Family Capital: How First‐Generation Higher Education Students Break the Intergenerational Cycle

Abstract

Individuals who attain a higher education, whereas both their parents did not, embody the realization of social mobility. They are referred to as first-generation higher education students. Previous analyses had often portrayed them as succeeding despite their family background. This research suggests that although they face many challenges, their families are often facilitators of their success. In-depth, semistructured interviews were used to collect data from Israeli first-generation students (N= 50). We employed a grounded theory approach, and our analysis reveals that breaking the intergenerational cycle of educational level inheritance involves day-to-day family life that prioritizes education through nonmaterial resources. We conceptualized this investment of nonmaterial resources as family capital. A better understanding of this role is valuable for designing efficient policy.

Full text

Anat Gofen Hebrew University
Family Capital: How First-Generation Higher
Education Students Break the
Intergenerational Cycle
Individuals who attain a higher education,
whereas both their parents did not, embody the
realization of social mobility. They are referred
to as first-generation higher education students.
Previous analyses had often portrayed them as
succeeding despite their family background.
This research suggests that although they face
many challenges, their families are often facili-
tators of their success. In-depth, semistructured
interviews were used to collect data from Israeli
first-generation students (N¼50). We em-
ployed a grounded theory approach, and our
analysis reveals that breaking the intergenera-
tional cycle of educational level inheritance in-
volves day-to-day family life that prioritizes
education through nonmaterial resources. We
conceptualized this investment of nonmaterial
resources as family capital. A better under-
standing of this role is valuable for designing
efficient policy.
Individuals who attain higher education, whereas
both their parents did not, are referred to as first-
generation higher education students (referred to
henceforth as first-generation students). First-
generation students embody the realization of
the social concept of ‘‘equal opportunity,’’ which
is manifested through one’s chances to acquire
education at any level independent of one’s
background. However, a long tradition of mobil-
ity research has demonstrated a strong link
between the educational level of parents and the
educational level of their offspring (Crosnoe,
Mistry, & Elder, 2002; Hauser, 1998; Haveman
& Wolfe, 1995; Solon, 2002). Evidence from
these studies indicates that to a large extent, chil-
dren inherit their parents’ educational level.
First-generation students break this pattern of
intergenerational inheritance of educational level;
put differently, they break the intergenerational
cycle where parents convey their educational
level to their offspring. Breaking that intergener-
ational cycle is not easy to achieve, making fami-
lies of first-generation students an exception to
the rule. Similar to the United States, there exists
only limited upward educational mobility in
Israel, and comparable background characteris-
tics, such as family income, place of birth of par-
ents, and educational level of parents, predict the
educational attainment level of the family off-
spring (Dahan, Dvir, Mironichev, & Shye, 2003).
In the United States, first-generation students
have been the focus of a growing body of research
primarily because of an increasing demographic
diversity in postsecondary education and growth
in the number of first-generation college students
(Choy, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). The
importance of first-generation students is that
their educational mobility leads to social mobility
as education is the key for many other aspects of
well-being (Cohen & Geske, 1990; Haveman &
Wolfe, 1984). Prevailing research has focused
School of Public Policy, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus,
Jerusalem 91905, Israel (anatgo@mscc.huji.ac.il).
Key Words: family relations, higher education, intergenera-
tional issues, qualitative research, social capital.
104 Family Relations 58 (February 2009): 104–120
A Publication of
the National Council on
Family Relations

on comparing first-generation students to their
peers (second-generation higher education stu-
dents) in various respects such as access rates,
academic achievements, academic expectations,
college experience, demographic characteristics,
and responses to intervention programs (Choy;
Pascarella & Terenzini; Terenzini, Springer,
Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). As a result,
we appear to know much about the life of first-
generation college students not only during their
college years but also about their life prior to col-
lege. Nevertheless, surprisingly little is known
about the process that enabled those students to
become the first in their families to attend college.
Furthermore, we seem to know much about the
persistence of educational level but little about
breaking this cycle. To shed light on the issue
of intergenerational inheritance, this article ex-
amines those families whose offspring succeeded
in breaking this intergenerational cycle by attain-
ing higher education even though both their par-
ents did not. These families are exceptional, as the
more common pattern is for children whose par-
ents did not go to college to also have low levels
of education. For example, Choy (2001) com-
pared access rates of first-generation students to
college students whose parents have a college
degree. Her findings indicate that among those
whose parents did not attain college degree,
27% of 1992 high school graduates went on to
college. This rate increased to 75% among those
whose parents had some college experience and
to 93% among those who have at least one parent
with an undergraduate degree. In Israel, we see
a similar trend in that the chances of an individual
to attain higher education are six times higher if
one of that person’s parents attained postsecond-
ary education (Otiker, 2008).
The present study was guided by the following
questions: Subsequent to the wide conception
that parental education level is inherited on one
hand, and on the other, both of their parents did
not attain college, how do first-generation stu-
dents explain their higher education attainment?
What strategies can be identified that support
their educational achievements? What is the
source of these strategies? On the basis of the nar-
ratives of these students, this study attempted to
uncover what enables first-generation students
to break the intergenerational cycle. The fact that
little is known about breaking the intergenera-
tional cycle of educational inheritance led us to
take a qualitative approach, which is preferable
when the aim is to improve the understanding of
a phenomenon where little is known (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). In addition, by taking a qualitative
approach, the present study aimed to provide rich
and in-depth data that enabled us to elicit the pro-
cess of the intergenerational breakthrough. Fur-
thermore, we did not frame a hypothesis about
the specific nature of the strategies. Our general
hypothesis was that the strategies will involve
the families, the schools, the community,teachers,
and maybe other mentors.
First-Generation Higher Education Students
One of the trends in postsecondary education in
the United States is a growing number of first-
generation students (e.g., Baker & Velez, 1996;
Kojaku & Nunez, 1998). The National Center
for Education Statistics (1998) concluded that
during the years 1993 – 1996, 47% of college stu-
dents were first-generation students compared to
43% during the years 1989 – 1990 (Nunez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Comparisons between
first-generation students to their peers provide
evidence concerning the distinct disadvantages
of first-generation students before college years,
during college years, and after college years.
Before college years, these disadvantages en-
compass a lack of essential knowledge about
postsecondary education (e.g., the enrollment
process and financial demands), low level of
family income, lack of family support, minimal
educational expectations and plans, and little aca-
demic preparation in high school (e.g., Berkner,
Horn, & Clune, 2000; Horn & Nunez, 2000;
Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; Stage &
Hossler, 1989). During and after college years,
this disadvantage is further reflected in high rates
of dropout before completing a degree, in lower
chances to attain a bachelor’s degree, and through
early career labor market outcomes (Berkner
et al.; Horn, 1998; Richardson & Skinner, 1992;
Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001). Also,
evaluation studies of intervention programs
offered during college years indicate that pro-
grams that help first-generation students also help
their peers, but programs that helped those peers
did not necessarily help first-generation students
(Gullat & Jan, 2003; Thayer, 2000).
Not only do first-generation students confront
the anxieties, dislocations, and difficulties of
any college student, their experiences often also
involve substantial cultural as well as social and
academic transitions (London, 1989). Evaluating
family background and parental involvement
Family Capital 105

indicatesthat first-generation studentsexperience a
strong ‘‘culture shock’’ in college as college repre-
sents a fundamentally different culture compared
to their parents’ way of life. Sometimes, parents
and friends even encourage them not to go to col-
lege, and they would therefore need to reject their
family culture in order to pursue a nonfamilial aca-
demic goal (Inman & Mayes, 1999). Hence, not
only do they generally come from lower income
homes (Bui, 2002; Terenzini et al., 1996) where
parents lackthe knowledge of the campusenviron-
ment and the enrollment process but also encoun-
ter, on average, a lower level of family support and
a lower level of importance placed on college by
parents (McConnell, 2000; Terenzini et al.;
York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Parents of
first-generation students, in general, help their chil-
dren less (Thayer, 2000), particularly with respect to
the process of deciding what college to choose com-
pared to parents having a college degree (Choy,
2001; Terenzini et al.; York-Anderson & Bowman).
In contrast, some recent findings tend to contra-
dict the role of the family of first-generation stu-
dents described above. For example, McCarron
and Inkelas (2006) found a positive relationship
between parental involvement and educational as-
pirations of first-generation students, building on
research regarding the impact of parental involve-
ment during K – 12. Their findings indicate that
first-generation students rely on their parents’
involvement and support as their move to college
is not straightforward and involves major difficul-
ties. Furthermore, they call for further investigation
of the beneficial inclusion of parents in the educa-
tional process, especially for first-generation stu-
dents. McCarron and Inkelas also found that first-
generation students did not fulfill their educational
aspiration as early as eighth grade. This finding
stresses the difficulty for first-generation students
to break the intergenerational cycle—that is,
although they have high expectations, most of them
fail to translate their aspirations to results. The cur-
rent study continues this line of work by examining
what strategies enabled first-generation students in
Israel to attain higher education. According to
McCarron and Inkelas, it is important to pursue this
type of research, as it aims at creating success
opportunities before the college experience.
Breaking the Intergenerational Cycle of
Educational Disadvantage
Exploring how families in which the parents did
not attain college degree and who lived in rural
areas or urban neighborhoods succeeded in creat-
ing a better future for their children highlights the
importance of the nonmaterial resources of a fam-
ily. These resources include families’ habits, pri-
orities, belief systems, and values. The family
resilience approach focuses on the ability to with-
stand and rebound from adversity and builds on
the growing interest in research on individual re-
silience (Walsh, 2002). A broad concept of family
resilience relates to the processes that evolve over
time in response to a family-specific context and
stage of development (Conger & Conger, 2002).
However, the core idea underlying the concept of
family resilience is that a family can overcome
adverse circumstances by using its behavioral,
emotional, and relational assets. Furthermore,
resilient families emerge from difficulties feel-
ing strengthened and more confident (Simon,
Murphy, & Smith, 2005). Therefore, resilient
families can escape the poverty trap; put differ-
ently, they are able to mobilize the resources
required for economic growth and not get caught
in a vicious circle of poverty (Furstenberg, Cook,
Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999; Orthner, Jones-
Sanpei, & Williamson, 2004). Children of resil-
ient poor families are capable of accomplishing
both academic and social-psychological achieve-
ments despite the lack of economic resources in
their homes (Orthner et al.). Moreover, resilient
families have been found to have clear-cut ex-
pectations of their children and share core values
and routines (Seccombe, 2002). This study was
informed by a family resilience approach in that
a family has the ability to withstand and rebound
from adversity. However, the approach presented
here takes this proposition one step further. The
family resilience approach views the family more
as reacting to unfortunate circumstances rather
than initiating action, whereas the approach
offered here stresses how a family can use and
channel its nonmaterial resources, such as prior-
ities, time, and behavior, for the accomplish-
ments that are usually achieved by using
resources that are not within the family’s reach.
Furthermore, family resilience is typically con-
cerned with family functioning and the well-
being of its members rather than with building
toward unusual achievements, such as higher
education attainment.
Social capital theory also addresses the rela-
tionship between nonmaterial resources and
mobility. By and large, scholars make use of the
terms family-based social capital, and family
social capital as a subset of social capital,
106 Family Relations

following Coleman (1990), who placed social
capital in the context of the family: ‘‘Social capi-
tal is the set of resources that inhere in family re-
lations and in community social organizations
and that are useful for the cognitive or social
development of a child or a young person’’ (p.
300). Furthermore, scholars who follow this
notion view the family as one of the contexts
for generating and accumulating social capital
(Coleman; Furstenberg, 2005; Furstenberg &
Hughes, 1995; Putnam, 1995, 2000). Literature
on family-based social capital has sometimes
focused on the social capital found within the
family unit and in other cases the social capital
that a family unit ‘‘owns.’’ In other words, fam-
ily-based social capital may refer to the social
links among family members, the social relation-
ships of a family, or the accumulation of human
and cultural capital within the family. Usually,
family social capital is related to what is known
as bonding social capital, which gives a sense
of identity and common purpose. However, in
certain circumstances, for example, when it
causes isolation, social capital is considered neg-
ative (Portes, 1998). Bonding social capital ena-
bles individuals to ‘‘get by’’ (e.g., Holzmann &
Jorgensen, 1999) as opposed to bridging social
capital, which enables them to ‘‘get ahead,’’ for
example, by gaining sustained access to formal
institutions (e.g., Narayan, 1999). Research is
ambiguous with regard to the products of family
social capital among poor families. In most cases,
bonding social capital is considered to result in
a negative outcome because it prevents mobility
within low-socioeconomic status families
(Szreter, 2000). On the other hand, bonding
social capital is considered in some cases to be
a major contributor to the development of chil-
dren and the creation of future opportunities for
their benefit (Putnam, 2000).
The study presented here is informed by the
theory of social capital; however, instead of con-
sidering a specific type of capital, such as social
capital, human capital, or cultural capital, family
capital emphasizes the context or the setting in
which capital resides. The concept of family
capital captures the various ways in which the
family affects the future of its children, espe-
cially with respect to the investment process.
Accordingly, family capital highlights not only
interpersonal relationships, as does social capi-
tal, or values, as does cultural capital. As an
alternative, family capital attempts to capture
all aspects of investment made by the family for
the benefit of the children’s future. Hence, fam-
ily capital is constructed from aspects of social
capital, aspects of cultural capital, and addi-
tional features of a family’s day-to-day life.
METHOD
A qualitative design was used to explore the strat-
egies that enable first-generation students to
break the intergenerational cycle. The analysis
draws on 50 in-depth, semistructured interviews
of first-generation higher education students in
Israel in exploring what enabled them to attain
higher education even though their parents did
not. Furthermore, there was a purposed attempt
to find an explanation for what we label as
‘‘breakthrough phenomenon’’; that is, the phe-
nomenon through which children attain higher
education when both their parents did not and,
thereby, break the intergenerational cycle of edu-
cational level inheritance. Finally, data analysis
was based on grounded theory (LaRossa, 2005)
in order to (a) conceptualize the process of inter-
generational breakthrough, where children expe-
rience an upward educational mobility and (b)
look for the different components of intergenera-
tional breakthrough.
Participants and Recruitment Strategy
Various intervention programs operated by the
Hebrew University that target students from
minority groups and students who live in rural
areas or urban neighborhoods were the primary
source for research candidates. During program
activities and meetings, the research was intro-
duced to the participants, and candidates were
asked to make contact if they would like to
participate in the study. The research was
described as addressing the intergenerational
breakthrough phenomenon, where children are
first in their family to attain higher education:
‘‘Many people with parents who do not have
higher education do not attain higher education.
How do you explain your success? What is the
formula?’’ Other candidates were identified by
means of ‘‘snowball’’ sampling, whereby one
friend brings another friend, employing purpose-
ful sampling procedures to identify ‘‘intensity-
rich cases that manifest the phenomenon
intensely, but not extremely’’ (Patton, 1990,
p. 343). Out of the 50 interviews, 19 were the
product of snowball sampling. All study partici-
pants were students with two parents who did
Family Capital 107

not attain higher education, who lived in urban
neighborhoods or in rural areas during their
school years, and whose parents or grandparents
were born in North Africa or in Asia (an ethnic
group known as ‘‘Mizrahim’’ in Israel). Many
studies demonstrate the low achievements of this
group compared to ‘‘Ashkenazim’’ who were
either born in Israel or immigrated from Eastern
Europe or North America. Focusing on this
specific ethnic group limits the generalizability
of the research. However, this ethnic group
addresses a large population group in Israel
(around 50% of the Jewish population in Israel)
and gives a longer time perspective because,
unlike more recently arrived minorities, these
families arrived in Israel during the 1940s and
the 1950s. In addition, the comparatively low
educational achievements of this group had
been thoroughly studied (e.g., Cohen & Haberfeld,
1998; Dahan et al., 2003). Furthermore, on the
basis of the findings of this study, additional
research explored the breakthrough phenomenon
among different ethnic groups in the United States,
such as African Americans and Hispanics.
Preliminary results indicate similar findings.
Fifty first-generation students, 25 men and 25
women, were interviewed. Four of the informants
were graduate students, 10 were in the final stages
or had completed a master’s degree, and the other
36 either had a bachelor’s degree or were study-
ing for it. Their parents’ educational level varied
among illiteracy (8% of the mothers and 6% of
the fathers), elementary school (24% of the moth-
ers and 28% of the fathers), some high school
(16% of mothers and fathers), high school com-
pletion (32% of the mothers and 40% of the fa-
thers), and professional courses such as
mechanic and dentist assistant (4% of mothers
and fathers). The median parental education
was less than a high school diploma. During their
school years, 24 students lived in urban poor
neighborhoods and 26 in rural areas. The median
family size was three to four children. In some of
the families, most or all of the children had stud-
ied or were studying in higher education institu-
tions; in other families, only one child had
achieved higher education. When asked to recall
their family income when they were children,
18% reported to have income slightly above aver-
age, 26% average, 36% slightly under the aver-
age, and 20% reported to be raised in poor
families.
Interview Procedure
An in-depth, semistructured interview was em-
ployed to collect personal stories concerning
what led the subjects to pursue a higher educa-
tion. This goal made it necessary to choose an
interview form that was as open as possible to
avoid the trap of using existing terminology.
Each interview began with the following ques-
tion: ‘‘Many people with your starting point did
not achieve higher education. How do you ex-
plain your success? What is the formula?’’ ‘‘Start-
ing point’’ was defined as living in either rural
areas or urban neighborhoods, as well as having
parents who did not attain higher education.
Many of the interviewees could provide ex-
planations without additional questions; prompt-
ing was needed only when asking for details and
specifications. For example, many of the inform-
ants used the term ‘‘important’’ to describe their
parents’ attitude toward education. Follow-up
questions were: ‘‘How did you know it was
important to them? What did they do that made
you understand that education was important to
them?’’ Sometimes, respondents were asked to
play their parent’s role and to ‘‘teach’’ the inter-
viewer ‘‘how to do the right things in order to
cause [the interviewer’s] offspring to achieve
higher education.’’ In some interviews, more spe-
cific questions were needed. In these cases, the in-
formants were invited to specify and give as
many details as they could about meaningful mo-
ments in life, statements that were repeated
through their life and memorized by them, behav-
iors of significant others, choices that were made
during day-to-day life, and various episodes in
their life stories, all in the context of what had
happened in their lives that they believed had
major influence on their path to higher education.
Each time a belief, value, emotion, or cognitive
action was mentioned, the informants were asked
to link it, as best they could, to a behavior or
explicit action. In many ways, the whole inter-
view followed from the informant’s answer to
the first question. In cases where schools, teach-
ers, other mentors, extended family, and neigh-
borhood were not mentioned by the informant,
he/she were asked whether any of those contrib-
uted to their success; in most of the interviews,
the informants did not mention those factors.
Specifically, direct questions such as ‘‘What
about your school?’’ or ‘‘Education speaking,
what is the status of your extended family?’’ were
used. All interviews, which were conducted by
108 Family Relations

the principalinvestigator (PI), were taped and tran-
scribed and ranged in length from 60 to 120 min.
Analytic Procedures
Acknowledging the centrality of language to social
life (LaRossa, 2005), grounded theory procedure
was employed, applying a ‘‘constant comparison’’
series of iterations (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss
& Corbin, 1994). During this process, the different
components (categories, in grounded theory
terms) of the strategy were identified. To increase
trustworthiness, all data were coded by both the
PI and a graduate-level research assistant. When
coding discrepancies occurred, original
transcripts were reexamined and discussed until
coding agreement was reached.
The analytic unit was a statement of the infor-
mant presenting a saying, an event, a choice, a pri-
ority, or any other topic. Following Strauss and
Corbin (1994), the first step was ‘‘open coding,’’
by which statements in the data were named and
constantly compared with one another to decide
which belonged together. For example, when an
informant talked about ‘‘buying every book and
school supply, even when not having enough
money for food,’’ the response was labeled as
school supply.Evidence examples include such
statements as: ‘‘Don’t become like us’’; ‘‘Who-
ever learns—succeeds’’; and ‘‘You need straight
A’s. A is not good enough.’’ Examples of be-
haviors included: ‘‘They gave everything to us
[the children], everything.’’ And examples of
making choices were: ‘‘Payments for school—
the teacher never came to me asking ‘why
didn’t you pay?’ Instead, we had the same
couch 20 years in the house.’’
Sometimes, explicit words and behavior could
be observed. At other times, statements were
implicit: ‘‘It’s being in the background. It is not
coming directly to me saying ‘listen, you must
study.’ It is not overt at all. It was completely
implied, even sophisticated.. It was always in
the background.’’
‘‘Axial coding’’ then took place, grouping dis-
crete codes according to conceptual categories
that reflected commonalities among codes. Ac-
cording to Strauss and Corbin (1994), this reflects
the idea of clustering open codes around specific
‘‘axes’’ or points of intersection. For example,
school supply and other categories showing the
prioritization of education were grouped to a cat-
egory of prioritizing education. Three main cat-
egories representing three components were
identified. Each main category included several
subcategories, and each subcategory included
several themes.
RESULTS
The informants consistently affirmed that what
enabled them to break the intergenerational cycle
and pave the way to social mobility lay in family
day-to-day life during their upbringing. It is
important to emphasize that while introducing
the study, the candidate’s family was mentioned
only as a ‘‘condition’’ for participation (i.e., that
his or her parents had not attained higher educa-
tion). We did not hypothesize that family was
the main facilitator of their breakthrough. How-
ever, all the informants, without exception, stated
that their family or one of their family members
was the explanation for their breakthrough. With
two exceptions, all informants mentioned their
family in their first words. Interestingly, none of
the informants mentioned school, teachers, or
any other element of the education system as
responsible, even in part, for their success. In-
formants who were driven to distant schools, or
were in prestigious boarding schools, mentioned
that learning in a ‘‘good school’’ was important.
But thinking about that school as an option,
choosing the school, paying for it, and driving
them there were all parents’ initiatives and
responsibility. Even though they saw the benefits
of learning in these high achieving schools, many
informants mentioned episodes concerning how
their schools, and especially their teachers, gave
them a hard time, both academically and emo-
tionally. For example, one respondent, trying to
hide his tears, said: ‘‘The teacher did not believe
I wrote my essay. Because she knew both of my
parents are illiterate, she was sure I was bluffing,
so she made me write a new one.’’ When asked
about their neighborhood, they sometimes men-
tioned isolation: ‘‘Me and my brother were not
allowed to go down stairs, to hang out with the
other children.’’ In other cases, they recalled
how innocent they were, not aware to the
drugs, alcohol, and early marriage in their neigh-
borhood. When asked about the extended family,
some students reported an extended family where
everybody in their generation had achieved high-
er education and some recalled being exceptional
in the extended family.
Which elements in family life facilitated aca-
demic achievements? What behaviors, habits,
day-to-day actions, and other elements formed
Family Capital 109

the path to higher education for these students?
Three different categories, each containing sev-
eral subcategories, were identified: (a) attitude
toward education, (b) interpersonal relationships,
and (c) family values. Each category expresses
a component of family life that the informants
believed had a significant part in paving the
way to higher education. The categories were
usually not mentioned by name during the inter-
views. For example, they did not use the term
‘‘sibling relationships’’ but told how their older
brother or sister had served as a role model or
how they served, and still do, as a role model
for their younger brothers or sisters. Each group
of statements referring to a specific topic had
a theme, for example, ‘‘do not become me’’ or
‘‘child in the center.’’ Each group of themes that
addressed similar issues contained a subcategory,
such as ‘‘parents’ objective in children’s educa-
tion’’ or ‘‘parent-child relationship.’’ A group of
statements relating to the same perspective on
family life were grouped in a main category, such
as ‘‘attitude toward education.’’ These three cate-
gories represent the components forming the sub-
ject of this study; that is, the strategies that
permitted breaking the intergenerational cycle.
The first question in the interview invited the
informant to try and explain how he or she suc-
ceeded in attaining higher education despite such
a low starting point. It should be emphasized that
this question was asked in a general manner and
did not lead the interviewee to address a specific
issue. All interviewees except two answered
immediately that their mother (‘‘Because my
mom told us that we must learn, we have to make
something out of ourselves’’), their father (‘‘It is
only thanks to my dad’’), their parents (‘‘The push
from my parents’’), or their family (‘‘Everything
starts and finishes at home’’) was responsible. In
fact, two informants also gave this answer but at
a later stage in the interview. These statements
were the first step in revealing the role of the fam-
ily in breaking the intergenerational cycle. The
following parts of the interview deepened and
expanded this perspective on the family as the
main cause for the changing circumstances
between the generations.
Components of Breakthrough Strategies
After revealing that the strategies of break-
through are mainly embedded in family day-to-
day life, three categories were identified. Each
category comprised subcategories, and each of
the subcategories contained different themes.
These themes can be mutually exclusive or not.
For example, three themes appeared in the sub-
category of parent’s objective in children’s edu-
cation: ‘‘making their dream come true,’’ ‘‘a
path out of poverty,’’ and ‘‘education for the
purpose of education.’’ The first two themes
excluded each other; the third theme sometimes
accompanied the first theme and sometimes
occurred by itself.
Attitude Toward Education (A)
Repetition of certain sayings to the children and
stated priorities in various aspects in life (such
as economic decisions) translated an attitude
toward education into day-to-day life. Specific
evidence included the fact that children were
driven to distant schools; received positive feed-
back when they succeeded in school; and despite
difficult financial conditions never lacked books,
notebooks, and even tutors (see also Table 1;
Appendix).
A.1: Parents’ objective in children’s education.
Education had diverse objectives, from the
parents’ point of view, as represented by the
students. Some of the parents perceived their
children’s education as a way to fulfill their
own missed opportunity and thought of it as
a way to make a dream come true: ‘‘My father
had lots of ambition, but he could not fulfill it,
because his mother did not let him.’’ Other parents
perceived their children’s education as a path out
of poverty: ‘‘Don’t become like us .don’t come
back here [to this city].’’ A small group of parents,
all of them religious to some extent, perceived
their children’s education as a value in itself.
Making a dream come true and a path out of pov-
erty appeared to be mutually exclusive—only one
of them appeared as a theme for each informant.
The third theme, education for the purpose of
education, appeared rarely, either by itself or in
addition to the making the dream come true theme.
A.2: Parents’ attitude toward their own educa-
tion. Two mutually exclusive themes occurred
in this subcategory. One was role model: ‘‘It is
true. My father completed only two years in
school. But you can’t call him ‘not educated.’
He is the most educated person, with much more
knowledge than I have, even though I will finish
my M.A. this year. He taught himself music,
math, everything by himself, with books and
110 Family Relations

encyclopedias.’’ The other theme was do not
become me: ‘‘See me, at my age, without a stable
job, without being able to support you [his son
and siblings] as I should.’’ Among the families
with the role model theme, one parent was more
dominant, whereas among the families with the
do not become me theme, sometimes neither
parent was dominant.
Parents who served as a role model for their
children acquired informal education and pur-
sued lifelong learning. They read books, newspa-
pers, and magazines. They took classes at the
neighborhood community center, and they were
interested in history, nature, geography, and so
forth. They had general knowledge, and they
could help their children with their homework,
at least until the high school years. These students
admired their parents’ love of learning: ‘‘My
father loved to study. He used to take courses in
the community center .and my mother loves
to read, she reads nonstop.’’ These families read
the newspaper on a daily basis and discussed cur-
rent issues at dinnertime.
However, many parents could not serve as
a role model for their children. They pointed
out time and again that they wanted a different
future for their children. They repeated the saying
‘‘Do not become me.’’ They continually talked
with their children about many aspects of their
own life as bad and frustrating: their low income,
their daily struggle, getting fired, and being
unemployed even though they wanted to work,
not being able to get ahead, and most of all feeling
frustrated at having missed their life opportunity.
Table 1. Attitude Toward Education
Subcategory Theme Testimonials
Parents’ objective in
children’s education
Making their dream
come true (n¼26)
‘‘My mom regretted her early marriage with my father and
quitting school.’’
A path out of poverty
(n¼19)
‘‘Don’t become like us .don’t come back here
[to this city].’’
Parents’ attitude toward
their own education
Role model (n¼21) ‘‘You can see the importance of education throughout his
[the father’s] library. He would not be interested in buy-
ing TV or watching movies. He sits here with his back to
the TV .He was interested in his books, and in many
other subjects. In many ways he wanted to know more
and to do other things with his life. Although he couldn’t,
he knew that this is the most important thing he could
give to his children.’’
Do not become me (n¼13) ‘‘Look at me, that old and not being able to provide my
family.’’
Daily expressions of
prioritizing education
Parental involvement
in education (n¼32)
‘‘They encouraged me to read books since I was 4 years
old.’’
Education as a first priority
(n¼35)
‘‘I had huge gaps when I started high school. My mom paid
a lot of money for tutoring, and believe me, I don’t know
where she got the money, we were so poor’’; ‘‘I was never
late with school payments and never felt bad—because
no teacher used to come to me asking for a payment that
was not paid on time’’; ‘‘For many things my parents told
me ‘we cannot afford it,’ but for school and books there
was always enough money.’’
‘‘I wasn’t pushed to get married young, as all of my friends
from the neighborhood were. I was pushed to achieve
higher education.’’
Treatment of children
who don’t study (n¼15)
‘‘My father punished my sister so many times for not
preparing her homework.’’
Family Capital 111

A.3. Daily expressions of prioritizing education
included three themes. First, parental involve-
ment in education, including parents who did
not complete elementary school but ‘‘My mom
knew about each and every test, each and every
grade.’’ The second theme was education as a first
priority, revealed in many stories of putting edu-
cation before any thing else. For example, one of
the informants who studied for her MA said: ‘‘I
was at 4th grade and it was raining like hell ..
I started to cry because I needed a book for my
school, and my mom asked me to wait a few days
for it .. She saw my tears, and she doesn’t have
a car, and even though it was raining heavily, she
simply went out and bought me that book.’’ The
third theme was treatment of children who do
not study. The parents did not neglect the children
who did not do well in school. The informants
described endless efforts and discussions, argu-
ments, quarrels, and sometimes even punish-
ment, usually with respect to one of their
brothers or sisters. The parents struggled both
with the children and with the system, endeavor-
ing that their children not drop out. The first two
themes explicitly indicate that education was one
of the most significant elements of family life,
whereas the third theme was much more implicit
but demonstrates the importance of education for
the parents: ‘‘When they did not let my brother to
go to a regular class in high school [so he will take
the matriculation exams] my mother came to
school and did not give up until they put him in
a regular class.’’
Expressions indicating that education had been
the first priority occurred both implicitly and
explicitly and via different aspects of life, such
as financial priorities, which appeared in many
of the stories. Parents bought books and
encyclopedias even if they were illiterate and
sometimes even a computer, which was very
expensive. Some of the expressions were more
relevant to the female informants. Many ack-
nowledged the issues of housekeeping and mar-
riage. They reported that they were not asked to
help with any household activity, not even
‘‘to wash a cup,’’ and that they were not expected
to get married early as most of their friends and
neighbors were. All that was expected was that
they do well in school. In some cases, the priority
of education made parents refuse to allow com-
peting activities, such as working during the
afternoons or engaging in sports. Parents were
proud of their children’s achievements, mention-
ing them to many people. Students indicated that
even today, when they are adults at the university,
their parents kept expressing pride and happiness
about their educational achievements.
Interpersonal Relationships (B)
This category, which includes issues of relation-
ships among family members, stressed the con-
cept of sacrifice: parents gave up a lot, in many
facets of life, for the benefit of their children.
From the parents’ point of view, the children were
the center of attention, and their well-being took
precedence over all else. The parents expressed
firm belief in their children’s abilities, at times
opposing the school system. The first child to
go out and study (usually the eldest, but not
always) served as a role model for the younger
siblings and helped the parents inculcate the
importance of education. The children sought
academic achievement out of respect and appreci-
ation for their parents and did not want to fail the
parents. Interestingly enough is the appearance of
sacrifice from the perspective both of interper-
sonal relationships and of attitude toward educa-
tion, where parents sacrifice the present for the
sake of the future (see also Table 2; Appendix).
B.1: Parent-child relationships. Aspects of the
parent-child relationships appeared in the data,
including expressions of unconditional love, sac-
rifice, aspirations for the children, and belief in
the children’s ability. Love was ‘‘.a frame that
can be put on anything .it is a pattern .and it
is my parents’ triumph.’’ Two complementary
themes describedthe attitude of the parents toward
their children: child in the center and belief in
child’s abilities. Parental behavior, especially with
respect to emotional aspects regarding their chil-
dren, indicated how much the parents loved, cared
about, and often sacrificed their own life for the
sake of their children: ‘‘Both my parents worked
two jobs .they did not sleep at night .they bor-
rowed money .and all of that for paying our
schools and investing in us.’’ The informants
experienced such dedicated love and sacrifice that
they were not sure if they could love their own
children the same way: ‘‘I know every parent loves
his children, every parent is willing to invest in
them, but the question is how much? And to what
extent is it on your account? I look at myself; I
don’t think I will be able to do as much for them.’’
Parental belief in the child’s abilities was ex-
pressed time and time again, and its effect appeared
in almost every student’s story: ‘‘It was not an
112 Family Relations

expectation, it was a prophecy.’’ The parents did not
doubt their children’s abilities and made them think
that nothing was impossible. Even if the grades that
the students achieved were not good, parents
blamed either the teachers or the system but not
the children: ‘‘When I got a bad grade my mom told
me that it’s because this teacher cannot teach.’’ This
strong belief was essential also because of the teach-
ers: ‘‘My teachers in elementary school did not
believeinme.Butmyparentsdid.they always
defended me, helped me and believed in me.’’
Two themes were identified in the children’s
attitude toward their parents: the desire to please
their parents and the respect the children had for
their parents. The latter will be discussed as
a theme in the family values category. The need
to please parents was expressed through recogni-
tion of their parents’ investment. The students felt
a duty to fulfill their expectations, and their moti-
vations were out of love and respect: ‘‘If my mom
did so much for me, then I will change the world
for her.’’
B.2: Sibling relationships. Making sure that the
first child in the family would be a ‘‘good stu-
dent’’ during K – 12 and achieve high grades
was not always easy. However, this first child
(mostly the eldest, but not always) was presented
as a role model for the other siblings: ‘‘As the
eldest, I am a part of the educational process at
home.’’ The students took their siblings’ educa-
tion issues into their own hands and helped their
parents. Even as postsecondary students, they
continued to serve as a role model for their sib-
lings. In many cases, the first child’s success
served as a motivation: ‘‘Until today I support
my younger brothers and sisters, I ensure that
they study and succeed.’’
Family Values (C)
The third category in the breakthrough strategy
concerns the family values with which the chil-
dren were raised. Unlike the other two categories,
values were usually addressed explicitly by the
interviewer, asking them to retrospectively des-
cribe the main values with which they were
raised. Some of the values included indepen-
dence, honesty, responsibility, giving, caring,
and having a choice. However, three values ap-
peared repeatedly in the interviews: family soli-
darity, respect for parents, and achievement and
ambition (see also Table 3; Appendix).
Family solidarity was the main value, and par-
ents supported this value. Family solidarity
touches on the theme of child in the center,
Table 2. Interpersonal Relationships
Subcategory Theme Testimonials
Parent-child
relationships
Child in the center
(n¼29)
‘‘We [the children] have received all the attention in the world from
both of them [mom and dad]. We felt that we are their world, and
all that they had is us.’’
‘‘I grew up being loved and cared for. A lot of emotional
investment.’’
‘‘All I can say is that my mom madly loved us.’’
Belief in child’s
abilities (n¼34)
‘‘You will become the most beautiful butterfly, and you will spread
your wings, and we will stand down here when you will fly
to applause.’’
‘‘[Mom told us] ‘when you will be a doctor’ .‘when you will be
an engineer’.’’
‘‘My mom always told me that she knows without a doubt that
I will make it.’’
Need to please
parents (n¼29)
‘‘I was the eldest; I did not want to disappoint them [the parents].’’
‘‘I am obligated to my parents, because they did so much for me.’’
Sibling relationships
(n¼23)
‘‘My father was telling my younger brother, ‘Look at your older
brother, you will become like him in 10 years’.’’
‘‘I did not leave any choice for my brother; he had to follow
my steps’’; ‘‘My eldest sister broke the path for all of us.’’
Family Capital 113

according to which the children receive attention,
love, and care: ‘‘We are very connected [family
members], we help each other. For example, my
brother wanted to travel before starting as an
undergraduate, and he did not have the money,
so I gave it to him.’’ Expressions of this value also
included dinners and meetings on a regular basis.
Furthermore, family solidarity enabled the mem-
bers of the family to take a chance without being
afraid of failure.
The second value was respect for parents.
Sometimes, this was directed at older siblings
as well. Along with the warmth and sacrifice of
parents, there is a significant sense of parental
respect even though the children top the family’s
priorities. This respect was also presented
through the need to please parents theme. Stu-
dents mentioned how much they respected their
parents for ‘‘the ability to make so much when
having so little’’; ‘‘her [mom’s] ability to maneu-
ver with life .this woman [his mom] is like
a rock .the whole world is on her shoulders.’’
The third value covered a group of values rep-
resenting achievement and ambition; however,
with all the efforts, the person himself is respon-
sible for success: ‘‘If you will succeed, it will be
thanks to your efforts, and if you will fail, you
are responsible also.’’ The informants empha-
sized that they took an example from their par-
ents: ‘‘To go to work [his mom], and come
back, to clean, to shop .when you witness these
things .you see how strong she is, and you can
lean on her .that is why despair and giving up
are simply not in my lexicon’’; ‘‘She [his mom]
did not have to say anything explicitly. It was ex-
pressed in actions .everyday to wake up at 5:00
am, to go to work, for 25 years, she raises 5 chil-
dren, she falls and stands up and falls again and
stands up again, and she never gave up, being
consistent and responsible .I learned many
things from her.’’
DISCUSSION
Previous analyses had often portrayed first-
generation students as succeeding despite their
family background. In contrast, the analysis re-
ported here suggests that although they face
many material challenges, the families of first-
generation students are often a key resource
rather than a constraint. Findings presented here
accord with many studies of K – 12 that have
investigated the effect of parental practices and
family dynamics and demonstrate the important
role a family plays, even among disadvantaged
families, with respect to academic achievements
of children (e.g., Lareau, 2003). Lareau, who
introduced new insights about the daily life of
middle-class, working-class, and poor families,
argues that the daily life aspects of parents and
children, such as the use of language and the
use of time, are strongly associated with their
social class. In point of fact, these routines serve
as a strategy through which parents direct their
offspring toward desired outcomes such as high
educational achievements. Lareau emphasizes
that these strategies are significantly related to
social class rather than to other factors, such as
race. Unlike in Lareau’s work, the family resil-
ience research demonstrates the diversity within
disadvantaged groups (Furstenberg et al., 1999;
Orthner et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2005). This
study further investigates Lareau’s insights;
however, it emphasizes the variation among
families in which parents did not attain a college
degree.
Table 3. Family Values
Subcategory Testimonials
Family solidarity
(n¼36)
‘‘The family should take care of the family’’; ‘‘All of us [siblings] are attached to home.’’
‘‘My mom always said, all we have is one another, and that’s it.’’
‘‘I feel there is a possibility to talk, to be together, to feel you have a family, to feel you are not
detached and that there is always someone to take care of you .the feeling that there is always
someone behind you encourages me to go out and try new things.’’
Respect for parents
(n¼13)
‘‘We never quarrel with our parents.’’
Achievement and
ambition (n¼25)
‘‘To succeed’’; ‘‘It is important to succeed in everything that you choose to do, not only in
school.’’ ‘‘Achievement is an absolute value’’; ‘‘It is high inner criticism .it is already
concealed in you that you have to prove yourself just a little bit more than others.’’
114 Family Relations

This analysis has investigated both the nature
and the components of the underlying strategy
that permits breaking this cycle. The present re-
sults indicate that this strategy is contained
within various aspects of family life, especially
with respect to enormous parental investment
during the formative years for the sake of a bet-
ter future for their children. Another study
(McCarron & Inkelas, 2006) found a positive
relationship between parental involvement and
educational aspirations of first-generation stu-
dents. Its suggested implications for practice
concluded: ‘‘The constructive inclusion of par-
ents in the educational process may serve to
not only boost students’ aspirations but also to
diminish the negative effect of college culture
shock’’ (p. 546).
The results also suggest the importance of the
concept of family capital. The meaning of capi-
tal emphasizes the investment that is made for
the benefit of future outcomes (Lin, 2001). Pa-
rents who invest in their children usually expect
that future benefits will follow their investment
(Becker & Tomes, 1986). Building on both the
meaning of capital as an investment and the
social context of this research, family capital
was chosen as the conceptual framework. How-
ever, family capital is here presented in a per-
spective different from its customary use in the
literature. Typically, the term family capital ap-
pears as family social capital and is perceived as
a subset of the term social capital (e.g., Crosnoe,
2004; Parcel & Dufur, 2001). Sometimes, it ex-
presses the social capital found within the family
unit and, in other cases, the social capital that
a family unit ‘‘owns.’’ In other words, family
capital may express the social links among fam-
ily members and sometimes the social relation-
ships of a family. Family capital emphasizes the
contextual setting of the family in which aspects
of social capital, human capital, and cultural cap-
ital intersect. The current study offers the follow-
ing definition of family capital: ‘‘The ensemble
of means, strategies, and resources embodied in
the family’s way of life that influences the future
of their children. Family capital is implicitly and
explicitly reflected through behavior, emotional
processes, and core values.’’ The concept of fam-
ily capital captures the various ways in which the
family affects the future of its children, especially
with respect to the investment process. Accord-
ingly, family capital does not highlight only
interpersonal relationships, as does social capital,
or values, as does cultural capital. As an alterna-
tive, family capital attempts to capture all aspects
of investment made by the family for the benefit
of the children’s future. One of the central as-
pects of this investment can be addressed using
Swidler’s (1986) cultural toolkit. Employing the
concept of cultural toolkit in the familial context
captures what is important to the family; specifi-
cally, the findings presented in this article indi-
cate that families of first-generation students
view education as their ideology and know what
activities should be taken in order to peruse this
ideology. Unlike the term social capital, which
focuses on interpersonal relationships and does
not explicitly refer to the family—the term fam-
ily capital both acknowledges the unique and
vast influence a family exerts on its children and
reflects additional channels through which the
family influences its children, such as priorities,
habits, and values.
The different categories that compose family
capital here, with their subcategories and themes,
accord with findings of other research. The
importance of attitude toward education, for
example, supports the findings of Banfield’s
(1947, 1958) studies with respect to poverty
and time perspective, which introduced a new
dimension to the definition of poverty. Poverty
and low socioeconomic status are usually per-
ceived and measured by means of economic con-
cepts. However, poverty can also be perceived
along a psychological dimension.
Parents’ attitude toward education is strongly
attached to their interest inthe children’s education.
They wanttheir children to have a better future, and
they are aware of the fact that education, which is
a long-term investment, is the key to that future.
This accords with the concepts of life story and life
scenario. Life story involves the past; however, life
scenario involves the future (Whitbourne, 1985).
One of the dominant motives of the parents’ life
scenario is the higher education of their children
and their success. Future vision and future expecta-
tions are the main motives in the students’ stories
regarding their parents.
One of the prominent expressions of the impor-
tance of education was the parental effort to send
the children to a better school than one in the
neighborhood. Those parents understand the
importance of ‘‘good schools,’’ with respect to
both teachers and peer groups. By exposing their
offspring to a better educational environment,
parents provided their children with a ‘‘bridging’’
social capital that would help them to get
ahead and moved them away from their poor
Family Capital 115

neighborhood’s ‘‘bonding’’ social capital that on-
ly enables them to ‘‘get by.’’
Patterns of first-generation students are consis-
tent with the well-studied behavior of parental
involvement and its linkage to children’s aca-
demic achievement. Parental involvement sug-
gests an approach of joint responsibility and
calls for cooperation between parents and school
with respect to children’s academic achievement
(Epstein, 1992). This concept is widespread in
research regarding the family’s influence on the
academic achievements of children, relating to
a wide range of operative aspects of each one of
the two variables, parental involvement and aca-
demic achievement. It is generally agreed that
parental involvement has a positive effect on
children’s academic achievements (e.g., Concha,
1991; Fan & Chen, 2001; Haveman & Wolfe,
1994). However, intervention programs to
increase family involvement in homework have
been shown not to increase academic achieve-
ments (e.g., Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998).
Parents’ aspirations and expectations for their
children appear to be the most significant factor
in children’s success in the K – 12 years (e.g.,
Sewell & Hauser, 1980), particularly within
minorities and disadvantaged groups (e.g.,
Buchmann & Dalton, 2002). The effect of parental
aspiration has recently been shown to be linked to
the aspiration of postsecondary education students
as well (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).
A value can be defined as a fundamental atti-
tude toward a wide range of behaviors (e.g., cour-
age) or toward end states of existence (e.g.,
equality, freedom; Rokeach, 1968). Family soli-
darity, respect, and ambition are the three main
values according to which these students were
raised. Family solidarity and respect relate to
the inner life of the family, whereas ambition
and aspiration relate to the world outside. Simul-
taneously, parents put their children first among
the family’s priorities and expect them to succeed
in their studies. The parents in this study deeply
believed in their children’s abilities and intensely
expressed their belief. This observation is crucial
because aspiration, ambition, and high motiva-
tions are known to have an important effect on
one’s educational achievements (Lipset &
Bendix, 1962). Moreover, personal beliefs are
‘‘more fundamental than the actual skills and cir-
cumstances they represent in the sense that they
can motivate people to create opportunities and
acquire capabilities they do not yet possess’’
(Ford, 1992, p. 124).
Focusing on a specific ethnic group limits the
generalizability of this research. In addition, the
qualitative design, which included only 50 partic-
ipants and was conducted in Israel, also limits the
generalizability. In order to generalize the find-
ings of this study, which took place in Israel,
we examined whether family capital predicts
the breakthrough of first-generation students
who graduated in 1992 in the United States. We
created a set of variables that measure family cap-
ital, building on the findings of the current study,
and employed logistic regressions to examine
the relationships between the intergenerational
breakthrough to family capital. Primary findings
demonstrate that family capital is significantly
related to intergenerational breakthrough among
first-generation students in additional cultures
and ethnic groups, such as African Americans
and Hispanics (Gofen, 2008).
IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION POLICY
Most education policies, which had been imple-
mented to narrow inequality, essentially target
individuals—students, teachers, and par-
ents—disregarding the family as a unit. The find-
ings of this study suggest that this approach may
be misdirected. Even educational reforms that
call for parental involvement and joint responsi-
bility between parents and schools usually inter-
pret parental involvement in a narrow mode.
First, parental involvement is usually placed in
school, whereas the home setting is ignored. By
contrast, the findings of this study suggest that
the home setting holds a significant influence on
student performance. Second, parental involve-
ment, as implemented in educational policy, usu-
ally includes sporadic instances of involvement
rather than ongoing efforts. This study empha-
sizes the importance of ongoing daily efforts to
promote students’ academic success. Third,
because the family perspective is usually ignored,
the significant interrelationships between sib-
lings are ignored as well. Findings presented here
demonstrate the significant role of older siblings.
And fourth, existing educational policies mostly
view the family as a passive reactor to initiatives
made by schools and governments, whereas this
study highlights the active perspective of the fam-
ily as taking action and taking its future into its
own hands.
A common misconception about parent
involvement is that parents from different social
strata have different hopes and expectations for
116 Family Relations

their offspring. In fact, parents of all social back-
grounds typically expect their children to attend
college. What varies by social origins is family
capacity to translate those expectations into
results. This study implies that intervention pro-
grams that guide the parents and employ a family
perspective can influence this family capacity.
Because some parents from disadvantaged back-
ground manage to translate their expectations
into results, we can assume that other parents
would benefit from guidance about how to
change their day-to-day life to support their child-
ren’s academic success. Specifically, it means
that those parents whose children attained a col-
lege education, even though they did not, are
a source of knowledge about how to place
children on a path toward a higher education by
investing resources embedded in daily interac-
tions. Thus, families who broke through can men-
tor other families with school-aged children and
guide them about how to invest their nonmaterial
resources such as discussions of future plans,
explicitly expressing expectations, decision mak-
ing that prioritizes schooling, and building moti-
vations. Schools or districts can initiate and
manage these matches of mentor and mentee
families and may offer a professional mentor to
supervise the process and direct the mentoring
families. This type of guidance leverages the
knowledge existing in families who succeeded
to break through and are willing to share this
knowledge. In addition, it enables an eye-level
guidance because both families have similar
backgrounds. This guidance can be offered as
a complement to existing programs that target
the children or as a stand alone. This mentoring
also supports the shift of efforts from involving
parents in the school setting to efforts that act
on the family unit in its home setting, which is
crucial for the academic success of the offspring.
NOTE
The author wishes to thank David Dery and Maria Cancian for
their helpful comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Baker, T., & Velez, W. (1996). Access to and opportu-
nity in postsecondary education in the United States.
Sociology of Education, Extra Issue, 82 – 101.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998).
Family involvement with children’s homework:
An intervention in the middle grades. Family Rela-
tions,47, 149 – 157.
Banfield, E. C. (1947). Curriculum development in
response to community needs: Some approaches
and considerations. Education for the Disadvan-
taged Child,2(4), 7 – 11.
Banfield, E. C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward
society. New York: Free Press.
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital
and the rise and fall of families. Journal of Labor
Economics,4(3), S1 – S39.
Berkner, L., Horn, L., & Clune, M. (2000). Descrip-
tive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary
students: Three years later, with an essay on stu-
dents who start at less-than-4-year institutions.
Education Statistics Quarterly,2, 79 – 84.
Buchmann, C., & Dalton, D. (2002). Interpersonal in-
fluences and education aspirations in 12 countries:
The importance of institutional context. Sociology
of Education,75, 99 – 122.
Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college stu-
dents at a four-year university: Background charac-
teristics, reasons for pursuing higher education,
and first-year experience. College Student Journal,
36, 3 – 11.
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go
to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and
attainment. Findings from the condition of education
(Report No. NCES–2001-126). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED460660).
Cohen, E., & Geske, T. (1990). The economics of
education. New York: Pergamon.
Cohen, Y., & Haberfeld, Y. (1998). Second genera-
tion Jewish immigrants in Israel: Have the ethnic
gaps in schooling and earnings declined? Ethnic
and Racial Studies,21, 107 – 136.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Concha, D. G. (1991). Involving parents in the
schools: A process of empowerment. American
Journal of Education,100, 20 – 46.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in
Midwestern families: Selected findings from the
first decade of a prospective longitudinal study.
Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 361 – 373.
Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay
of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and
Family,66, 267 – 280.
Crosnoe, R., Mistry, R. S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2002).
Economic disadvantage, family dynamics, and
adolescent enrollment in higher education. Journal
of Marriage and Family,64, 690 – 702.
Dahan, M., Dvir, E., Mironichev, N., & Shye, S.
(2003). Have the gaps in education narrowed?
Israeli Economic Review,1(2), 37 – 69.
Family Capital 117

Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships. In
M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
research (pp. 1139 – 1151). New York: Macmillan.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and
students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review,13,1–22.
Ford, D. (1992). The American achievement ideol-
ogy as perceived by urban African-American
students: Explorations by gender and academic
program. Urban Education,27, 196 – 211.
Furstenberg, F. F. (2005). Banking on families: How
families generate and distribute social capital.
Journal of Marriage and Family,67, 809 – 821.
Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, P. D., Eccles, J., Elder,
G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make
it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., & Hughes, M. (1995). Social
capital and successful development among at-risk
youth. Journal of Marriage and Family,57,
580 – 592.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York: Aldine.
Gofen, A. (2008). The breakthrough of first-generation
higher-education students. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Gullat, Y., & Jan, W. (2003). How do pre-collegiate
academic outreach programs impact college-going
among underrepresented students? A white paper
for the Pathways to College Network. Boston:
Pathways to College Network.
Hauser, R. M. (1998). Intergenerational economic
mobility in the United States: Measures, differen-
tials and trends (CDE Working Paper No. 98–12).
Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison, Cen-
ter for Demography and Ecology.
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1984). Schooling and
economic well-being: The role of non-market ef-
fects. Journal of Human Resources,19, 377 – 407.
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding gener-
ations: On the effects of investments in children.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1995). The determinants
of children’s attainments: A review of methods
and findings. Journal of Economic Literature,33,
1829 – 1878.
Holzmann, R., & Jorgensen, S. (1999). Social protec-
tion and social risk management: Conceptual
underpinnings for the social protection sector
strategy paper (Social Protection Discussion Paper
Series 9904). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A. M. (2000). Mapping the road to
college: First-generation students’ math track, plan-
ning strategies, and context of support. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Horn, L. J. (1998). Stopouts or stayouts? Under-
graduates who leave college in their first year.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going
to college: How social, economic, and educational
factors influence the decisions students make.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. D. (1999). The impor-
tance of being first: Unique characteristics of first-
generation community college students. Commu-
nity College Review,26(4), 3 – 22.
Kojaku, L. K., & Nunez, A. M. (1998). Descriptive
summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary
students, with profiles of students entering 2- and
4-year institutions. National postsecondary student
aid study: 1995-96 (NCES 1999-030). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race,
and family life. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and
qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage
and Family,67, 837 – 857.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social
structure and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Lipset, S. M., & Bendix, R. (1962). Social mobility
in industrial society. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of
first-generation college students and their families.
American Journal of Education,97, 144 – 170.
McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap
between educational aspirations and attainment for
first-generation college students and the role of
parental involvement. Journal of College Student
Development,47, 534 – 549.
McConnell, P. (2000). What community college
should do to assist first generation students. Com-
munity College Review,28, 75 – 78.
Narayan, O. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capi-
tal and poverty (Policy Research Working Paper
No. 2167). Washington, DC: World Bank.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998).
Distance education in higher education institutions:
Incidence, audiences, and plans to expand.
Retrieved January 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs98/98132.html.
Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-
generation students: Undergraduates whose
parents never enrolled in postsecondary educa-
tion (NCES 98–082). Washington, DC: U.S.
118 Family Relations

Department of Education, National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics.
Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., & Williamson, S.
(2004). The resilience and strengths of low-income
families. Family Relations,53, 159 – 168.
Otiker, T. (2008). Intergenerational mobility in high-
er education in Israel. Unpublished manuscript.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home
and at school: Effects on child social adjustment.
Journal of Marriage and Family,63, 32 – 47.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying
college students in the 21st century: Meeting
new challenges. Review of Higher Education,21,
151 – 165.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and appli-
cations in modern sociology. Annual Review of
Sociology,24, 1 – 24.
Putnam, R. (1995), Tuning in, tuning out: The
strange disappearance of social capital in America.
Political Science and Politics,28, 664 – 683.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Richardson, R. C., Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Help-
ing first-generation minority students achieve de-
grees. In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.),
First-generation students: Confronting the cultural
issues. New directions for community colleges
(No. 80, pp. 29 – 43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, attitudes and values.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seccombe, K. (2002). ‘Beating the odds’ versus ‘chang-
ing the odds’: Poverty, resilience, and family policy.
Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 384 – 395.
Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. M. (1980). The Wisconsin
Longitudinal Study of social and psychological
factors in aspirations and achievements. Research
in Sociology of Education,1, 59 – 99.
Simon, J. B., Murphy, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2005).
Understanding and fostering family resilience.
Family Journal,13, 427 – 436.
Solon, G. (2002). Cross-country differences in inter-
generational earnings mobility. Journal of Eco-
nomic Perspectives,16(3), 59 – 67.
Stage, F., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family
influences on college attendance plans for male
and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Edu-
cation,30, 301 – 315.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and techni-
ques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory
methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 273 – 285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strat-
egies. American Sociological Review,51,273–286.
Szreter, S. (2000, November). Exploring social capi-
tal. Paper presented at the Social Capital Confer-
ence, St. John’s College, Cambridge, MA.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella,
E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college
students: Characteristics, experiences, and cogni-
tive development. Research in Higher Education,
37, 1 – 22.
Thayer, P. (2000, May). Retaining first generation
and low income students. Opportunity Outlook,
2 – 8. (ERIC No. ED446633)
Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework:
Innovative practice applications. Family Relations,
51, 130 – 139.
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001).
Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and post-
secondary success of first-generation students
(NCES Statistical Analysis Report 2001-153).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Whitbourne, S. K. (1985). The psychological con-
struction of the life span. In J. E. Birren & K. W.
Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of
aging (2nd ed., pp. 594 – 618). New York: Van-
Nostrand Reinhold.
York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). As-
sessing the college knowledge of first-generation
and second-generation college students. Journal of
College Student Development,32, 116 – 122.
APPENDIX:EXAMPLE NARRATIVES OF
FAMILY CAPITAL
Do Not Become Me
‘‘The turning point was on 6th grade. My teacher
invited my father to the school, and he entered in
the middle of the lesson. And my teacher asked
me to bring my notebook, and I brought it and just
like that I opened it next to my father and she
looked and she said: ‘look, your child barely
knows how to write .I don’t believe that he
can go to 7th grade’. And I stared at the floor,
because my father was very dominant, and it
was important to me what he thinks, and I tried
not to let him down, and my reaction after that
specific case, which has a founding experience,
in the education aspect for me, I simply did not
go to school. I did not arrive to the school some-
thing like a week. I would go out every morning
from the house, sits like that, wondering around
Family Capital 119

in the neighborhood, or hang out near the school.
And one day, when I am sitting like that my father
arrived. He sees me sits on the grass. And he did
not yell, he did not raise his voice, he did not re-
proached, he did not haul over the coals. Just
talked to me on a personal level, i.e., he explained
to me in what situation he is in and he just said: ‘I
don’t want you to be in this place’. He is a man
with 5 children, and he doesn’t succeed to provide
them, and he has no education. He is not educated,
and he goes to all kind of working places and he
tries to find some kind of frame, that he will be
able to provide his children, so doors are being
closed in his face. Not because he is not talented,
or because he hasn’t got potential, simply because
what they do is looking back on what you did until
now, and according to that they decide what you
can do from now on. .So after that he talked to
me and he told me: ‘OK, what you will do from
now on is to take a book and start writing, to
improve your hand writing’. And that is what I
did. Eventually at 7th grade I turned from a failing
child, from the lowest level to the highest.’’
Parental Involvement
‘‘I remember that my mom [who did not grad-
uate high school] was sitting with us with
books when we were young, and examining
what do we understand, and what do we know.
What was the color of the shoe tie of the boy
that holds the balloons and how many balloons
does he hold, and all these kind of things. And
my father, he was sitting with me when I was in
kindergarten, figuring with me math problems
.in their own patient to sit with the child,
to listen to him, to raise him. My mom would
play with me imagination games, I was 3, 4
andIwouldcomewithmydoll,reflectingon
everything I was going through .and she
wouldtellmewhatwasgoingonwithher,
who is me, and I would give her advice what
should she do.’’
Parent Sacrifice for Their Children
‘‘Look, I know that every parent love his/her
children, every parent is willing to invest in
them, the question is how much and how much
it is on your account. And I think that with
respect to that my parents contributed a lot, more
than what I think many people can. I look at my
self, I don’t have children today, but beat me,
I’m not sure if I am capable to do these kind of
things. I don’t know if I am able to wake up
every morning at 5 am.’’
120 Family Relations