单选题 Throughout the nation"s more than 15,000 school districts, widely differing approaches to teaching science and math have emerged. Though there can be strength in diversity, a new international analysis suggests that this variability has instead contributed to lackluster (平淡的) achievement scores by U.S. children relative to their peers in other developed countries. Indeed, concludes William H. Schmidt of Michigan State University, who led the new analysis, "no single intellectually coherent vision dominates U.S. educational practice in math or science. " The reason, he said, "is because the system is deeply and fundamentally flawed. " The new analysis, released this week by the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Va., is based on data collected from about 50 nations as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Not only do approaches to teaching science and math vary among individual U. S. communities, the report finds, but there appears to be little strategic focus within a school district"s curricula, its textbooks, or its teachers" activities. This contrasts sharply with the coordinated national programs of most other countries. On average, U.S. students study more topics within science and math than their international counterparts do. This creates an educational environment that "is a mile wide and an inch deep," Schmidt notes. For instance, eighth graders in the United States cover about 33 topics in math versus just 19 in Japan. Among science courses, the international gap is even wider. U.S. curricula for this age level resemble those of a small group of countries including Australia, Thailand, Iceland, and Bulgaria. Schmidt asks whether the United States wants to be classed with these nations, whose educational systems "share our pattern of splintered (支离破碎的) visions" but which are not economic leaders. The new report "couldn"t come at a better time", says Gerald Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association in Arlington. "The new National Science Education Standards provide that focused vision," including the call "to do less, but in greater depth". Implementing the new science standards and their math counterparts will be the challenge, he and Schmidt agree, because the decentralized responsibility for education in the United States requires that any reforms be tailored and instituted one community at a time. In fact, Schmidt argues, reforms such as these proposed national standards "face an almost impossible task, because even though they are intellectually coherent, each becomes only one more voice in the babble (嘈杂声). " (411 words)

单选题 According to the passage, the teaching of science and math in America is

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：本题属于事实细节题。根据关键词“teaching of science and math”定位到原文第一句：在美国超过一万五千个学区中，科学和数学的教学方法千差万别。该段第二句又提到“尽管多样化有好处……”，这说明“多样化”是美国科学和数学教学的特征，故B正确。A“集中开发学生的潜力”，文中无信息支持。C“逐步失去活力”，D“最近几年走下坡路”，文章虽指出了美国的教育体系有缺陷，但并未说其失去活力或走下坡路，故不应选C、D。

单选题 The fundamental flaw of American school education is that______.

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：本题属于事实细节题。根据关键词“fundamental flaw”可定位到原文第二段，但答案并不在其中(而是在第四段)。根据对文章第四段的分析，应该选A“美国学校教育缺乏一个协调一致的全国性标准”。B“它对学生设定了非常低的学术标准”，文中无内容支持(只是说美国学生学的多而不精)；C“它非常依赖各个教师的主动性”，文中无信息支持；D“它太重视学校课程的深入学习”，与文章内容相反。

单选题 By saying that the U.S. educational environment is "a mile wide and an inch deep" (Lines 2~3, Para. 5), the author means U.S. educational practice______.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】解析：本题属于语义理解题，问作者对美国教育实践的看法。根据上面两段“This”指代的事实以及“For instance”后对“a mile wide and an inch deep”的进一步解释可以看出，美国教育注重所开科目的广度而不重视深度，所以选D“只触及了许多科目的表面”。另外，“educational environment”=“educational practice”。A“牺牲数量来强调质量”，和文中内容相反；B“为全面综合教育提供了环境”，文中只提到科学和数学教育，并未出现全面综合教育的概念；C“鼓励既深入又广泛地学习”，这只是美国教育改革的方向，与原文内容不一致。

单选题 The new National Science Education Standards are good news in that they will

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：本题属于事实细节题。根据关键词“The new National Education Standards”和“good news”，定位到第七段。本题所问的原因在第二句，注意“but”引起的强调，故选A“使学校的科学教育具有深度”。B“解决学校教学的大部分问题”，歪曲并夸张了文章原意；C“能够满足社区需求”，文中未提及，因为新的全国科学教育标准是为了弥补教育体制的缺陷而制定的；D“迅速在美国的教育实践中处于支配地位”，文中也未提及，而是指出了实现这个新标准将面临挑战。