2020考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 77

Unit 77

Few ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers—letting parents choose to educate their children wherever they wish at the taxpayer’s expense. The principle is compellingly simple. The state pays; parents choose; schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains. Simple, perhaps, but it has aroused predictable—and often fatal—opposition from the educational establishment. Letting parents choose where to educate their children is a silly idea; professionals know best. Co-operation, not competition, is the way to improve education for all. Vouchers would increase inequality because children who are hardest to teach would be left behind.

But these arguments are now succumbing to sheer weight of evidence. Voucher schemes are running in several different countries without ill-effects for social cohesion; those that use a lottery to hand out vouchers offer proof that recipients get a better education than those that do not. In several American states, the voucher pupils did better even though the state spent less than it would have done had the children been educated in normal state schools. American voucher schemes typically offer private schools around half of what the state would spend if the pupils stayed in public schools.

These results are important because they strip out other influences. Home, neighbourhood and natural ability all affect results more than which school a child attends. If the pupils who received vouchers differ from those who don’t—perhaps simply by coming from the sort of go-getting family that elbows its way to the front of every queue—any effect might simply be the result of any number of other factors. But assigning the vouchers randomly guarded against this risk. Opponents still argue that those who exercise choice will be the most able and committed, and by clustering themselves together in better schools they will abandon the weak and voiceless to languish in rotten ones. Some cite the example of Chile, where a universal voucher scheme that allows schools to charge top-up fees seems to have improved the education of the best-off most.

The strongest evidence against this criticism comes from Sweden, where parents are freer than those in almost any other country to spend as they wish the money the government allocates to educating their children. Sweeping education reforms in 1992 not only relaxed enrolment rules in the state sector, allowing students to attend schools outside their own municipality, but also let them take their state funding to private schools, including religious ones and those operating for profit. The only real restrictions imposed on private schools were that they must run their admissions on a first-come-first-served basis and promise not to charge top-up fees. The result has been burgeoning variety and a rapid expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated.

More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象為1999年真題Text 2 （1、2、3、5題）和2002年真題Text 2第2題（第4題）。

1. We learn from the beginning of the passage that vouchers _______.

A) have evoked different opinions in the educational circle

B) have gained unanimous support in the American society

C) encourage cooperation among educational establishments

D) can help promote equal distribution of educational resources

2. Speaking of voucher schemes in Paragraph 2, the author implies that_______.

A) they are always carried out in the way of lottery

B) they can damage social cohesion

C) they are proved to be of help and value

D) they should be adopted by every country

3. In the view of the “opponents” mentioned in the third paragraph, _______.

A) students should pick up their schools randomly so that good students can be equally distributed among schools

B) Chile’s voucher schemes have improved the education of the most able and committed students

C) the right to choose good schools by paying top-up fee serves to improve education

D) students from different family backgrounds are supposed to go to different schools

4. The phrase “burgeoning variety” （Line 7, Paragraph 4） most probably means _______.

A) fast development

B) increasing popularity

C) increasing diversity

D) a larger number

5. We learn from the last paragraph that _______.

A) Swedish parents can only send their kids to schools within their own city

B) the education reform in Sweden is mainly to set up voucher schemes

C) the Harvard economist disagrees with Swedish researchers on vouchers

D) competition is an incentive to spur public schools to improve their teaching

篇章剖析

本文就是否應(yīng)該向?qū)W生提供教育券以及如何提供教育券這一話題展開(kāi)了談?wù)?。第一段首先指出反?duì)發(fā)放教育券的意見(jiàn)和觀點(diǎn)；第二段通過(guò)實(shí)際例子說(shuō)明為學(xué)生們提供教育券能夠使得他們接受更好的教育；第三、四段是對(duì)問(wèn)題的深入討論，充分考慮了支持者與反對(duì)者的觀點(diǎn)；第五段以哈佛大學(xué)一位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的論點(diǎn)總結(jié)全文。

詞匯注釋

voucher /?va?t??/ n. 優(yōu)惠，優(yōu)惠券

compelling /k?m?pel??/ adj. 強(qiáng)制的，引人注目的

fatal /?fe?tl/ adj. 致命的，不幸的

succumb /s??k?m/ vi. 屈服，屈從

sheer /???/ adj. 全然的，純粹的

cohension /k???hi???n/ n. 凝聚，團(tuán)結(jié)

recipient /r??s?p??nt/ n. 接受者

strip /str?p/ vt. 剝，剝?nèi)?

elbow /?elb??/ v. 用肘推

cluster /?kl?st?/ vt. 使成群

languish /?l??gw??/ vi. 憔悴，凋萎

allocate /??l??ke?t/ vt. 分派，分配

municipality /mju??n?s??p?l?t?/ n. 市政當(dāng)局

impose /?m?p??z/ vi. 征（稅），強(qiáng)加

burgeon /?b??d??n/ v. 萌芽，發(fā)展

unabated /??n??be?t?d/ adj. 不衰退的，不減弱的

難句突破

In several American states, the voucher pupils did better even though the state spent less than it would have done had the children been educated in normal state schools.

主體句式：The voucher pupils did better.

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：it would have done是過(guò)去完成時(shí)，這個(gè)時(shí)態(tài)用來(lái)描述過(guò)去已經(jīng)完成的事情。此外，這個(gè)句子的難點(diǎn)在于had the children been educated in normal state schools，這個(gè)倒裝的虛擬結(jié)構(gòu)等同于if the children had been educated in normal state schools。

句子譯文：在美國(guó)的幾個(gè)州，接受教育券的學(xué)生表現(xiàn)不錯(cuò)，而且國(guó)家花在這些學(xué)生身上的錢比花在上公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生身上的錢要少。

題目分析

1. A 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第一段第一句話開(kāi)門見(jiàn)山地提出“Few ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers”，說(shuō)明這個(gè)問(wèn)題教育界有著不同的看法。

2. C 推理題。文章第二段中提到，許多國(guó)家都實(shí)施了教育券計(jì)劃，而且都取得了不錯(cuò)的效果，也沒(méi)有給社會(huì)造成負(fù)面影響。

3. B 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第三段中，反對(duì)者們舉的一個(gè)例子就是在智利，允許學(xué)校收取附加學(xué)費(fèi)的全面教育券計(jì)劃提高了最出色學(xué)生的教育水平。

4. C 語(yǔ)義題。如果不知道burgeon的意思，可以通過(guò)上下文來(lái)理解。最重要的是要理解variety的意思，而選項(xiàng)中和variety詞義最接近的是diversity。

5. D 推理題。各個(gè)選項(xiàng)的細(xì)節(jié)都來(lái)自文章最后兩段。A、B、C選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤原因都在于句意與文章的原意相反。D選項(xiàng)來(lái)自文章的最后一句話，即It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.

參考譯文

在教育界，很少有什么觀點(diǎn)比教育券更容易引發(fā)爭(zhēng)議——花著納稅人的錢，父母?jìng)兛梢詾楹⒆舆x擇受教育的學(xué)校。其原則相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單。政府出錢；父母選校；學(xué)校競(jìng)爭(zhēng)；標(biāo)準(zhǔn)提升；各方獲益?；蛟S事情就是這么簡(jiǎn)單，但這已在各個(gè)教育機(jī)構(gòu)中引發(fā)了預(yù)料中的——經(jīng)常是致命性的——反對(duì)態(tài)度。讓父母為孩子擇校的想法很荒唐；只有專家才知道如何最好地選擇學(xué)校。合作，而不是競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，才是提高教育水平的正確方法。發(fā)放教育券只會(huì)增加不公平現(xiàn)象，因?yàn)樽铍y教的孩子往往會(huì)落在后面。

但是這些說(shuō)法在強(qiáng)有力的證據(jù)面前愈顯蒼白。許多國(guó)家都實(shí)行了教育券計(jì)劃，且都沒(méi)有對(duì)社會(huì)團(tuán)結(jié)造成負(fù)面影響；在那些通過(guò)使用抓鬮的方法來(lái)發(fā)放教育券的國(guó)家，接受教育券的人比沒(méi)有接受教育券的人得到了更好的教育。在美國(guó)的幾個(gè)州，接受教育券的學(xué)生表現(xiàn)不錯(cuò)，而且國(guó)家花在這些學(xué)生身上的錢比花在上公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生身上的錢要少。美國(guó)的教育券計(jì)劃一般為私立學(xué)校提供費(fèi)用，其費(fèi)用是學(xué)生在公立學(xué)校時(shí)國(guó)家支出的一半。

這些結(jié)果很重要，因?yàn)樗麄兣懦似渌蛩氐挠绊憽＜彝ァ⑧従雍吞熨x對(duì)孩子的影響都比他們?cè)谀乃鶎W(xué)校學(xué)習(xí)更大。如果接受教育券的學(xué)生與沒(méi)有接受教育券的學(xué)生之間存在差異——或許差異僅僅是因?yàn)榻邮芙逃膶W(xué)生來(lái)自那種喜歡插隊(duì)、事事?tīng)?zhēng)先的家庭——任何效果可能就是其他多種因素作用的結(jié)果。但隨意分配教育券則能夠避免這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。反對(duì)者仍然堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為那些擇校的人都是最有能力、最執(zhí)著的人，而且他們都聚集在好的學(xué)校，而那些軟弱、沉默的學(xué)生則被留在了較差的學(xué)校任由其變壞。有人以智利為例，在這個(gè)國(guó)家，允許學(xué)校收取附加學(xué)費(fèi)的全面教育券計(jì)劃似乎已經(jīng)提高了最出色的學(xué)生的教育水平。

反擊這一批評(píng)的最有力證據(jù)來(lái)自瑞典，在支配政府分配的子女教育費(fèi)用上，這個(gè)國(guó)家的父母享有比其他任何國(guó)家的人們更大的自由。在1992年的教育改革運(yùn)動(dòng)之后，國(guó)家不僅放寬了公立學(xué)校在招生方面的要求，允許學(xué)生在所居住城市之外的地方上學(xué)，而且也允許學(xué)生在國(guó)家的資助下到私立學(xué)校上學(xué)，包括宗教學(xué)校和盈利性學(xué)校。對(duì)私立學(xué)校唯一的限制就是必須按“先來(lái)先得”的原則招生，并且承諾不收取附加費(fèi)。改革的結(jié)果就是教育的多樣化發(fā)展以及私立學(xué)校飛快的擴(kuò)張。改革初期，瑞典只有大約1%的學(xué)生接受私立教育；而現(xiàn)在這一數(shù)據(jù)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了10%，并且私立學(xué)校仍然在不斷增加。

哈佛大學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家卡羅琳·霍克斯比提供了支持擇校能夠提高所有學(xué)生水平的更為有利的證據(jù)。他已經(jīng)證明，當(dāng)美國(guó)的公立學(xué)校必須同接受教育券的學(xué)校為生源而競(jìng)爭(zhēng)時(shí)，他們的表現(xiàn)就會(huì)改進(jìn)。瑞典研究人員也持相同觀點(diǎn)?？雌饋?lái)公立學(xué)校的工作人員就像其他人一樣：當(dāng)面臨競(jìng)爭(zhēng)時(shí)，他們會(huì)做得更好。