High school dropouts earn an average of $9,000 less per year than graduates. Now a new study dispels a common belief why they quit. It’s much more basic than flunking out.
Society tends to think of high school dropouts as kids who just can’t cut it. They are lazy, and perhaps not too bright. So researchers were surprised when they asked more than 450 kids who quit school about why they left.
"The vast majority actually had passing grades and they were confident that they could have graduated from high school. " John Bridgeland, the executive researcher said. About 1million teens leave school each year. Only about half of African American and Hispanic student will receive a diploma, and actually all dropouts come to regret their decision. So, if failing grades don’t explain why these kids quit, what does Again, John Bridgeland: "The most dependable finding was that they were bored. " "They found classes uninteresting; they weren’t inspired or motivated. They didn’t see any direct connection between what they were learning in the classroom to their own lives, or to their career aspirations. "
The study found that most teens who do drop out wait until they turn sixteen, which happens to be the age at which most states allow students to quit. In the US, only one state, New Mexico, has a law requiring teenagers to stay in high school until they graduate. Only four states: California, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, plus the District of Columbia, require school attendance until age 18, no exceptions, another researcher, says raising the compulsory attendance age may be one way to keep more kids in school.
"As these dropouts look hack, they realize they’ve made a mistake. And anything that sort of gives these people an extra push to stick it out and it through to the end, is probably helpful measure. "
New Hampshire may be the next state to raise its school attendance age to 18. But critics say that forcing the students unwilling to continue their studies to stay in school misses the point—the need for reform. It’s been called for to reinvent high school education to make it more challenging and relevant, and to ensure that kids who do stick it out receive a diploma that actually means something.
Most high school students drop out of school because ______.

A:they have failing grades B:they take no interest in classes C:they are discriminated against D:they are lazy and not intelligent

High school dropouts earn an average of $9,000 less per year than graduates. Now a new study dispels a common belief why they quit. It’s much more basic than flunking out.
Society tends to think of high school dropouts as kids who just can’t cut it. They are lazy, and perhaps not too bright. So researchers were surprised when they asked more than 450 kids who quit school about why they left.
"The vast majority actually had passing grades and they were confident that they could have graduated from high school. " John Bridgeland, the executive researcher said. About 1million teens leave school each year. Only about half of African American and Hispanic student will receive a diploma, and actually all dropouts come to regret their decision. So, if failing grades don’t explain why these kids quit, what does Again, John Bridgeland: "The most dependable finding was that they were bored. " "They found classes uninteresting; they weren’t inspired or motivated. They didn’t see any direct connection between what they were learning in the classroom to their own lives, or to their career aspirations. "
The study found that most teens who do drop out wait until they turn sixteen, which happens to be the age at which most states allow students to quit. In the US, only one state, New Mexico, has a law requiring teenagers to stay in high school until they graduate. Only four states: California, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, plus the District of Columbia, require school attendance until age 18, no exceptions, another researcher, says raising the compulsory attendance age may be one way to keep more kids in school.
"As these dropouts look hack, they realize they’ve made a mistake. And anything that sort of gives these people an extra push to stick it out and it through to the end, is probably helpful measure. "
New Hampshire may be the next state to raise its school attendance age to 18. But critics say that forcing the students unwilling to continue their studies to stay in school misses the point—the need for reform. It’s been called for to reinvent high school education to make it more challenging and relevant, and to ensure that kids who do stick it out receive a diploma that actually means something.

A:they have failing grades B:they take no interest in classes C:they are discriminated against D:they are lazy and not intelligent

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.
According to Paragraph 3, the Conservatives’ response to the poor British education is that ______.

A:they have fulfilled their promises by giving money to parents when schools fail. B:they have given official definitions of the failing schools on a loose basis. C:they elaborate the proposal that children in failing schools get extra funding if they transfer. D:they show real concerns over public education problems during their election.

The richest man in America stepped to the podium and declared war on the nation’s school systems. High schools had become "obsolete" and were "limiting—even ruining—the lives of millions of Americans every year. " The situation had become "almost shameful. " Bill Gates, prep-school grad and college dropout, had come before the National Governors Association seeking converts to his plan to do something about it—a plan he would back with $ 2 billion of his own cash.
Gates’s speech, in February 2005, was a signature moment in what has become a decade-long campaign to improve test scores and graduation rates, waged by a loose alliance of wealthy CEOs who arrived with no particular background in education policy—a fact that has led critics to dismiss them as "the billionaire boys’ club. " Their bets on poor urban schools have been as big as their egos and their bank accounts.
Has this big money made the big impact that they—as well as teachers, administrators, parents, and students—hoped for The results, though mixed, are dispiriting proof that money alone can’t repair the desperate state of urban education. For all the millions spent on reforms, nine of the 10 school districts studied substantially trailed their state’s proficiency and graduation rates—often by 10 points or more. That’s not to say that the urban districts didn’t make gains.
The good news is many did improve and at a rate faster than their states’ 60 percent of the time—proof that the billionaires made some solid bets. But those spikes up weren’t enough to erase the deep gulf between poor, inner-city schools, where the big givers focused, and their suburban and rural counterparts. "A lot of things we do don’t work out," admitted Broad, a product of Detroit public schools and Michigan State who made a fortune in home building and financial services: "But we can take the criticism. "
The confidence that marked Gates’s landmark speech to the governors’ association in 2005 has given way to humility. The billionaires have not retreated. But they have retooled, and learned a valuable lesson about their limitations. "It’s so hard in this country to spread good practice. When we started funding, we hoped it would spread more readily," acknowledges Vicki Phillips, the director of K-12 education at the Bill ＆ Melinda Gates Foundation. "What we learned is that the only things that spread well in school are kids’ viruses. "
The business titans entered the education arena convinced that America’s schools would benefit greatly from the tools of the boardroom. They sought to boost incentives for improving performance, deploy new technologies, and back innovators willing to shatter old orthodoxies. They pressed to close schools that were failing, and sought to launch new, smaller ones. They sent principals to boot camp. Battling the long-term worry that the best and brightest passed up the classroom for more lucrative professions, they opened their checkbooks to boost teacher pay. It was an impressive amount of industry. And in some places, it has worked out—but with unanticipated complications.
The author thinks that the rich men’s money

A:will fuel the nation’s efforts to save urban schools. B:is not big enough for saving the failing school programs. C:has bet on the wrong target which could not possibly be met. D:could hardly transform failing classrooms as they hoped for.

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.

A:they have fulfilled their promises by giving money to parents when schools fail. B:they have given official definitions of the failing schools on a loose basis. C:they elaborate the proposal that children in failing schools get extra funding if they transfer. D:they show real concerns over public education problems during their election.

His health failing, （　） in 1995

A:Andrew Peters went on leave from the army B:so Andrew Peters went on leave from the army C:when the army gave Andrew Peters leave D:the army gave Andrew Peters leave

High school dropouts earn an average of $9,000 less per year than graduates. Now a new study dispels a common belief why they quit. It’s much more basic than flunking out.
Society tends to think of high school dropouts as kids who just can’t cut it. They are lazy, and perhaps not too bright. So researchers were surprised when they asked more than 450 kids who quit school about why they left.
"The vast majority actually had passing grades and they were confident that they could have graduated from high school. " John Bridgeland, the executive researcher said. About 1million teens leave school each year. Only about half of African American and Hispanic student will receive a diploma, and actually all dropouts come to regret their decision. So, if failing grades don’t explain why these kids quit, what does Again, John Bridgeland: "The most dependable finding was that they were bored. " "They found classes uninteresting; they weren’t inspired or motivated. They didn’t see any direct connection between what they were learning in the classroom to their own lives, or to their career aspirations. "
The study found that most teens who do drop out wait until they turn sixteen, which happens to be the age at which most states allow students to quit. In the US, only one state, New Mexico, has a law requiring teenagers to stay in high school until they graduate. Only four states: California, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, plus the District of Columbia, require school attendance until age 18, no exceptions, another researcher, says raising the compulsory attendance age may be one way to keep more kids in school.
"As these dropouts look hack, they realize they’ve made a mistake. And anything that sort of gives these people an extra push to stick it out and it through to the end, is probably helpful measure. "
New Hampshire may be the next state to raise its school attendance age to 18. But critics say that forcing the students unwilling to continue their studies to stay in school misses the point—the need for reform. It’s been called for to reinvent high school education to make it more challenging and relevant, and to ensure that kids who do stick it out receive a diploma that actually means something.
Most high school students drop out of school because ______.

A:they have failing grades B:they take no interest in classes C:they are discriminated against D:they are lazy and not intelligent

High school dropouts earn an average of $9,000 less per year than graduates. Now a new study dispels a common belief why they quit. It’s much more basic than flunking out.
Society tends to think of high school dropouts as kids who just can’t cut it. They are lazy, and perhaps not too bright. So researchers were surprised when they asked more than 450 kids who quit school about why they left.
"The vast majority actually had passing grades and they were confident that they could have graduated from high school. " John Bridgeland, the executive researcher said. About 1million teens leave school each year. Only about half of African American and Hispanic student will receive a diploma, and actually all dropouts come to regret their decision. So, if failing grades don’t explain why these kids quit, what does Again, John Bridgeland: "The most dependable finding was that they were bored. " "They found classes uninteresting; they weren’t inspired or motivated. They didn’t see any direct connection between what they were learning in the classroom to their own lives, or to their career aspirations. "
The study found that most teens who do drop out wait until they turn sixteen, which happens to be the age at which most states allow students to quit. In the US, only one state, New Mexico, has a law requiring teenagers to stay in high school until they graduate. Only four states: California, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, plus the District of Columbia, require school attendance until age 18, no exceptions, another researcher, says raising the compulsory attendance age may be one way to keep more kids in school.
"As these dropouts look hack, they realize they’ve made a mistake. And anything that sort of gives these people an extra push to stick it out and it through to the end, is probably helpful measure. "
New Hampshire may be the next state to raise its school attendance age to 18. But critics say that forcing the students unwilling to continue their studies to stay in school misses the point—the need for reform. It’s been called for to reinvent high school education to make it more challenging and relevant, and to ensure that kids who do stick it out receive a diploma that actually means something.
Most high school students drop out of school because ______.

A:they have failing grades B:they take no interest in classes C:they are discriminated against D:they are lazy and not intelligent