2013年春季高级口译考试阅读解析2

　　新东方在线英语频道给大家整理的2013年春季高级口译考试阅读解析2,希望能够对大家的英语考试备考有所帮助，更多有关英语的备考内容，欢迎随时关注新东方在线英语频道。

　　第二篇选自2012年10月17日《华尔街日报》， 与本次高口听力Passage Translation部分应该出自同一作者手笔。 这篇文章中规中矩的高口阅读，这样的文章一般都沿袭以下的套路：

　　开头部分：文章会告诉我们发生在欧美国家的某个社会争议，在本文中，争议内容是，美国部分州取消了2001年的的一项议案，即学生有权利选择单一性别学校。 该争议又落俗套地涉及美国两党执政理念的争论。

　　第二步：再次强调争议两方的观点和立场。本文中，反对单一性别学校的观点是，这样的教育将强化了人们对不同性别刻板印象：男生数学好，女生要加强家政学习，与此同时，这样的教育方式带歧视性，因而违法。支持方用对比试验结果为证据，证明单一性别教育成绩显赫，男生女生们都扬长避短。

　　文章结论部分：单一性别学校作为教育选择，将继续进行。因为这关系到美国教育质量问题。

　　全文几乎没有新单词。高口同学应该能顺利阅读全文。

　　顺便提醒，正如杰叔上课反复强调， 由于中高口考试出题者为在校老师，而考试者以在校学生为主，因此，涉及教育的话题理所当然的为考试重点。

　　附： 全文供参考

　　A Right to Choose Single-Sex Public Education

　　By KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON And BARBARA MIKULSKI

　　Education proponents across the political spectrum were dismayed by recent attempts to eradicate the single-gender options in public schools in Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Maine and Florida. We were particularly troubled at efforts to thwart education choice for American students and their families because it is a cause we have worked hard to advance.

　　Studies have shown that some students learn better in a single-gender environment, particularly in math and science. But federal regulations used to prevent public schools from offering that option. So in 2001 we joined with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Susan Collins to author legislation that allowed public schools to offer single-sex education. It was an epic bipartisan battle against entrenched bureaucracy, but well worth the fight.

　　Since our amendment passed, thousands of American children have benefited. Now, though, some civil libertarians are claiming that single-sex public-school programs are discriminatory and thus illegal.

　　To be clear: The 2001 law did not require that children be educated in single-gender programs or schools. It simply allowed schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sex schools or classrooms, as long as opportunities were equally available to boys and girls. In the vast and growing realm of education research, one central tenet has been confirmed repeatedly: Children learn in different ways. For some, single-sex classrooms make all the difference.

　　Critics argue that these programs promote harmful gender stereotypes. Ironically, it is exactly these stereotypes that the single-sex programs seek to eradicate.

　　As studies have confirmed - and as any parent can tell you - negative gender roles are often sharpened in coeducational environments. Boys are more likely, for instance, to buy into the notion that reading isn't masculine when they're surrounded by (and showing off for) girls.

　　Girls, meanwhile, have made so much progress in educational achievement that women are overrepresented in postgraduate education. But they still lag in the acquisition of bachelor's and graduate degrees in math and the sciences. It has been demonstrated time and again that young girls are more willing to ask and answer questions in classrooms without boys.

　　A 2008 Department of Education study found that "both principals and teachers believed that the main benefits of single-sex schooling are decreasing distractions to learning and improving student achievement." The gender slant - the math-is-for-boys, home-EC-is-for-girls trope - is eliminated.

　　In a three-year study in the mid-2000s, researchers at Florida's Stetson University compared the performance of single-gender and mixed-gender classes at an elementary school, controlling for the likes of class sizes, demographics and teacher training. When the children took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (which measures achievement in math and literacy, for instance), the results were striking: Only 59% of girls in mixed classes were scored as proficient, while 75% of girls in single-sex ones achieved proficiency. Similarly, 37% of boys in coeducational classes scored proficient, compared with 86% of boys in the all-boys classes.

　　Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tenn., the winner of the 2011 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge, went to a 81.6% graduation rate in 2010 from a graduation rate of 55% in 2007. Among the changes at the school? Implementing all-girls and all-boys freshman academies.

　　In Dallas, the all-boys Barack Obama Leadership Academy opened its doors last year. There is every reason to believe it will follow the success of the first all-girls public school, Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, which started in 2004. Irma Rangel, which has been a Texas Education Agency Exemplary School since 2006, also took sixth place at the Dallas Independent School District's 30th Annual Mathematics Olympiad that year.

　　No one is arguing that single-sex education is the best option for every student. But it is preferable for some students and families, and no one has the right to deny them an option that may work best for a particular child. Attempts to eliminate single-sex education are equivalent to taking away students' and parents' choice about one of the most fundamentally important aspects of childhood and future indicators of success - a child's education.

　　America once dominated educational attainment among developed countries, but we have fallen disastrously in international rankings. As we seek ways to offer the best education for all our children, in ways that are better tailored to their needs, it seems not just counterproductive but damaging to reduce the options. single-sex education in public schools will continue to be a voluntary choice for students and their families. To limit or eliminate single-sex education is irresponsible. To take single-sex education away from students who stand to benefit is unforgivable.

　　Ms. Hutchison, a Republican, is the senior senator from Texas. Ms. Mikulski, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Maryland.

　　以上就是新东方在线英语频道给大家整理的2013年春季高级口译考试阅读解析2希望对大家有所帮助，更多备考内容，欢迎随时关注新东方在线英语频道。