2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 20

Unit 20

It sounded at first like a familiar story: school administrators, seeking to meet state and federal standards, fraudulently raised students’ scores on crucial exams. But in the cheating scandal that has shaken the 64,000-student school district in this border city, administrators manipulated more than numbers. They are accused of keeping low-performing students out of classrooms altogether by improperly holding some back, accelerating others and preventing many from showing up for the tests or enrolling in school at all.

It led to a dramatic moment at the federal courthouse this month, when a former schools superintendent, Lorenzo Garcia, was sentenced to prison for his role in orchestrating the testing scandal. But for students and parents, the case did not end there. A federal investigation continues, with the likelihood of more arrests of administrators who helped Mr. Garcia. Federal prosecutors charged Mr. Garcia, 57, with devising an elaborate program to inflate test scores to improve the performance of struggling schools under the federal No Child Left Behind Act and to allow him to collect annual bonuses for meeting district goals.

The scheme, elements of which were carried out for most of Mr. Garcia’s nearly six-year tenure, centered on a state-mandated test taken by sophomores. Known as the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, it measures performance in reading, mathematics and other subjects. The scheme’s objective was to keep low-performing students out of the classroom so they would not take the test and drag scores down, according to prosecutors, former principals and school advocates.

Students identified as low-performing were transferred to charter schools, discouraged from enrolling in school or were visited at home by truant officers and told not to go to school on the test day. For some, credits were deleted from transcripts or grades were changed from passing to failing or from failing to passing so they could be reclassified as freshmen or juniors.

Others intentionally held back were allowed to catch up before graduation with “turbo-mesters,” in which students earned a semester’s worth of credit for a few hours of computer work. A former high school principal said in an interview and in court that one student earned two semester credits in three hours on the last day of school. Still other students who transferred to the district from Mexico were automatically put in the ninth grade, even if they had earned credits for the 10th grade, to keep them from taking the test. The program was known as “the Bowie model,” and Mr. Garcia had boasted of his success in raising test scores, particularly in 2008, when all of the district’s eligible campuses earned a rating of “academically acceptable” or better from the state. But parents and students had another name for what was happening: “l(fā)os desaparecidos,” or the disappeared.

State education data showed that 381 students were enrolled as freshmen at Bowie in the fall of 2007. The following fall, the sophomore class was 170 students. Dozens of the missing students had “disappeared” through Mr. Garcia’s program, said Eliot Shapleigh, a lawyer and former state senator who began his own investigation into testing misconduct and was credited with bringing the case to light. Mr. Shapleigh said he believed that hundreds of students were affected and that district leaders had failed to do enough to locate and help them.

注（1）：本文選自Times；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對象:第1、2、3、4題模仿2010年真題Text 2第1、2、3、4題，第5題模仿2010年真題Text 4第5題。

1. Concern on school administrators has been aroused because ______.

A) the students’ scores have been reduced

B) they devised the cheating program

C) they are manipulating numbers

D) the 64,000-student school district can’t meet state and federal standards

2. Which of the following is true about the scandal?

A) Garcia felt quite regretful for his mistake.

B) It was devised to make the school famous.

C) It has been carried out for more than six years.

D) Many relevant administrators would be hurled in jail because of the scandal.

3. The word “discouraged” （Line 1, Para. 4） most probably indicates ______.

A) the school had great concern for students

B) the school would persuade students to go back to school

C) students were persuaded not to go to this school

D) low-performing students would be expelled later

4. We learn from the last two paragraphs that ______.

A) students were permitted to catch up by paying a sum of money

B) students’ credits and grades were mishandled freely by administrators

C) “the Bowie model” is a very successful trial

D) Mr. Shapleigh condemned district leaders for misleading students

5. The author’s attitude towards the solutions of the scandal is one of ______.

A) resentment

B) skepticism

C) objectiveness

D) sympathy

篇章剖析

本文就學(xué)校行政人員在重大考試中舞弊這則新聞?wù)归_論述。第一段簡單介紹了學(xué)校行政人員的舞弊行為。第二段講述了該行為受到的法律制裁。第三段指出加西亞策劃“舞弊”方案的方式及目的。第四、五、六段詳細(xì)介紹了“舞弊”方案的具體操作方式及內(nèi)容，呼吁社會各界的關(guān)注和幫助。

詞匯注釋

fraudulently /?fr??dj?l?ntli/ adv. 欺騙地

manipulate /m??n?pj?le?t/ v. 操縱；操控；操作

superintendent /?su?p?r?n?tend?nt/ n. 監(jiān)督人；負(fù)責(zé)人

orchestrate /???k?stre?t/ v. 策劃；精心安排；編管弦樂曲

prosecutor /?pr?s?kju?t?(r)/ n. 檢察官

elaborate /??l?b?r?t/ adj. 精心制作的；煞費苦心的

inflate /?n?fle?t/ v. 使大幅增長；膨脹；充氣；夸大

tenure /?tenj?(r)/ n. 任期；占有

truant /?tru??nt/ n. 曠課者；懶惰的人

eligible /?el?d??bl/ adj. 合格的；符合條件的

難句突破

The scheme, elements of which were carried out for most of Mr. Garcia’s nearly six-year tenure, centered on a state-mandated test taken by sophomores.

主體句式：The scheme centered on a test...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：該句結(jié)構(gòu)并不復(fù)雜，但其修飾成分較多。主干部分為The scheme centered on a test...。分句elements of which...是插入語，也是the scheme的同位語，起補充說明的作用。分詞短語taken by sophomores作后置定語用來修飾test。

句子譯文：加西亞的計謀在他將近六年的任期中頻頻上演，主要運用在大二學(xué)生參加的一項國家規(guī)定的測試上。

題目分析

1. B 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章開門見山地指出學(xué)校行政人員在重大考試中舞弊，提高學(xué)生成績，以達(dá)到州和聯(lián)邦政府的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。A、D項的說法與原文相反，C選項與原文不符，只有B選項正確。

2. D 細(xì)節(jié)題。A選項的說法文中并未提及?？荚囄璞撞⒉皇菫榱耸箤W(xué)校出名，而是使學(xué)校達(dá)標(biāo)，故B項錯誤。C選項擴大了時間范圍，可排除。D選項符合文意，為正確答案。

3. C 語義題。discourage意為“阻止；使氣餒”，文中指出：表現(xiàn)不佳的學(xué)生被轉(zhuǎn)到特許學(xué)校，或在報名時被勸阻，或者訓(xùn)導(dǎo)員會登門造訪并要求他們考試當(dāng)天不要去學(xué)校。A、B、D均與題意不符，只有C選項正確。

4. B 推理題。第五、六段指出，故意被留級的學(xué)生可以通過參加畢業(yè)前的“集中講座”而趕上來，并舉例指出學(xué)生的學(xué)分和年級被學(xué)校隨意篡改。可知A、C項不正確，B項正確。文中沙普利先生呼吁地區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的幫助，但并未進行指責(zé)，因此D項錯誤。故答案為B。

5. C 情感態(tài)度題。從對整個事件的描述到文章最后對沙普利先生呼吁的引用，作者全篇都使用了比較客觀的口吻。作者雖然措辭上對該舞弊丑聞表示不滿，但對該丑聞的處理辦法立足點比較客觀。故答案為C。

參考譯文

這乍聽起來似乎是一則常見的新聞：學(xué)校行政人員在重大考試中舞弊，提高學(xué)生成績，以達(dá)到州和聯(lián)邦政府的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。但是，這個舞弊丑聞?wù)痼@了邊境城市擁有64000名學(xué)生的學(xué)區(qū)，在這一舞弊丑聞中行政人員操控的不僅僅是數(shù)字。他們被指控驅(qū)逐低分學(xué)生，通過不恰當(dāng)?shù)刈屢恍W(xué)生留級，讓另一些學(xué)生快速升入高年級，以及阻止許多學(xué)生參加考試或根本不讓其入學(xué)等手段來達(dá)到目的。

這個月，這一事件導(dǎo)致了聯(lián)邦法院備受關(guān)注的一幕：前學(xué)校督學(xué)洛倫佐·加西亞由于策劃了這起考試丑聞而鋃鐺入獄。但對于學(xué)生和家長來說，此事并未結(jié)束。一項聯(lián)邦調(diào)查仍在繼續(xù)，更多協(xié)助過加西亞的管理人員或?qū)⑷氇z。聯(lián)邦檢察官指控57歲的加西亞先生煞費苦心的經(jīng)營策劃，“提高”考試成績，來幫助那些其實達(dá)不到《不落下一個學(xué)生》法案要求的學(xué)校達(dá)標(biāo)，且他可因達(dá)到學(xué)區(qū)目標(biāo)而獲得年度獎金。

加西亞的計謀在他將近六年的任期中頻頻上演，主要運用在大二學(xué)生參加的一項國家規(guī)定的測試上。該測試叫做得克薩斯知識技能評估，考查學(xué)生在閱讀、數(shù)學(xué)和其他一些科目上的表現(xiàn)。根據(jù)檢察官、前校長和學(xué)校代訟人的說法，該計謀的目的是不允許差生進入課堂，這樣他們就不用參加考試，拉低平均分。

表現(xiàn)不佳的學(xué)生被轉(zhuǎn)到特許學(xué)校，或在報名時被勸阻，或者訓(xùn)導(dǎo)員會登門造訪并要求他們考試當(dāng)天不要去學(xué)校。某些學(xué)生的學(xué)分從成績單上刪除了，或者分?jǐn)?shù)從合格改為不合格或者從不合格改為合格，這樣他們就可以被重新歸類到大一新生或大三學(xué)生中。

其他故意被留級的學(xué)生可以通過參加畢業(yè)前的“集中講座”而趕上來。在此期間，學(xué)生通過幾個小時的電腦作業(yè)就可以獲得一個學(xué)期的學(xué)分。一位前任高中校長在接受采訪時以及在法庭上都指出，一個學(xué)生在畢業(yè)前最后一天的三個小時內(nèi)就獲得了兩個學(xué)期的學(xué)分。還有一些從墨西哥轉(zhuǎn)到該校區(qū)的學(xué)生被自動歸入了9年級，以避免他們參加該考試，盡管他們已經(jīng)獲得了10年級的學(xué)分。該項目被稱為“鮑伊模式”，加西亞先生曾吹噓自己在提高考試成績上的成就，特別是在2008年，該地區(qū)所有的合格學(xué)校都獲得了國家“學(xué)術(shù)認(rèn)可”等級或者更好的成績。但家長和學(xué)生對這樣的情況有另外一種說法，即“失蹤的學(xué)生”或消失的學(xué)生。

國家教育數(shù)據(jù)表明，381名學(xué)生于2007年秋天在鮑伊入學(xué)成為大一新生。但到第二年的秋天，大二班里只剩下170名學(xué)生。埃利奧特·沙普利說，很多失蹤的學(xué)生都是在加西亞先生的項目中“消失”的。沙普利先生是一位律師，也是前州參議員，是他最先著手調(diào)查這項考試的瀆職行為并將其公布于眾的。沙普利先生說，他相信很多學(xué)生都受到了影響，但是地區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人卻沒有給予他們足夠的關(guān)心和幫助。