Something extraordinary is happening in London this week: in Lambeth, one of the city’s poorest boroughs(区), 180 children are starting their secondary education in a brand new school. The state- funded school was set up by parents who were fed up with the quality of local education. In countries with more enlightened education systems, this would be unremarkable. In Britain, it is an amazing achievement by a bunch of desperate and determined people after years of struggle.
Britain’s schools are in a mess. Average standards are not improving despite billions in extra spending, and a stubbornly long tail of underachievers straggles(拖后腿) behind. A couple of years ago, a consensus emerged among reformers that councils had too much control and parents too little.
One might have expected more from the Conservatives, who stood for election on a pledge to bring in school vouchers. Yet the Tory policy group charged with thinking deep thoughts about public services paid only lip service to parent power in its report. Where schools are failing, it said, parents or charities should get taxpayers ’money to open new ones. But only 2.9% are actually failing, on official definitions. And another proposal, that children in failing schools get extra funding if they go elsewhere, was so lacking in detail as to be meaningless.
Worry about underperforming schools is hardly confined to Britain: in America, in Italy, in Germany, even in once-proud France education is a hot-button topic. Yet a number of countries seem to have cracked it. Although specific problems differ in different societies, parental choice is at the heart of most successful solutions. What are the lessons
The first is that if a critical mass of parents wants a new school and there is a willing provider, local government should be required to finance it as generously as it does existing state schools. The second is that if a charity wants to open a school in the hope that children will come, then taxpayers’ money should follow any that do. Third, rules about what, where and how schools teach should be relaxed to avoid stifling innovation and discouraging newcomers with big ideas. In any event, public-examination results would give parents the information they needed to enforce high standards.
These proposals may seem radical, yet parents in the Netherlands have had the right to demand new schools since 1917, and those in Sweden have been free since 1992 to take their government money to any school that satisfies basic government rules. In the Netherlands 70% of children are educated in private schools at the taxpayers’ expense; in Sweden 10% already are. In both countries state spending on education is lower per head than in Britain, and results are better. It doesn’t take a genius IQ -- just a little political courage -- to draw the correct conclusion.
From other countries’ successful experience, Britain can learn that ______.

A:tax payers’ money should be divided equally between parents and state schools. B:there should not be a tight control over the specific ways of teaching. C:the public money should go to any charity who would like to attract students. D:public surveillance should inform parents in order to maintain high standards.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments about the use of public money for the private schooling of children with special needs. It’s interesting to note what’s not at issue: namely, that when a public school system is unable to provide an appropriate education, it is obligated to pay the costs of private school. Too bad poor children don’t have that unshakable right; if they did, there would be no controversy about the District program that gives vouchers to low-income children to attend private schools.
The case to be heard by the court hinges on whether parents have to enroll a child with special needs in public school before the child can attend private school at public expense. Special-education advocates say students shouldn’t have to waste time before being placed in a setting that best suits their needs, while school boards worry about a ruling that could amount to an unfettered fight to private schooling at public expense. What strikes us about the emotionally charged debate is the acceptance by both sides that sometimes it is appropriate to use public money to pay for a child to go to a private school. So, why all the arguments about the approximately$14 million for a federally funded program that lets 1,700 D. C. students attend private schools instead of failing public schools
To hear critics of the D. C. Opportunity Scholarship Program tell it, the use of public money for private schooling is as unprecedented as it is undesirable. In addition to the billions of dollars spent annually on private school tuitions for students with disabilities, private schools get public money for books, technology and teacher training. As long as the money is seen as benefiting the child, it is considered a proper, even desirable, use of public dollars.
Don’t get us wrong. We’re not arguing for the unilateral right of parents to enroll their sons and daughters in any school they wish with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Abuse of special-education policies has contributed to increased costs that threaten to take needed money from general public education funds. Safeguards are needed. Public schools should be pressed to do a better job for students with disabilities and students without. But there are schools in Washington where statistics show that failure is almost guaranteed. If a school system can’t educate a child—whether because of acute special needs or its own historical failings—why should that child not have options for a " free appropriate public education "
Which of the following is TRUE about the special-education advocates’ opinion

A:They strongly believe that children should be put directly into the private schools. B:They think that children should try out both places before making decisions. C:They don’t feel there is still a need to argue about this problem any more. D:They hold the opinion that parents can make decisions for their children.

This year’s Sumantra Ghoshal Conference, held at London Business School, debated whether strategy research has become irrelevant to the practice of management. The late Mr Ghoshal published a paper in 2005 scolding business schools for pouring "bad theory" on their students. That same year Warren Bennis and James O’Toole, both at the University of Southern California, published an article in the Harvard Business Review criticising MBA programmes for paying too much attention to "scientific" research and not enough to what current and future managers actually needed. Business schools, they argued, would be better off acting more like their professional counterparts, such as medical or law schools, nurturing skilled practitioners as well as frequent publishers.
However, business school professors have a tendency not to change. Since universities take journal rankings into account when awarding tenure, academics are rewarded more when they publish in research journals. (Popular media rankings of MBA programmes, although not The Economist’s, also take research output into account.)
In 2008 the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) took up the debate, publishing a report on making business research more useful. It suggested that tenure committees become more flexible. A scholar dedicated to popularising management ideas, for example, should be evaluated on book sales and attention from the news media, not on articles in research journals. This would allow faculty to reach out to wider audiences, rather than be, as Messrs Bennis and O’Toole put it, "damned as popularisers".
But that might also risk granting tenure on the basis of trendy but ultimately unhelpful ideas. In any case, some argue that the relevance of business research is understated. Jan Williams, vice chair of AACSB, argues that doing research allows faculty members to stay at the forefront of their subject, and that in turn improves their teaching. "We can’t teach students outdated material," he says.
What is more, a paper in Academy of Management Learning & Education suggests that faculty members’ research productivity and their students’ earnings after graduation may be positively linked. Certainly, the best known schools often have strong research reputations to match their recognition in the wider world. So, should a student worry about a faculty’s research ability when applying to a school If business schools with better researchers produce better-paid graduates, then perhaps they should. But only up to a point: what MBA students most need is skillful teaching and help in developing their critical thinking skills first; access to frontier research comes afterwards. As Messrs Bennis and O’Toole put it: "Business professors too often forget that executive decision-makers are not fact-collectors; they are fact users and integrators.
It can be inferred from the passage that______.

A:the best schools in the popular media rankings guarantee graduates high salary B:doing research may help students to be better paid later C:professors should be evaluated on the basis of popularity D:Jan Williams may not agree with AACSB on the issue about doing research

Something extraordinary is happening in London this week: in Lambeth, one of the city’s poorest boroughs(区), 180 children are starting their secondary education in a brand new school. The state- funded school was set up by parents who were fed up with the quality of local education. In countries with more enlightened education systems, this would be unremarkable. In Britain, it is an amazing achievement by a bunch of desperate and determined people after years of struggle.
Britain’s schools are in a mess. Average standards are not improving despite billions in extra spending, and a stubbornly long tail of underachievers straggles(拖后腿) behind. A couple of years ago, a consensus emerged among reformers that councils had too much control and parents too little.
One might have expected more from the Conservatives, who stood for election on a pledge to bring in school vouchers. Yet the Tory policy group charged with thinking deep thoughts about public services paid only lip service to parent power in its report. Where schools are failing, it said, parents or charities should get taxpayers ’money to open new ones. But only 2.9% are actually failing, on official definitions. And another proposal, that children in failing schools get extra funding if they go elsewhere, was so lacking in detail as to be meaningless.
Worry about underperforming schools is hardly confined to Britain: in America, in Italy, in Germany, even in once-proud France education is a hot-button topic. Yet a number of countries seem to have cracked it. Although specific problems differ in different societies, parental choice is at the heart of most successful solutions. What are the lessons
The first is that if a critical mass of parents wants a new school and there is a willing provider, local government should be required to finance it as generously as it does existing state schools. The second is that if a charity wants to open a school in the hope that children will come, then taxpayers’ money should follow any that do. Third, rules about what, where and how schools teach should be relaxed to avoid stifling innovation and discouraging newcomers with big ideas. In any event, public-examination results would give parents the information they needed to enforce high standards.
These proposals may seem radical, yet parents in the Netherlands have had the right to demand new schools since 1917, and those in Sweden have been free since 1992 to take their government money to any school that satisfies basic government rules. In the Netherlands 70% of children are educated in private schools at the taxpayers’ expense; in Sweden 10% already are. In both countries state spending on education is lower per head than in Britain, and results are better. It doesn’t take a genius IQ -- just a little political courage -- to draw the correct conclusion.

From other countries’ successful experience, Britain can learn that （　）

A:tax payers’ money should be divided equally between parents and state schools. B:there should not be a tight control over the specific ways of teaching. C:the public money should go to any charity who would like to attract students. D:public surveillance should inform parents in order to maintain high standards.

This year’s Sumantra Ghoshal Conference, held at London Business School, debated whether strategy research has become irrelevant to the practice of management. The late Mr Ghoshal published a paper in 2005 scolding business schools for pouring "bad theory" on their students. That same year Warren Bennis and James O’Toole, both at the University of Southern California, published an article in the Harvard Business Review criticising MBA programmes for paying too much attention to "scientific" research and not enough to what current and future managers actually needed. Business schools, they argued, would be better off acting more like their professional counterparts, such as medical or law schools, nurturing skilled practitioners as well as frequent publishers.
However, business school professors have a tendency not to change. Since universities take journal rankings into account when awarding tenure, academics are rewarded more when they publish in research journals. (Popular media rankings of MBA programmes, although not The Economist’s, also take research output into account.)
In 2008 the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) took up the debate, publishing a report on making business research more useful. It suggested that tenure committees become more flexible. A scholar dedicated to popularising management ideas, for example, should be evaluated on book sales and attention from the news media, not on articles in research journals. This would allow faculty to reach out to wider audiences, rather than be, as Messrs Bennis and O’Toole put it, "damned as popularisers".
But that might also risk granting tenure on the basis of trendy but ultimately unhelpful ideas. In any case, some argue that the relevance of business research is understated. Jan Williams, vice chair of AACSB, argues that doing research allows faculty members to stay at the forefront of their subject, and that in turn improves their teaching. "We can’t teach students outdated material," he says.
What is more, a paper in Academy of Management Learning & Education suggests that faculty members’ research productivity and their students’ earnings after graduation may be positively linked. Certainly, the best known schools often have strong research reputations to match their recognition in the wider world. So, should a student worry about a faculty’s research ability when applying to a school If business schools with better researchers produce better-paid graduates, then perhaps they should. But only up to a point: what MBA students most need is skillful teaching and help in developing their critical thinking skills first; access to frontier research comes afterwards. As Messrs Bennis and O’Toole put it: "Business professors too often forget that executive decision-makers are not fact-collectors; they are fact users and integrators.

It can be inferred from the passage that（）

A:the best schools in the popular media rankings guarantee graduates high salary B:doing research may help students to be better paid later C:professors should be evaluated on the basis of popularity D:Jan Williams may not agree with AACSB on the issue about doing research

Something extraordinary is happening in London this week: in Lambeth, one of the city’s poorest boroughs(区), 180 children are starting their secondary education in a brand new school. The state- funded school was set up by parents who were fed up with the quality of local education. In countries with more enlightened education systems, this would be unremarkable. In Britain, it is an amazing achievement by a bunch of desperate and determined people after years of struggle.
Britain’s schools are in a mess. Average standards are not improving despite billions in extra spending, and a stubbornly long tail of underachievers straggles(拖后腿) behind. A couple of years ago, a consensus emerged among reformers that councils had too much control and parents too little.
One might have expected more from the Conservatives, who stood for election on a pledge to bring in school vouchers. Yet the Tory policy group charged with thinking deep thoughts about public services paid only lip service to parent power in its report. Where schools are failing, it said, parents or charities should get taxpayers ’money to open new ones. But only 2.9% are actually failing, on official definitions. And another proposal, that children in failing schools get extra funding if they go elsewhere, was so lacking in detail as to be meaningless.
Worry about underperforming schools is hardly confined to Britain: in America, in Italy, in Germany, even in once-proud France education is a hot-button topic. Yet a number of countries seem to have cracked it. Although specific problems differ in different societies, parental choice is at the heart of most successful solutions. What are the lessons
The first is that if a critical mass of parents wants a new school and there is a willing provider, local government should be required to finance it as generously as it does existing state schools. The second is that if a charity wants to open a school in the hope that children will come, then taxpayers’ money should follow any that do. Third, rules about what, where and how schools teach should be relaxed to avoid stifling innovation and discouraging newcomers with big ideas. In any event, public-examination results would give parents the information they needed to enforce high standards.
These proposals may seem radical, yet parents in the Netherlands have had the right to demand new schools since 1917, and those in Sweden have been free since 1992 to take their government money to any school that satisfies basic government rules. In the Netherlands 70% of children are educated in private schools at the taxpayers’ expense; in Sweden 10% already are. In both countries state spending on education is lower per head than in Britain, and results are better. It doesn’t take a genius IQ -- just a little political courage -- to draw the correct conclusion.

From other countries’ successful experience, Britain can learn that （）

A:tax payers’ money should be divided equally between parents and state schools B:there should not be a tight control over the specific ways of teaching C:the public money should go to any charity who would like to attract students D:public surveillance should inform parents in order to maintain high standards

The Supreme Court will hear arguments about the use of public money for the private schooling of children with special needs. It’s interesting to note what’s not at issue: namely, that when a public school system is unable to provide an appropriate education, it is obligated to pay the costs of private school. Too bad poor children don’t have that unshakable right; if they did, there would be no controversy about the District program that gives vouchers to low-income children to attend private schools.
The case to be heard by the court hinges on whether parents have to enroll a child with special needs in public school before the child can attend private school at public expense. Special-education advocates say students shouldn’t have to waste time before being placed in a setting that best suits their needs, while school boards worry about a ruling that could amount to an unfettered fight to private schooling at public expense. What strikes us about the emotionally charged debate is the acceptance by both sides that sometimes it is appropriate to use public money to pay for a child to go to a private school. So, why all the arguments about the approximately$14 million for a federally funded program that lets 1,700 D. C. students attend private schools instead of failing public schools
To hear critics of the D. C. Opportunity Scholarship Program tell it, the use of public money for private schooling is as unprecedented as it is undesirable. In addition to the billions of dollars spent annually on private school tuitions for students with disabilities, private schools get public money for books, technology and teacher training. As long as the money is seen as benefiting the child, it is considered a proper, even desirable, use of public dollars.
Don’t get us wrong. We’re not arguing for the unilateral right of parents to enroll their sons and daughters in any school they wish with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Abuse of special-education policies has contributed to increased costs that threaten to take needed money from general public education funds. Safeguards are needed. Public schools should be pressed to do a better job for students with disabilities and students without. But there are schools in Washington where statistics show that failure is almost guaranteed. If a school system can’t educate a child—whether because of acute special needs or its own historical failings—why should that child not have options for a " free appropriate public education "

Which of the following is TRUE about the special-education advocates’ opinion（）

A:They strongly believe that children should be put directly into the private schools B:They think that children should try out both places before making decisions C:They don’t feel there is still a need to argue about this problem any more D:They hold the opinion that parents can make decisions for their children

Independent schools are actually called ______.

A:religious schools B:boarding schools C:secondary schools D:private schools