题目内容
Parents can easily come down with an acute case of schizophrenic (精神分裂症) from reading the contradictory reports about the state of the public schools. One set of experts asserts that the schools are better than they have been for years. Others say that the schools are in terrible shape and are responsible for every national problem from urban poverty to the trade deficit.One group of experts looks primarily at such indicators as test scores, and they cheer what they see: all the indicators-reading scores, minimum competency test results, the scholastic aptitude test scores-are up, some by substantial margins. Students are required to take more academic courses-more mathematics and science, along with greater stress on basic skills, including knowledge of computers. More than 40 state legislatures have mandated such changes.But in the eyes of another set of school reformers such changes are at best superficial and at worst counterproductive. These experts say that merely toughening requirements without either improving the quality of instruction or even more important, changing the way schools are organized and children are taught makes the schools worse rather than better. They challenge the nature of the test, mostly multiple choice or true or false, by which children’s progress is measured; they charge that raising the test scores by drilling pupils to come up with the fight answer does not improve knowledge, understanding and the capacity to think logically and independently. In addition, these critics fear that the get-tough approach to school reform will cause more of the youngsters at the bottom to give up and drop out. This, they say, may improve national scores but drain even further the nation’s pool of educated people.The way to cut through the confusion is to understand the different yardsticks used by different observers.Compared with what schools used to be like "in the good old days", with lots of drill and uniform requirements, and the expectation that many youngsters who could not make it would drop out and find their way into unskilled job by those yardsticks, the schools have measurably improved in recent years.But by the yardsticks of those experts who believe that the old school was deficient in teaching the skills needed in the modem world, today’s schools have not become better. These educators believe that rigid new mandates may actually have made the schools worse. Which of the following is TRUE（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Children model themselves largely on their parents and they do so mainly through identification. Children identify (31) a parent when they believe they have the qualities and feelings that are (32) of that parent. The things parents do and say and the (33) they do and say to them therefore strongly influence a child’s (34) . However, parents must consistently behave like the type of (35) they want their child to become.A parent’s actions (36) affect the self-image that a child forms (37) identification. Children who see mainly positive qualities in their (38) will likely learn to see themselves in a positive way. Children who observe chiefly (39) qualities in their parents will have difficulty (40) positive qualities in themselves. Children may (41) their self-image, however, as they become increasingly 42 by peers group before they reach 13.Isolated events, (43) dramatic ones, do not necessarily have a permanent (44) on a child’s behavior. Children interpret such events according to their established attitudes and previous training. Children who know they are loved can, (45) , accept the divorce of their parent’s or a parent’s early (46) . But if children feel unloved, they may interpret such events (47) a sign of rejection or punishment. In the same way, all children are not influenced (48) by toys and games, reading matter, and television programs. (49) in the case of a dramatic change in family relations, the (50) of an activity or experience depends on how the child interprets it. （41）（）
Parents can easily come down with an acute case of schizophrenic (精神分裂症) from reading the contradictory reports about the state of the public schools. One set of experts asserts that the schools are better than they have been for years. Others say that the schools are in terrible shape and are responsible for every national problem from urban poverty to the trade deficit.One group of experts looks primarily at such indicators as test scores, and they cheer what they see: all the indicators-reading scores, minimum competency test results, the scholastic aptitude test scores-are up, some by substantial margins. Students are required to take more academic courses-more mathematics and science, along with greater stress on basic skills, including knowledge of computers. More than 40 state legislatures have mandated such changes.But in the eyes of another set of school reformers such changes are at best superficial and at worst counterproductive. These experts say that merely toughening requirements without either improving the quality of instruction or even more important, changing the way schools are organized and children are taught makes the schools worse rather than better. They challenge the nature of the test, mostly multiple choice or true or false, by which children’s progress is measured; they charge that raising the test scores by drilling pupils to come up with the fight answer does not improve knowledge, understanding and the capacity to think logically and independently. In addition, these critics fear that the get-tough approach to school reform will cause more of the youngsters at the bottom to give up and drop out. This, they say, may improve national scores but drain even further the nation’s pool of educated people.The way to cut through the confusion is to understand the different yardsticks used by different observers.Compared with what schools used to be like "in the good old days", with lots of drill and uniform requirements, and the expectation that many youngsters who could not make it would drop out and find their way into unskilled job by those yardsticks, the schools have measurably improved in recent years.But by the yardsticks of those experts who believe that the old school was deficient in teaching the skills needed in the modem world, today’s schools have not become better. These educators believe that rigid new mandates may actually have made the schools worse. What does "in the good old days" (Para. 5) refer to（）
The greatest recent social changes have been in the lives of women. During the 20th century there has been a remarkable shortening of the proportion of a woman’s life spent in caring for children. A woman marrying at the end of the 19th century would probably have been in her middle 20s, and would be likely to have seven or eight children, of whom four or five lived till they were five years old. By the time the youngest was 15, the mother would have been in her early 50s and would expect to live a further 20 years, during which custom, opportunity and health made it unusual for her to get paid-work. Today women marry younger and have fewer children. Usually a woman’s youngest child will be 15 when she is 45 and can be expected to live another 35 years and is likely to take paid-work until retirement at 60. Even while she has the care of children, her work is lightened by household appliances and convenience foods.This important change in women’s life-pattern has only recently begun to have its full effect on women’s economic position. Even a few years ago most girls left school at the first opportunity, and most of them took a full-time job. However, when they married, they usually left work at once and never returned to it. Today the school-leaving age is 16, many girls stay at school after that age, and though women tend to marry younger, more married women stay at work at least until shortly before their first child is born. Very many more afterwards return to full or part-time work. Such changes have led to a new relation in marriage, with the husband accepting a greater share of the duties and satisfactions of family life, and with both husband and wife sharing more equally in providing the money, and running the home, according to the abilities and interests of each of them. When she was over 50, the late 19th century mother （）.
Parents can easily come down with an acute case of schizophrenic (精神分裂症) from reading the contradictory reports about the state of the public schools. One set of experts asserts that the schools are better than they have been for years. Others say that the schools are in terrible shape and are responsible for every national problem from urban poverty to the trade deficit.One group of experts looks primarily at such indicators as test scores, and they cheer what they see: all the indicators-reading scores, minimum competency test results, the scholastic aptitude test scores-are up, some by substantial margins. Students are required to take more academic courses-more mathematics and science, along with greater stress on basic skills, including knowledge of computers. More than 40 state legislatures have mandated such changes.But in the eyes of another set of school reformers such changes are at best superficial and at worst counterproductive. These experts say that merely toughening requirements without either improving the quality of instruction or even more important, changing the way schools are organized and children are taught makes the schools worse rather than better. They challenge the nature of the test, mostly multiple choice or true or false, by which children’s progress is measured; they charge that raising the test scores by drilling pupils to come up with the fight answer does not improve knowledge, understanding and the capacity to think logically and independently. In addition, these critics fear that the get-tough approach to school reform will cause more of the youngsters at the bottom to give up and drop out. This, they say, may improve national scores but drain even further the nation’s pool of educated people.The way to cut through the confusion is to understand the different yardsticks used by different observers.Compared with what schools used to be like "in the good old days", with lots of drill and uniform requirements, and the expectation that many youngsters who could not make it would drop out and find their way into unskilled job by those yardsticks, the schools have measurably improved in recent years.But by the yardsticks of those experts who believe that the old school was deficient in teaching the skills needed in the modem world, today’s schools have not become better. These educators believe that rigid new mandates may actually have made the schools worse. According to Paragraph 3, school reformers believe that （）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付