题目内容
Seventeen-year-old Quantae Williams doesn’t understand why the U. S. Supreme Court struck down his school district’s racial diversity program. He now (61) the prospect of leaving his mixed-race high school in suburban Louisville and (62) to the poor black downtown schools where he (63) in fights. "I’m doing (64) in town. They should just leave it the (65) it is," said Williams, using a fond nickname for suburban Jeffersontown High School, (66) he’s bused every day from his downtown neighborhood. "Everything is (67) , we get along well. If I go where all my friends go, I’ll start getting in trouble again," Williams said as he took a (68) from his summer job (69) clothing (70) for poor families.Last month’s 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court struck down programs that were started voluntarily in Louisville and Seattle. The court’s decision has left schools (71) the country (72) to find a way to protect (73) in their classrooms. Critics have called the decision the biggest (74) to the ideals of the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (75) , which outlawed racial segregation in U. S. public schools. With students already (76) to schools for the (77) year that begins in September, (78) will be immediately affected by the Supreme Court decision. In Jefferson County, officials said it could be two years (79) a new plan is (80) place, leaving most students in their current schools. 62（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Seventeen-year-old Quantae Williams doesn’t understand why the U. S. Supreme Court struck down his school district’s racial diversity program. He now (61) the prospect of leaving his mixed-race high school in suburban Louisville and (62) to the poor black downtown schools where he (63) in fights. "I’m doing (64) in town. They should just leave it the (65) it is," said Williams, using a fond nickname for suburban Jeffersontown High School, (66) he’s bused every day from his downtown neighborhood. "Everything is (67) , we get along well. If I go where all my friends go, I’ll start getting in trouble again," Williams said as he took a (68) from his summer job (69) clothing (70) for poor families.Last month’s 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court struck down programs that were started voluntarily in Louisville and Seattle. The court’s decision has left schools (71) the country (72) to find a way to protect (73) in their classrooms. Critics have called the decision the biggest (74) to the ideals of the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (75) , which outlawed racial segregation in U. S. public schools. With students already (76) to schools for the (77) year that begins in September, (78) will be immediately affected by the Supreme Court decision. In Jefferson County, officials said it could be two years (79) a new plan is (80) place, leaving most students in their current schools. 61（）
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness Parents suffer continually from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good "old-fashioned" spanking is out of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows what deep psychological wounds you might inflict The poor child may never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love, and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good.Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on childcare, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents’ lives are regulated according to the needs of heir offspring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey’Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine ’indeed.The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much. At least this will help them to develop vigorous views of their own and give them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in the idea that children who have had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood appear like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life. The author says that today’s parents（）
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness Parents suffer continually from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good "old-fashioned" spanking is out of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows what deep psychological wounds you might inflict The poor child may never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love, and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good.Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on childcare, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents’ lives are regulated according to the needs of heir offspring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey’Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine ’indeed.The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much. At least this will help them to develop vigorous views of their own and give them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in the idea that children who have had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood appear like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life. What is implied in the first sentence（）
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness Parents suffer continually from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good "old-fashioned" spanking is out of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows what deep psychological wounds you might inflict The poor child may never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love, and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good.Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on childcare, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents’ lives are regulated according to the needs of heir offspring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey’Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine ’indeed.The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much. At least this will help them to develop vigorous views of their own and give them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in the idea that children who have had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood appear like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life. What does the author wants to illustrate with Johnny roaming the streets（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付