单选题 Good teachers matter. This may seem obvious to anyone who has a child in school or, for that matter, to anyone who has been a child in school. For a long time, though, researchers couldn’t actually prove that teaching talent was important. But new research finally shows that teacher quality is a close cousin to student achievement: A great teacher can cram one-and-a-half grades’ worth of learning into a single year, while laggards are lucky to accomplish half that much.
Yet, while we know now that better teachers are critical, flaws in the way that administrators select and retain them mean that schools don’t always hire the best.
Failing to recognize the qualities that make teachers truly effective and to construct incentives to attract and retain more of these top performers has serious consequences. Higher salaries draw more weak as well as strong applicants into teaching — applicants the current hiring system can’t adequately screen. Unless administrators have incentives to hire the best teachers available, it’s pointless to give them a larger group to choose from. Study after study has shown that teachers with master’s degrees are no better than those without. Job experience does matter, but only for the first few years, according to research by Hoover Institution’s Eric A. Hanushek. A teacher with 15 years of experience is no more effective, on average, than a teacher with five years of experience, but which one do you think is paid more?
This toxic combination of rigid pay and steep rewards for seniority causes average quality to decline rather than increase as teacher groups get older. Top performers often leave the field early for industries that reward their excellence. Mediocre teachers, on the other hand, are soon overcompensated by seniority pay. And because they are paid more than their skills command elsewhere, these less-capable pedagogues settle in to provide many years-of ineffectual instruction.
So how can we separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession? To make American schools competitive, we must rethink seniority pay, the value of master’s degrees, and the notion that a teacher can teach everything equally well — especially math and science — without appropriate preparation in the subject.
Our current education system is unlikely to accomplish this dramatic rethinking. Imagine, for a moment, that American cars had been free in recent decades, while Toyotas and Hondas sold at full price. We’d probably be driving Falcons and Corvairs today. Free public education suffers from a lack of competition in just this way. So while industries from aerospace to drugs have transformed themselves in order to compete, public schooling has stagnated.
School choice could spark the kind of reformation this industry needs by motivating administrators to hire the best and adopt new strategies to keep top teachers in the classroom. The lesson that good teachers matter should be taught, not as a theory, but as a practice.

单选题 The beginning sentence “Good teachers matter.” probably means that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[设题点] 转折处
[解析] 语义理解题。文章第一段尾句but后提到,教师的素质与学生的成绩之间有着密切的关系。冒号后面又解释说:好的老师…,不好的老师…。很显然,作者认为学生的成绩与老师素质密切相关,好的老师会帮助学生达到成功。[C]项表述与原文意思相同,为答案。[A]说“好老师帮助学生树立自信”,原文中并没有提到这一点。 [B]项的表述也不是原文观点,老师不可能决定学生的个性,最多只会对其造成影响。[D]项的表述更属无中生有。
单选题 According to the author, seniority pay favors
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[设题点] 插入语处
[解析] 事实细节题。根据题干信息词seniority pay将答案定位在第四段。第四段倒数第二句插入语处提到,平庸的老师根据资历获得的工资更高。[D]“素质一般的平庸老师”与原文表述相同。原文并没有提到seniority pay与学历之间的关系,所以[A]不正确。[B]和[C]是作者所提倡的观点,而现实中实行的政策正好与此相反,所以教育系统才会出现问题。
单选题 The expression “separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession” is closest in meaning to
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[设题点] 段首比喻处
[解析] 推理判断题。文章第四段讲的主要是好的老师与平庸老师之间的待遇差别。好的老师由于得到的报酬不够高,所以很早就离开了教育行业。而那些平庸的老师根据资历反而工资越来越高。可见,文章是将二者进行了对比,指出教育系统存在的问题。第五段讲的是解决问题的办法。第五段的第一句是对上一段问题的过渡。因此,此句中的wheat(麦子)与chaff(麦糠)分别指代的是好老师与平庸的老师。所以本题答案为[A]。后三项均属对原文的错误理解。
单选题 By citing the example of the automobile industry, the author intends to argue that
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[设题点] 观点总结处
[解析] 事实细节题。文章所举的汽车行业的例子是在倒数第二段。作者在讲完汽车的例子之后,做了总结:免费的公共教育就是缺乏这种竞争机制。可见,举例的目的就是为了指出这个问题。因此,本题答案为[D]。[A]属于对字面意思的肤浅理解,不符合上下文语义。[B]与原文意思相反,教育行业是因为缺乏竞争而停滞不前的,并不是由竞争导致的。[C]更属于无中生有,原文并没有比较日本和美国的教育。
单选题 According to the text, which of the following is true?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 事实细节题。首先观察四个选项。[A]属于绝对表达。文章第一段已经提到,很长时间以来,研究者都无法证明教学人才很重要;可见,always并不正确。原文提到,正是因为教师工资低,优秀的老师才离开教育行业,[B]“学校的工资比其他行业要高”错误。[D]项说,管理者有很多办法来选择优秀的教师,而文章第二段提到,管理者在选择聘用老师时存在的缺点,使他们一直找不到优秀的老师,因此[D]也错误。文章开头先提到好老师的重要性,然后又说管理者总是聘用不到优秀老师,最后又拿汽车行业做比较,指出教育系统因缺乏竞争而停滞不前。因此,[C]“美国老师的素质一直在下降”是原文所表达的观点。