Question

    It is generally acknowledged that young people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds tend to do fess well in the education system. In an attempt to help the children of poor families, a nationwide program called “Headstart” was started in the US in 1965. A lot of money was poured into it. It Look children into pre-school institutions at the age of three and was supposed to help them succeed in school. But the results have been disappointing because the program began too late. Many children who entered it at three were already behind their peers in language and intelligence and the parents were not involved in the process. At the end of each day, “Headstart” children returned to the same disadvantaged home environment.

To improve the results, another program was started in Missouri that concentrated on parents as the child’s first teachers. This program was based on research showing that working with the family is the most effective way of helping children get the best possible start in life. The four-year study included 380 families who were about to have their first child and represented different socio-economic status, age and family structure. The program involved trained educators visiting and working with the parent or parents and the child. The program also gave the parents some guidance, and useful skills on child development.

At three, the children involved in the “Missouri” program were evaluated with the children selected from the same socio-economic backgrounds and family situations. The results were obvious. The children in the program were more advanced in language development, problem solving and other intellectual skills than their peers. They performed equally well regardless of socio-economic backgrounds or family structure. The one factor that was found to affect the child’s development was the poor quality of parent-child interaction. That interaction was not necessarily bad in poorer families.

The “Missouri” program compares quite distinctly with the “Headstart” program. Without a similar focus of parent education and on the vital importance of the first three years, some evidence indicates that it will not be enough to overcome education unfairness.

1.What caused the failure of the “Headstart” program?

A. The large number of poor families.

B. The disapproval from children.

C. The late start of the program.

D. The long period of time.

2.What do we know about the “Missouri” program?

A. It focused on the children’s first school teachers.

B. It helped the children return to the same home.

C. It made the children improved in many aspects.

D. It gave the parents advice on their development.

3.According to the passage, what is likely to influence children s performance?

A. The number of family members.

B. The teacher-student relationship.

C. The intelligence of their parents.

D. The parent-child communication.

4.How does the author develop the passage?

A. By listing figures. B. By making comparisons.

C. Ry presenting ideas. D. By drawing conclusions.

Answer

1.C

2.C

3.D

4.B

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。人们普遍认为，社会经济背景较差的年轻人在教育系统中表现较好。为了帮助贫困家庭的孩子，美国于1965年启动了一项名为“先驱者”的全国性计划。但是由于起步太晚计划失败。为了提高教学效果，密苏里州启动了另一个项目，重点是让家长成为孩子的启蒙老师。经过研究发现，影响儿童发展的一个因素是亲子互动质量差。

1.细节理解题。根据第一句倒数第三句But the results have been disappointing because the program began too late.可知项目失败的原因是开始得太迟了，故选C。

2.推理判断题。第三段第三句The children in the program were more advanced in language development, problem solving and other intellectual skills than their peers. 参加该项目的孩子在语言发展、解决问题和其他智力技能方面比同龄人更先进。可推测Missouri项目使孩子们在许多方面得到了提高。故选C。

3.细节理解题。倒数第二段倒数第二句The one factor that was found to affect the child’s development was the poor quality of parent-child interaction.可知研究发现，影响儿童发展的一个因素是亲子互动质量差。即亲子之间的互动交流有可能会影响孩子的表现，故选D。

4.推理判断题。根据文章最后一段第一句The “Missouri” program compares quite distinctly with the “Headstart” program.可知“密苏里”计划与“先驱者”计划的对比非常明显，即作者是通过二者之间的对比来发展文章内容的，故选B。