U.S. than in the UK,

Sweden and Germany. The causes of these differences also merit study.

Importance of the issues: state dependence

Although Preparing Youth argues (Ryan, 1999)5 that 'young people's situation and future prospects are of vital concern to us all' (cover text), the statement is not self- evidently true, particularly when compared to other the social and economic problems that demand public attention. Youth unemployment is not universally viewed as a more pressing issue than its adult counterpart. In Japan in particular, adult unemployment is implicitly treated as the more pressing policy problem. The reasons for the low priority given to youth unemployment there include: the importance of job quitting in generating youth unemployment; the desire to encourage 'job shopping' by young workers; the strength of family support networks for jobless young people; and the difficulties that displaced adults face in finding another job. A similar lack of urgency over youth issues can be seen in parts of southern Europe. In order to pin down the importance of school- to-work issues, more needs to be known about state dependence: i.e., to what extent adverse experiences during transitions have lasting effects on the prospects of the individuals who experience them. Does youth unemployment scar young people, and if so how badly, and for how long? And does it do so more severely than for adults who undergo similar experiences? An expectation of widespread and durable scarring is implicit in many policies that make the improving of transition characteristics a top policy priority.

Evidence does exist on state dependence (Ryan, 1999)5, but it is partial and mixed. For young people, evidence for the U.S. suggests that any adverse effects of youth unemployment are weak and temporary. European evidence suggests, however, more extensive and lasting consequences. Neither, however, has indicated whether state dependence is more or less marked for young people. More information is therefore badly needed in this area -- which brings up the question of where evidence is to be sought.

Sources of evidence

Several commentators (Ryan, 1999)5 at the November meeting urged the desirability of greater recourse to longitudinal data in policy research on the school-to- work transition. The point is incontestable.

Much of the evidence (Ryan, 1999)5 used in OECD's recent research involves aggregated descriptive statistics (e.g., youth employment rates, by age and gender) and aggregate cross-tabulations (e.g., youth unemployment rates by education level or by unemployment of other household members). These statistics rely increasingly on micro data, such as national household or labor force surveys, but the potential of those data sources have been only partially tapped.

The principal potential (Ryan, 1999)5 benefit is the informational potential of multivariate analysis of micro data, when used to isolate the causal relationships that underlie aggregate associations. For instance, to what extent the positive association across individuals between adult unemployment and earlier exposure to unemployment as young person reflects state dependence, in which early unemployment causes subsequent unemployment, as opposed to the 'selection' of unchanging individuals into both states, according to innate attributes such as ability, motivation or health. The ideal data for such analysis are longitudinal: repeated observations on given individuals across time (which may in practice be gathered retrospectively instead of concurrently).

Longitudinal data are (Ryan, 1999)5 nowadays widely used in academic research in Europe, as previously in North America. They now appear also in the OECD's descriptive work. For example, the estimates of the length of the transition in various countries that are provided by the Thematic Review Report derive from national longitudinal micro data. It is undesirable to allow the analysis of micro data to remain the exclusive domain of academic research, given that the latter often emphasizes technical refinement and narrowly defined issues, at the expense of policy issues and the wider picture. To return to the previous example, the need is for more widely based and informative research on the presence and content of state dependence in youth unemployment, both in itself and relative to its adult counterpart.

One aspect of the problem (Ryan, 1999)5 also deserves comment at this stage.

Evidence for Japan is frequently absent from comparisons of school-to-work attributes across countries that rely on national micro-data sets. The omission is serious, given that the country is the second largest in the OECD, and given the distinctiveness of its transition-related institutions (below). The regular absence of Japan reflects partly the rarity of micro data collection in Japan, as well as the limited availability of what micro data has been collected. The problem goes deeper, however: even descriptive statistics available from existing Japanese surveys are often not included in OECD compilations. At least some Japanese officials appear eager to draw attention to their country's situation, and a greater effort here would yield benefits.

Data Collection

Table 1: Percentages of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities, Ages 12-18, Served in Different

Educational Environments (Lerner, 2000)7

Table 2: Problems faced by Adolescents with Learning Disabilities (Lerner, 2000)8

Literature Review

Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

The period of adolescence is well (Lerner, 2000)10 documented as a stage of turmoil and difficult adjustment. The physical, mental, and emotional adjustments that characterize adolescence affect learning. Teenagers with learning disabilities have difficulty in school and social life not only because of their learning disabilities, but also because they must cope with the normal challenges and adjustments presented by adolescence. Since many characteristics of learning disabilities and adolescence overlap, it is hard to know if a particular behavior stems from the learning disability or from normal adolescent development. In many cases, the difficulties stem from both, thus compiling the learning, social and behavior problems.

Characteristics of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

For youth with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)10, the problems of adolescence are compounded by the learning disabilities. The typical characteristics of adolescence present challenges that may negatively affect learning. As illustrated in the case example (1) entitled "Tim, an Adolescent with Learning Disabilities," the adolescent can find it devastating to cope with the symptoms of learning disabilities in addition to those created by normal adolescent development. When one considers the combination of academic difficulties, the characteristics of adolescence, and learning disabilities, it is small wonder that that these years are often trying. The following are characteristics of adolescents with learning disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Levine & Swartz, 1995):

Passive Learning

Adolescents with learning disabilities have been characterized as passive learners.

In response to failure-producing experiences, they develop an attitude of learned helplessness. They learn to be passive instead of active learners. Instead of trying to solve problem, they tend to wait passively until the teacher directs them and tells them what to do. In an academic task, they fail to associate new information with what they already know, and they do not elaborate on their thinking (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Levine (Swartz, 1995; Torgesen, 1991).

Poor Self-Concept

Poor self-concept and low self-esteem result from years of failure and frustration.

Adolescents with learning disabilities have little confidence in their ability to learn and achieve. Often, too, emotional problems develop from their lack of experiences of success. Adolescents with learning disabilities too often lack self-esteem and self- confidence (Silver, 1998; Deshler et al., 1996).

Social and Behavior Problems

During these critical adolescent years, when friendships and peer approval are so important, problems with social skill create another impediment for adolescents with learning disabilities. Because adolescents with learning disabilities frequently display social ineptitude, they often have difficulty making and keeping friends. The social and behavior problems become even more evident than the academic problems. The years of failure, low self-esteem, poor motivation, inadequate peer acceptance, and disruptive and maladaptive behavior take their toll (Bryan; Cole & Mcleskey, 1997; Dohrn & Bryan (1998; Haager & Vaughn, 1997; Scanlon, 1996);

When social malfunctions are extremely disabling and include problems in social interactions and nonverbal communication, they may be diagnosed as nonverbal learning disorders or Asperger's syndrome (Roman 1998; Thompson, 1997);

Attention Deficits

Many adolescents with learning disabilities lack the attentional capacity to meet the demands of secondary school. High school heightens the demand for students to sustain cognitive effort and to concentrate for extended periods. The requirements of the secondary curriculum can place a strain on the adolescent's capacity to attend to the varied sources of input from teachers, instructional materials, and peers. Given the long periods of concentration needed for studying and listening in class, deficits in attention can seriously impede progress (Berkley, 1998; Gold-man, Ganel, Bezman, & Sianez, (1996; Lerner, Lowenthal, & Lerner, 1995).

Lack of Motivation

By the time students with learning disabilities reach secondary school, they have experienced many years of failure. They begin to doubt their intellectual abilities, lack resiliency, and come to believe that their efforts to achieve are futile (Luter,1993). These feelings in turn lead to a persistence level; they give up quickly as soon as something appears to be difficult. Even when these adolescents do experience success, they do not believe that they were responsible for the achievement. Instead, they attribute their success to some outside force, such as luck, something the teacher did, or an easy task (Yasutake & Bryan, 1995; Licht & Kistner, 1986). Therefore, even success does not bring much satisfaction or raise their confidence level. Motivating such students to exert the effort needed to learn is very difficult. Yet the best made decisions about what to teach and the most skillful applications of how to teach will be successful only if students are motivated to learn and can attribute success to their own efforts (Zigmond, 1997; (Scanlon, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1996).

Challenges for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

The demands of the (Lerner, 2000)11 secondary school differ significantly from those of the elementary school. Students with learning disabilities move from a pupil- oriented elementary school environment to a content-driven secondary school setting.

Often the secondary students lack the requisite skills needed to meet high school academic expectations. If secondary classroom teaching methods are not suited to the student's particular learning strengths and interests, graduating with a high school diploma becomes increasingly problematic (Levine & Swartz, 1995).

What Happens to Students with Learning Disabilities in Secondary School

About 33% of students (Lerner, 2000)11 over the age of seventeen who have learning disabilities complete high school. They may either receive a standard diploma identical to the one awarded to students without disabilities, or they may receive modified diploma, certification of completion, or other credential documenting their graduation (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In 1998, a Department of Education report showed that students over fourteen who have learning disabilities exited special education for the following reasons: 13% returned to regular education, 32% graduated with a high school diploma, 4% graduated with a certificate of completion, 33% moved, 18% dropped out of school, and less than 1% reached the maximum age of 22 or died (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

The high dropout rate (Lerner, 2000)11of students who are in learning disabilities programs suggest that we are failing to serve these students appropriately. Studies show that there is a significant differential in terms of employment patterns and post school adjustments between dropouts with learning disabilities and graduates with learning disabilities. Those who stay in school and graduate fare much better than those who leave school. Unfortunately, many students with learning disabilities who drop out of schools face an uncertain and grim future in the streets (Zigmond, 1996).

Problems of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

Adolescents with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)11 experience many problems. They can range from mild to severe, and they interfere with mastering many of the subjects of the secondary curriculum. In addition to academic problems, these students have difficulties with cognitive skills, social behaviors, and emotional stability.

Many adolescents who have received learning disabilities services at the elementary level continue to help when they reach junior and senior high school. Some adolescents' problems are not identified until the students enter the secondary school because of the subtle nature of their problems and the increased demands of the secondary curriculum.

Many adolescents with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)11 fail regular secondary courses. Almost one out of three youths with learning disabilities fails regular high school courses, and most experience failure before reaching high school (Blackorby (Wagner 1997; Wagner, 1990).

The Adult Years

By the time they finish schooling (Lerner, 2000)12, some adults have overcome their learning disabilities, are able to reduce them, or have learned how to compensate or circumvent their problems. For many adults, however, the learning problems continue, and vestiges of their disorder continue to hamper them as they grow older. Both reading difficulties and nonverbal social disabilities may limit their career development and may also hinder them in making and keeping friends. Many adults are voluntarily seeking help in later life to cope with their learning disabilities as illustrated in the case example (2).

For many individuals (Lerner, 2000)12, a learning disability is a lifelong problem.

In this section, we consider post-high school and college programs and adults with learning disabilities.

Postsecondary and College Programs

Postsecondary education includes community (Lerner, 2000)12 colleges, vocational-technical training, and four-year colleges. Adults with learning disabilities are too frequently excluded from postsecondary education because they do not meet the institution's entrance requirements. If they are accepted by a postsecondary school or college, the assistance and modifications they need may not be available at the institution.

Only a few years ago (Lerner, 2000)12, college was out of the question for most adults with learning disabilities. Today, however their prospects for a postsecondary education have brightened considerably, and there are many opportunities for such young adults to acquire a college-level education. Many individuals with learning disabilities can look forward to experiencing college and to a better preparation for their futures (Vogel & Reder, 1998; Vogel, 1997; Vogel & Adelman, 1993). The community colleges are often a good choice for young adults with learning disabilities. They bridge the gap between high school and college, and they may offer special programs for individuals with learning disabilities. The case example (3), illustrates such a situation.

The Secondary Level radical change in schooling (Lerner, 2000)13 occurs at the secondary level, and adolescents find that learning disabilities begin to take a greater toll. The tougher demands of the middle school and high school curricula and teachers, the turmoil of adolescence, and the continued academic failure combine to intensify the learning disability. Adolescents are also concerned about life after completing school. They may need counseling and guidance for college, career and vocational decisions. To worsen the situation, a few adolescents find themselves drawn into acts of juvenile delinquency (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 1995).

Because adolescents tend to be overly sensitive (Lerner, 2000)13, some emotional, social, and self-concept problems often accompany a learning disability at this age. Most secondary schools now have programs for adolescents with learning disabilities. About 59% of all children with learning disabilities are in the 12-21 age group (U.S. (Department of Education, 1998).

Placement of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities and Inclusion at the Secondary Level

The inclusion movement is (Lerner, 2000)13growing at the secondary level as more adolescents with learning disabilities are placed in regular content-area classes for instruction. Table (1) shows the placement or educational environment for students with learning disabilities, ages 12-18. The percentage of adolescents placed in full-time, regular content-area classes increased to 41% (from 19%, as reported 5 years ago). The placement of adolescents in resource rooms decreased to 40% from (58%, as reported 5 years ago). Thus, about 81% of secondary students are in regular content-area class for at least a portion of the day. About 18% of the secondary students with learning disabilities are in special classes, and about 1% are in other settings.

Although 81% of the adolescents (Lerner, 2000)13 with learning disabilities are in regular content-area classes for at least a portion of the day, the secondary schools have been slower to develop policies for inclusion than the elementary schools (Cole & (McLeskey, 1997). Secondary schools face several obstacles in providing inclusion programs, including (1) the complex curricular material, (2) the larger gap between student skill levels and classroom demands, (3) the broader range of curricular content, 4) secondary school teachers who are content specialists and not trained in meeting the needs of students with disabilities, and (5) outside agencies that exert pressure on secondary schools to meet performance standards.

Special Issues at the Secondary Level

The number of adolescents with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)13 now outnumbers elementary students. Fifty-four percent of all students served under the category of learning disabilities are ages 12 to 18; about 5% are ages 18 through 21 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

The data on students with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)13 in secondary schools paint a bleak picture. A five-year investigation of secondary school students with learning disabilities conducted by the National Longitudinal Transition Study revealed the extreme difficulties that students with learning disabilities encounter during their secondary school years. Many lack the necessary skills to succeed in general education settings, and many drop out of school (Blackorby & Wagner 1997; Wagner and Blackorby, 1996).

Special Problems at the College Level

College poses many problems (Lerner, 2000)13 that are not encountered during the high school years. There is less student-teacher contact, and college has long-range assignments and evaluation rather than the day-to-day monitoring that occurs in high school. The student does not have the support network of family and friends that was available during high school. Students also have more unstructured time they must manage, and they must learn to advocate for themselves. In addition, the physical environment is very different, with classes in different buildings, adjustments to roommates, and acclimation to the eating and sleeping pattern of the dormitories. To meet these new demands, students may need a period of transition activities before the college year begins. Some colleges offer an intensive transition program to prepare such students for college challenges.

Another problem many students encounter (Lerner, 2000)13 in college is the foreign language requirement. For many students with learning disabilities, the requirement language becomes a major stumbling block and may even prevent them from completing their college work. Colleges need to develop policies for students with learning disabilities who are unable to complete the foreign language requirement. Such policies could include a method for students to petition for a substitution, a procedure for waiving the foreign language requirement, or a provision of accommodations in foreign language classes (Gancschow, Sparks, & Javorsky, 1998).

One of the greatest challenges (Lerner, 2000)13 faced by college students with learning disabilities is gaining and maintaining the acceptance and cooperation of the academic faculty. Research shows that faculty members often support the concept of providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. In-service training is needed to help faculty understand the needs of these students and become familiar with the accommodations that can be made (Rose, 1993).

Comparison of Learning Disabilities and Other Disabilities

Comparison of learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)15 with other categories of disabilities are revealing. In Table below, the first column lists each type of disability and the second column shows the percentage of each disability in terms of school enrollment.

The third column shows the portion of each disability as a percentage of all children identified under special education.

Percentage of Children with Disabilities, Ages 6-17, School Year 1995-1996 (Lerner, 2000)16

Source: From to Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities. Twentieth Annual

Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, by the U.S. Department of Education, 1998, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Methodology

Transition from School to Adult Life

The transition from school (Lerner, 2000)16 to adult life is full of complexities for all adolescents. To successfully negotiate this transition, all adolescents require varying degrees of assistance from friends, family, and school personnel. Adolescents with learning disabilities need extra support and assistance to successfully make this challenging transition.

Transition refers to a change (Lerner, 2000)16 in status from behaving primarily as a student to assuming emerging adult roles. These new roles include employment, becoming a student in postsecondary school, maintaining a home, and experiencing satisfactory personal and social relationships (Halpren, 1994). The research shows that adolescents with learning disabilities receive inadequate transition planning that does not help them in seeking employment. They are most likely to find a job on their own, with little support from schools or adult agencies. Relatively few go to college. Only 30% actually enroll in any postsecondary school (four-year college, two-year college, or vocational school) (Wagnor and Blackorby, 1996).

Transition Legislation

IDEA 1997 has several new requirements (Lerner, 2000)16 that address transition

PL 105-17). The law requires that beginning when the student is age 14 and then updated annually, a statement of transition service needs that focuses on the student's existing program or courses must written;

beginning at age 16, a plan for specific transition services, including interagency responsibilities, must be created; beginning at least one year before the student reaches the age of majority, he or she must be informed of his or her rights.

The law views transition (Lerner, 2000)16 as a set of activities that are based on the needs of the individual student and that are designed to prepare the student for the years beyond secondary school. To ensure that the student completes secondary school prepared for employment or postsecondary education, as well as for independent living,

IDEA 1997 requires that an individualized transition plan be written for students with disabilities beginning at age 14 as part of the IEP (Individualized Education Plan).Many school districts use an attachment to the student's IEP to indicate transition goals and activities designed to meet those goals. Other schools develop a separate individualized transition plan (ITP).

Content of the Transition Plan

The transition plan (IEP/ITP) should (Lerner, 2000)16 include the following (Blalock & (Patton, 1996; Stewart & Lillie, 1995; Martin, 1995; Chadsey-Rusch & Heal, 1995):

Current Levels of Performance. The transition plan should document the student's current levels of achievement so that the transition team knows where to begin.

Interests and Aptitude. The Plan should take into account the student's interests, aptitudes, potential, and vision for the future.

Post school goals. The plan should define and project desired post school goals as identified by the student, parents, and transition teams for community living, employment, postsecondary education and/or training.

Designate responsible person. The plan should designate a person or agency that is responsible for the continuation of the transition after the student's high school years.

Review. The transition plan should be reviewed and revised necessary.

Developing Transition Plans

The goals for transition planning (Lerner, 2000)16 for adolescents with learning disabilities follow several different pathways (Dunn, 1996).

Competitive Employment

Most students with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)16 go directly into competitive employment from high school. Vocational educators need to be an integral part of the transition team to help these students explore occupations and to gain at least basic knowledge within the various fields. Parents and educators must work together to help students identify areas of interest and potential field of employment, and also to determine how they can meet the entry-level requirements of those fields. Students will benefit from job experience by participating in a "co-op" project (Gerber & Brown, 1997).

Vocational Training

Some students with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)16 prepare for a trade after high school by going to a vocational training school or by entering an apprenticeship program.

The number of students with learning disabilities (Lerner, 2000)16 who go to college or to a postsecondary school is still quite low, although that number is increasing.

Many students with learning disabilities do not consider postsecondary education options because they are not encouraged, assisted, or prepared to do so, However, if transition plans are designed and implemented effectively, many more students could pursue postsecondary education options (Vogel & Reder, 1998; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1994; Stewart & Lillie, 1995).

Supported Employment

Some transition programs offer a bridge (Lerner, 2000)16 from school to work through supported employment. In this type of program, transition educators seek potential employers to hire special education students. In some cases a job coach works at the employment site, supervising and helping the students over the inevitable rough spots.

Job coaches work both for the business that employs the student and for the school or agency (Rusch & Phelps, 1987).

Table (3) shows the results of a (Lerner, 2000)16 national survey of the transition goals of students with learning disabilities (Wagner et al.,1993).

Table 3: Transition Goals for Students with Learning Disabilities (Lerner, 2000)17

Source from Wagner et al. (1993), The Secondary School Programs of Students with Disabilities: A Report from the National

Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students.

Transition Guidelines

Table (4) provides (Lerner, 2000)16 guidelines for developing transition plans for students with learning disabilities in high school (Martin, 1995; Stewart & Lillie, 1995).

Table 4: Guidelines for Developing Transition Plans for Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities (Lerner, 2000)18

Discussion

Human Asset Development and the Transition from School to Work:

Policy Lessons for the 21st Century

Introduction

The transition from school to (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19 work is the lynchpin in the transition to adulthood. Because full-time employment usually permits financial independence as well as social and emotional independence, both of which are crucial for developing private (i.e., family) and public (i.e., civic) adult roles, there is great societal interest in youth negotiating this transition successfully. The ability of young adults to establish independent households and to be financially independent as well as socially and emotionally mature depends crucially on how well they prepare themselves to compete for and secure well-paying jobs and to participate in social, civic, and familial activities.

In the most general terms (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19, the transition from school to work embraces youth ages 16 to 24 -- "age limits that demarcate, respectively, the legal age to leave school and the age by which the majority of college goers have graduated and commenced full time work. Not only is this age group very heterogeneous developmentally, but the activities pursued over this phase of the life course vary considerably among demographic groups (Marini 1984; 1987; Hogan and Astone 1986; (Ahituv, Tienda and Tsay 1998). The sequencing of life course activities does not follow an ordered progression because many youth combine school and work while others withdraw and return after testing the labor market (Hotz et al. 1995; Coleman 1984; (Marini 1987). Some youth begin families before leaving school or entering the labor market, while others prolong marriage and family until they have established careers.

Despite this bewildering variation in the timing of life course events during adolescence and young adulthood (Rindfuss 1991), increasing commitment to employment is a defining feature of the school-to-work transition, which is considered complete when youth devote themselves full-time to labor market activities.

The problem (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19, however, is that by various journalistic and academic accounts, today's adolescents and young adults are generations in crisis. America's youth confront many problems, ranging from drug and alcohol abuse, teenage childbearing, an increasing prevalence of poverty, decaying family structures, declining academic performance, alarming high school drop-out rates, and high rates of joblessness. Several of these problems relate specifically to the school-to-work transition.

While during the 1960s and 1970s such portrayals focused on the most disadvantaged youth (mainly urban black youth), since the mid-1980s concerns have been broadened to include non-college bound youth -- "coined "The Forgotten Half" (W.T. Grant

Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship 1988; Osterman 1995; Sum et al.

1997). However, it is not entirely clear that this perception of crisis is warranted or that such a substantial segment of American youth are really in danger of failing to make a successful transition to adulthood.

Drawing on various portrayals (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19 that emphasize the problematic aspects of the transition from school to work, a depiction of the circumstances confronting contemporary American youth might read as follows:

For a variety of reasons (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19, many youth leave school ill-prepared for employment in a labor market that increasingly rewards and demands technical as well as cognitive skills. Due to a lack of institutional or personal ties to jobs or training programs and skill deficits accumulated over years of substandard and/or inappropriate schooling, non-college bound youth experience high unemployment and an extended period of thrashing' or 'milling about.' During this period, job turnover is high and the pattern of jobs held reveals no obvious career orientation. The jobs available to youth lacking college training provide low-wages, few benefits, and limited chances for upward mobility. These circumstances engender low levels of attachment to major social institutions and a period of extended economic and social adolescence.

This synopsis captures (Donahoe & Tienda, 1999)19 the key elements of the problem of the school-to-work transition process based on a critical reading of academic, philanthropic, and journalistic accounts. The dismal tone in which youth issues are often cast raises questions about whether America's youth are truly in crisis; whether and how the schooling and labor market problems confronted by youth today differ from those experienced by prior generations; or whether a contagion effect is operating, such that pessimism about youth prospects in one arena of life colors all others.