Some American high schools are for students with special interests, like science or the arts. New York City even has a program for those interested in the food service industry, called Food and Finance High School. New York also has what are called international high schools, or internationals, for immigrant students. They must be new learners of English who have been in the United States less than four years. The first school opened in nineteen eighty-five. The city will begin the new term next month with ten. New York works with a nonprofit organization, the Internationals Network for Public Schools. Support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has helped the network expand. The network says the graduation rate was seventy percent last year in the four New York schools open long enough to have graduating classes. That, compared with twenty-three percent for English language learners in all of the city schools. Over all, New York officials recently reported that the city's four-year graduation rate, reached fifty-two percent last year. At the same time, they reported that the city's dropout rate fell below fifteen percent. The Internationals Network says its schools have an average dropout rate of just five percent. Claire Sylvan is the executive director of the group. She says students drop out mainly because their families need them to work or because parents arrange marriages for girls. The Internationals Network mainly helps find teachers and trains them in the teaching method of the internationals. Claire Sylvan says the teaching approach is to have students use their different strengths to help each other. They work in small groups, but she says they are not grouped by ability. She says the students discuss issues, then produce a product like a paper, a play, a poster or a report. They learn English as they work. One of the reasons why some students drop out of school is that _ . A) their parents can't afford to pay for the education B) they have to help their parents with the work C) girls are forced to make money for their families D) they have trouble in passing all kinds of exams
B
On countless mornings over the past year, I stood with my son, James, in our driveway, watching our neighbor hurry off to kindergarten.My wife and I wanted to give James the best education, but that meant we'd have to change our jobs and spend less time with our kid.I asked myself, "Would this trade-off be worth it?" When I look at the research on child development, I think it might not.Where our kids go to school might matter less than most American parents think. Social scientists have long tried to determine why some children grow up to be successful.In a 2001 study, Greg Duncan, a professor of education at the University of California, measured the influence that the people in a child's life have on how well the child does in school.Duncan and his team found almost no relationship between how students did on the test and whom they sat beside in class, whom they hung out with after school and who lived in their block.The only meaningful link they found was between siblings and twins in particular. For a long time, scholars thought that a family's income heavily affected how well kids did in life.But that might not be the case.When Susan Mayer at the University of Chicago looked at the relationship between family income and lifetime achievement, she ran a series of experiments to measure it, finding such outcomes weren't caused by income.She argued that the things that make a difference are relatively inexpensive: the number of books a kid has or how often his family goes to museums. Lareau, another scholar began one of the most in-depth observations of American parenting.He concluded that success is much more related to the amount of time parents spend with their children.He said "Many parents I interviewed are anxious about their children's futures.But they have exaggerated the sense of the risks involved if they don't give their children 'the best' of everything." So at last, we decided to leave things as it were.More time with our kid is the best we can provide. Which of the following can be the best title of the passage? A) Parents' time matters to children's future. B) School education determines children's future. C) Family income counts to children's achievements. D) Less education means more risks for children's success.
A
Q: To Whom It May Concern, My husband Jim and I got married in 1965. For the first ten years of our marriage, I was very happy to stay home and raise our three children. Then about four years ago, our youngest child went to school, and I thought I might go back to work. Jim was very supportive and helped me to make my decision. He started to do all the things I used to do around the house, and said he thought I could be a great success in business. After several weeks of job hunting, I found my present job, which is working for a small public relation firm. At first, my husband was proud of me and would tell his friends, "My clever little wife can run that company she's working for." But, as his joking words were becoming reality, Jim stopped talking to me about my job. I have received several promotions and pay increases, and I am now making more money than he is. I can buy my own clothes and a new car. Because of our combined incomes, Jim can do things that we had always dreamed of doing, but we don't do these things because he is unhappy. We fought about little things, and Jim is very critical of me in front of our friends. For the first time in our marriage, I think there is a possibility that our marriage may come to an end. I love Jim very much, and I don't want him to feel inferior , but I also love my job. I think I can be a good wife and a working woman, but I don't know how. Can you give me some advice? Will I have to choose one or the other or can I keep both my husband and my new career? Please help. Yours, Mary Jim stopped talking about her job when _ . A) Jim failed to do what he liked B) she made more money than he C) she received her boss' praise D) Jim had to do housework
A: B
*Question*
It is believed that it took about 800 thousand to 1 million years for the earth's population to reach the 250 million total which existed at the end of the first century AD. For some time after that, disease, famine and war kept the population increase down to a rate of 1 percent a year so that more than 15 centuries passed before the population reached 500 million. But in the next 250 years, up to 1850, the population of the world shot to 1 billion and today it has reached 3.5 billion. Scientists say that in the next 35 years the population of the world will double, reaching almost 7 billion by the year 2010. When experts are asked what are the most effective measures that can stop over population, they reply that at least three measures can be considered. (A) Increasing sources and supply of food for under-developed countries. (B) Increasing the industrialization of under- developed countries. (C) Controlling birth. The experts add, however, that none of the above measures can be effective by itself, and that all must be combined into one whole program. They also agree that without controlling of births, any other measures are doomed to failure. The population of the world doubled between the year _ . A) 1850 and today B) 100 and the year 1400 C) 100 and the year 1600 D) 1 and the year 100
**Answer**
C