A new analysis of federal money that publicschools receive for low-income students shows that a record number of thenation’s school districts will receive less in the coming academic year thanthey did for the one just ended.
For the 2005-2006 school year, spending underthe Department of Education’s Title I program, which helps low-achievingchildren in high-poverty areas, is increasing by 3.2 percent, to $12.6billion. But because of populationshifts, growing numbers of poor children, newer census data and complexformulas that determine how the money is divided, more than two-thirds of thedistricts, or 8,843, will not receive as much financing as before.
The analysis, based on data from thedepartment, was made by the Center on Education Policy, a group advocating forpublic schools. A similar study by the group last year showed that 55 percentof the schools would receive less money than they did in the previous year.
“It’s an alarming number.” said Tom Fagan, aformer department official who conducted the analysis. “It’s clear that the amount of overallincrease is not keeping pace with the number of poor kids.”
Susan Aspey, a department spokeswoman,defended the spending levels for Title I, saying, “President Bush and Congresshave invested record amounts of funding to help the nation’s needieststudents.”
But Mr. Fagan said the increasing number ofdistricts that are losing money is making it harder for the schools to meet thegoals of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush administration’ssignature education program, which measures progress through annual tests inmath, reading and science. That isgiving critics of the program more grounds to accuse the administration of notsufficiently financing the program while demanding greater results.
Title I provides the largest component offinancing for No Child Left Behind.
“The federal government is concentrating moremoney in fewer districts,” said John F. Jennings, the president and chiefexecutive of the Center on Education Policy. “It means there is lots of anger and lots of tension. They’re asking usto do more and more with less and less.”
1. As itis indicated in the passage, the new analysis _______.
A. studied the federal money spent onlow-income students
B. aimed at promoting the establishment ofmore public schools
C. showed that about half the schools wouldreceive less money
D. was conducted by the Department ofEducation’s Title 1 program
2. Whichof the following factors does NOT lead to the result that more than two-thirdsof the districts will get more poorly financed?
A. People often move from one place toanother.
B. There are more children from poorfamilies.
C. The way of distributing money has changed.
D. Spending under the Title I program decreased.
3. SusanAspey looks at the funding by the government with _______.
A. criticism B. consent
C. indifference D. expectation
4.According to Tom Fagan, ______.
A. the government has done its best tofinance the poor children
B. the goals of No Child Left Behind Act aredifficult to realize
C. the way of measuring progress by annualtests should be changed
D. the Bush government shouldn’t haveapproved the Title I program
5. Whenthe government concentrates more money in fewer districts, _______.
A. more poor children will get benefited
B. more public schools will have to be closed
C. it will arouse more people’sdissatisfaction
D. No Child Left Behind Act will be realizedsooner
1.[A] 事实细节题。本题考查长句的理解。从第1段首句中的“…of…”这一结构可知这个最新分析是要研究联邦政府资金问题的。在判断其他的选项时，理解好第3段第1句是关键，这是一个长句，中间插进了一个分词结构，最后是一个后置定语结构，理顺了语序后，就可理解选项B中aimedat的行为主体应为the Center on Education Policy，也可判断出这项最新分析是由the Center on Education Policy进行的，因此排除选项D，根据第3段最后一句，选项C中show的行为主体应为similar study。
3．[B]观点态度题。本题考查文章人物的观点。苏珊·阿斯贝的观点态度只能从第5段推断出，从这一段中的defended和record amount of funding可知她对教育部的拨款数是认同的。选项A和C都是贬义词，不可能表达她的观点；选项D虽是褒义词，但苏珊是在陈述已发生的事实。而不是发表对教育部的期望。
4．[B]推理判断题。本题考查复合句的理解。文中提及汤姆·法甘的看法有第4段和第6段。选项C最具干扰性，要排除这个干扰，关键是要理解第6段第1句中由which引导的非限制性定语从句的作用、这个从句是对前面“the Bush administration’s stgnatureeducation program”的附加事实信息，不属于汤姆·法甘的看法。