21世纪的两代项目。

4区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
{"title":"21世纪的两代项目。","authors":"Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn","doi":"10.1353/foc.2014.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most of the authors in this issue of Future of Children focus on a single strategy for helping both adults and children that could become a component of two-generation programs. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, on the other hand, look at actual programs with an explicit two-generation focus that have been tried in the past or are currently under way. These explicitly two-generation programs have sought to build human capital across generations by combining education or job training for adults with early childhood education for their children. Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn explain the theories behind these programs and review the evidence for their efficacy. A first wave of such programs in the 1980s and 1990s produced mostly disappointing results, but the evaluations they left behind pointed to promising new directions. More recently, a second wave of two-generation programs—the authors dub them “Two-Generation 2.0”—has sought to rectify the flaws of earlier efforts, largely by building strong connections between components for children and adults, by ensuring that children and adults receive services of equal duration and intensity, and by incorporating advances in both education and workforce development. These Two-Generation 2.0 programs are still in their infancy, and we have yet to see clear evidence that they can achieve their goals or be implemented cost-effectively at scale. Nonetheless, Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn write, the theoretical justification for these programs is strong, their early results are promising, and the time is ripe for innovation, experimentation, and further study.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"24 1","pages":"13-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/foc.2014.0003","citationCount":"131","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two-generation programs in the twenty-first century.\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/foc.2014.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most of the authors in this issue of Future of Children focus on a single strategy for helping both adults and children that could become a component of two-generation programs. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, on the other hand, look at actual programs with an explicit two-generation focus that have been tried in the past or are currently under way. These explicitly two-generation programs have sought to build human capital across generations by combining education or job training for adults with early childhood education for their children. Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn explain the theories behind these programs and review the evidence for their efficacy. A first wave of such programs in the 1980s and 1990s produced mostly disappointing results, but the evaluations they left behind pointed to promising new directions. More recently, a second wave of two-generation programs—the authors dub them “Two-Generation 2.0”—has sought to rectify the flaws of earlier efforts, largely by building strong connections between components for children and adults, by ensuring that children and adults receive services of equal duration and intensity, and by incorporating advances in both education and workforce development. These Two-Generation 2.0 programs are still in their infancy, and we have yet to see clear evidence that they can achieve their goals or be implemented cost-effectively at scale. Nonetheless, Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn write, the theoretical justification for these programs is strong, their early results are promising, and the time is ripe for innovation, experimentation, and further study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future of Children\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"13-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/foc.2014.0003\",\"citationCount\":\"131\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future of Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2014.0003\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Children","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2014.0003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 131

摘要

本期《儿童的未来》的大多数作者都集中在帮助成人和儿童的单一策略上,这可能成为两代人计划的组成部分。另一方面,Lindsay Chase-Lansdale和Jeanne Brooks-Gunn则以明确的两代人视角来看待实际的项目,这些项目在过去已经尝试过,或者目前正在进行中。这些明确的两代人项目试图通过将成人教育或职业培训与儿童早期教育相结合,建立跨代人力资本。Chase-Lansdale和Brooks-Gunn解释了这些项目背后的理论,并回顾了其有效性的证据。在20世纪80年代和90年代,第一波这样的项目产生了令人失望的结果,但他们留下的评估指出了有希望的新方向。最近,第二波两代计划——作者称之为“两代2.0”——试图纠正早期努力的缺陷,主要是通过在儿童和成人的组成部分之间建立牢固的联系,确保儿童和成人接受同等时间和强度的服务,并结合教育和劳动力发展方面的进步。这两代2.0项目仍处于起步阶段,我们还没有看到明确的证据表明它们能够实现目标,或者在规模上实现成本效益。尽管如此,Chase-Lansdale和Brooks-Gunn写道,这些项目的理论依据是强有力的,他们的早期结果是有希望的,创新、实验和进一步研究的时机已经成熟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two-generation programs in the twenty-first century.
Most of the authors in this issue of Future of Children focus on a single strategy for helping both adults and children that could become a component of two-generation programs. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, on the other hand, look at actual programs with an explicit two-generation focus that have been tried in the past or are currently under way. These explicitly two-generation programs have sought to build human capital across generations by combining education or job training for adults with early childhood education for their children. Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn explain the theories behind these programs and review the evidence for their efficacy. A first wave of such programs in the 1980s and 1990s produced mostly disappointing results, but the evaluations they left behind pointed to promising new directions. More recently, a second wave of two-generation programs—the authors dub them “Two-Generation 2.0”—has sought to rectify the flaws of earlier efforts, largely by building strong connections between components for children and adults, by ensuring that children and adults receive services of equal duration and intensity, and by incorporating advances in both education and workforce development. These Two-Generation 2.0 programs are still in their infancy, and we have yet to see clear evidence that they can achieve their goals or be implemented cost-effectively at scale. Nonetheless, Chase-Lansdale and Brooks-Gunn write, the theoretical justification for these programs is strong, their early results are promising, and the time is ripe for innovation, experimentation, and further study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Future of Children
Future of Children Multiple-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Future of Children is a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The mission of The Future of Children is to translate the best social science research about children and youth into information that is useful to policymakers, practitioners, grant-makers, advocates, the media, and students of public policy. The project publishes two journals and policy briefs each year, and provides various short summaries of our work. Topics range widely -- from income policy to family issues to education and health – with children’s policy as the unifying element. The senior editorial team is diverse, representing two institutions and multiple disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信