1 . The “reading wars,” one of the most confusing and disabling conflicts in the history of education, went on heatedly in the 1980s and then peace came. Advocates of phonics (learning by being taught the sound of each letter group) seemed to defeat advocates of whole language (learning by using cues like context and being exposed to much good literature).
Recent events suggest the conflict of complicated concepts is far from over. Teachers, parents and experts appear to agree that phonics is crucial, but what is going on in classrooms is not in agreement with what research studies say is required, which has aroused a national debate over the meaning of the word “phonics.”
Lucy M. Calkins, a professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College and a much-respected expert on how to teach reading, has drawn attention with an eight-page essay. Here is part of her argument: “The important thing is to teach kids that they needn’t freeze when they come to a hard word, nor skip past it. The important thing is to teach them that they have resources to draw upon, and to use those resources to develop endurance.”
To Calkins’s critics, it is cruel and wasteful to encourage 6-year-olds to look for clues if they don’t immediately know the correct sounds. They should work on decoding — knowing the pronunciation of every letter group — until they master it, say the critics, backed by much research.
Calkins’s approach “is a slow, unreliable way to read words and an inefficient way to develop word recognition skill,” Mark S. Seidenberg, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin, said in a blog post. “Dr. Calkins treats word recognition as a reasoning problem — like solving a puzzle. She is committed to the educational principle that children learn best by discovering how systems work rather than being told.”
Many others share his view. “Children should learn to decode — i.e., go from print on the page to words in the mind — not by clever guesswork and inference, but by learning to decode,” Daniel Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, told me. He said the inferences Calkins applauds are “cognitively (认知地) demanding, and readers don’t have much endurance for it. … It disturbs the flow of what you’re reading, and doing a lot of it gets frustrating.”
Yet a recent survey found that only 22 percent of 670 early-reading teachers are using the approach of phonics and what they mean by phonics is often no more than marking up a worksheet.
Both sides agree that children need to acquire the vocabulary and background information that gives meaning to words. But first, they have to pronounce them correctly to connect the words they have learned to speak.
Calkins said in her essay: “Much of what the phonics people are saying is praiseworthy,” but it would be a mistake to teach phonics “at the expense of reading and writing.”
The two sides appear to agree with her on that.
1. Critics of phonics hold the opinion that ________.| A．children should be taught to use context |
| B．teaching phonics is both boring and useless |
| C．kids acquire vocabulary in hearing letter groups |
| D．pronunciation has nothing to do with meaning of words |
| A．Tell me and I will forget; show me and I will remember. |
| B．Skilled reading is fast and automatic but not deliberative. |
| C．Word recognition skill should be developed in problem reasoning. |
| D．Learning to make reasonable inferences is also a way of decoding. |
| A．phonics approach has been proved to be successful |
| B．children don’t shy away from difficulties in reading |
| C．the two reading approaches might integrate with each other |
| D．reading and writing are much more important than phonics |
| A．An everlasting reading war among critics |
| B．From print on the page to words in the mind |
| C．A battle restarts between phonics, whole language |
| D．Decoding and inferring confuse early-reading teachers |
2 . Wholesale prices for gas and electricity are increasing suddenly across Europe,raising the possibility of increases in already-high utility (公共事业）bills and further pain for people who have taken a financial hit fromCOVID-19.
Governments are struggling to find ways to limit costs to consumers as scant natural gas reserves present yet another potential problem, exposing the continent to even more price increases and possible shortages if it’s a cold winter.
In the U.K., many people will see their gas and electricity bills rise next month after the nation’s energy regulator approved a 12% price increase for those without contracts that lock in rates. Officials in Italy have warned that prices will increase by 40% for the quarter that will be billed in October.
There are multiple causes for the price increases, energy analysts say, including tight supplies of natural gas used to generate electricity, higher costs for permits to release carbon dioxide as part of Europe’s fight against climate change, and less supply from wind in some cases.
Analysts at S&P Global Platts say electricity prices have risen due to strong demand from places like data centers and electric cars, but above all because of the rise in the price of natural gas used in generating plants. Utility companies’ exposure to natural gas prices has increased as high-emission coal plants have been retired, while utilities face higher costs for carbon allowances required by the European Union’s emissions trading system, which is aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The tight gas market could bite even more sharply if there’s an unusually cold winter. That’s because European distributors did not refill reserves reduced during last winter as they typically had done in summer months. In March 2008, when the freeze named “the beast from the east” hit Europe, industrial users in the U.K got a notice that there was a risk of interruption, although it didn’t come to that.
Could Europe run out of gas? “The short answer is Yes, this is a real risk,” said James Huckstepp, an analyst at S&P Global Platts. “Storage stocks are at record lows and there isn’t currently any spare supply capacity that is exportable anywhere in the world.The longer answer is that it’s hard to predict how it will play out given that Europe has never run out of gas in two decades under the current distribution system.”
1. What does the underlined word “scant” in Paragraph 2 probably mean?| A．Total. | B．Additional. | C．Limited. | D．Regular. |
| A．The closure of some coal plants. |
| B．The great demand for electric cars. |
| C．The competition between utility companies. |
| D．The change in the emissions trading system. |
| A．More natural gas will be needed for industrial use. |
| B．European distributors don’t make good preparations. |
| C．It is not easy to fill reserves during the cold weather. |
| D．Utility companies work can be easily interrupted. |
| A．Europe is expected to seek help from other countries. |
| B．It is hard to control the gas price in Europe at present. |
| C．Europe might face a serious shortage of gas in the future. |
| D．There’s something wrong with Europe’s distribution system. |
要求：1. 词数100左右；
2.用到主语从句和非谓语动词V-ing形式；
3.列举3个或以上做法；
4.适 当增加细节和连接词，以使内容充实、行文连贯。
注意：已给出的开头、结尾句，不计入词数 。
Good afternoon, everyone!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That's all. Thanks for listening.
4 . During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure had been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis, or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.
In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect: family risk has risen as well. Today’s families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result, they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback – a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can no longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.
During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a saving-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families, the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen – and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new dose of investment risk for families’ future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent – and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance – have jumped eightfold in just one generation.
From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.
1. Today’s double-income families are at greater financial risk in that ________| A．the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared. |
| B．their chances of being laid off have greatly increased. |
| C．they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics. |
| D．they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance. |
| A．a higher sense of security. |
| B．less secured payments. |
| C．less chance to invest. |
| D．a guaranteed future. |
| A．help reduce the cost of healthcare. |
| B．popularize among the middle class. |
| C．compensate for the reduced pensions. |
| D．increase the families’ investment risk. |
| A．financial risks tend to outweigh political risks. |
| B．the middle class may face greater political challenges. |
| C．financial problems may bring about political problems. |
| D．financial responsibility is an indicator of political status. |
