Family Life Education: Translational Family Science in Action

Abstract

Translational family science lies at the intersection of family research and the practice of family life education (FLE). Discussion of the foundational principles of FLE (education, prevention, strengths‐based, and research and theory‐based) and its key components (culture, context, content, and practice) provide a framework for considering the reciprocal relationship between family science and family life education in the context of translational family science. Further discussion is provided regarding possible barriers to progress and the need to better integrate discovery science and practice science.

The Practice of Family Life Education Within Early Head Start Home Visiting

“…Given evidence suggesting that relationship-based practices are the core of successful home visiting in EHS (Brookes, Summers, Thornburg, Ispa, & Lane, 2006;Korfmacher et al, 2007;Roggman, Boyce, Cook, & Jump, 2001), there may be natural harmony between FLE and EHS-HBO approaches. Family life educators operate from a strengths-based perspective, meaning professionals work with families to minimize risk by cultivating strengths and supports that exist within the family (Darling, Cassidy, & Rehm, 2017;Duncan & Goddard, 2011; National Council on Family Relations [NCFR], 2016), a perspective that may reinforce and strengthen the goals of EHS-HBO as stated in the performance standards. Home visitors are often viewed as the experts, tasked with fixing the family.…”

Competency Alignment and Certification for Preservice Home Visitors

“…To gain CFLE status, applicants need to demonstrate competence and work experience in 10 FLE content areas: Families and Individuals in Societal Contexts, Internal Dynamics of Families, Human Growth and Development, Human Sexuality, Interpersonal Relationships, Family Resource Management, Parent Education and Guidance, Family Law and Public Policy, Professional Ethics and Practice, and Family Life Education Methodology (NCFR, ). FLE is currently applied in a variety of family support settings, taking a strengths‐based approach to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts (Darling et al, ). The goal of FLE is to collaborate with families in ways that build on existing strengths within the family system (Darling & Cassidy, ; Darling et al, ).…”

“…In 1992, ethics became a top priority of NCFR members, and approximately 6 years later, after an iterative process, NCFR released ethical principles (Adams, Gilbert, Dollahite, & Keim, 2015). In 2009, the NCFR unveiled a code of ethics for CFLEs (Darling et al, 2017) that exists in addition to the FLE content area of professional ethics and practice. The code of ethics includes 34 principles and must be read and signed as part of the CFLE approval and renewal process (NCFR, 2018a).…”

“…Table 2 is an example of alignment for the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of "Partnering With and Supporting Families" competency (Competency F) with FLE content areas. As illustrated in the tables, FLE content areas that align with this competency include human sexuality, parenting education and guidance, family Principles of FLE (Arcus & Thomas, 1993;Darling, Cassidy, & Rehm, 2017) Virtues of FLE (Palm, 2018) Relational Ethics (MNCFR, 2016;NCFR, 2018b) FLE Content Areas (Walcheski & Reinke, 2015) Note. FLE, Family Life Education; MNCFR = Minnesota Council on Family Relations; NCFR = National Council on Family Relations.…”

“…These principles formed the foundation for the Framework for Lifespan Family Life Education (Bredehoft, ). In the 21st century, these principles of FLE have been firmly sorted into foundational principles (education, prevention, strengths‐based approach, a foundation in research and theory) and operational principles (culture, context, content, practice) (Darling, Cassidy, & Rehm, , ). These principles are important to the FLE field and CFLE endorsement and would support the training and work of current and future home visitors.…”