考研英语时文阅读

1考研时文阅读（1）(2008-09-1014:58:51)转载标签：考研时文阅读教育分类：阅读篇FEWideasineducationaremorecontroversialthanvouchers---lettingparentschoosetoeducatetheirchildrenwherevertheywishatthetaxpayer’sexpense.FirstsuggestedbyMiltonFriedman,aneconomist,in1955,theprincipleiscompellingsimple.Thestatepays;parentschoose;schoolscompete;standardsrise;everybodygains.Simple,perhaps,butithasarousedpredictable----andoftenfatal---oppositionfromtheeducationalestablishment.Lettingparentschoosewheretoeducatetheirchildrenisasillyidea;professionalsknowbest.Cooperation,notcompetition,isthewaytoimproveeducationforall.Voucherswouldincreaseinequalitybecausechildrenwhoarehardesttoteachwouldbeleftbehind.Buttheseargumentsarenowsuccumbingtosheerweightofevidence.Voucherschemesarerunninginseveraldifferentcountrieswithoutill-effectsforsocialcohesion;thosethatusealotterytohandoutvouchersofferproofthatrecipientsgetabettereducationthanthosethatdonot.HarryPatrinos,aneducationeconomistattheWorldBank,citesaColombianprogramtobroadenaccesstosecondaryschooling,knownasPACES,a1990sinitiativethatprovidedover125,000poorchildrenwithvoucherswortharoundhalfthecostofprivatesecondaryschool.Crucially,thereweremoreapplicantsthanvouchers.Theprogramme,whichselectedchildrenbylottery,providedresearcherswithanalmostperfectexperiment,akintothe“pill-placebo”studiesusedtojudgetheefficacyofnewmedicines.Thesubsequentresultsshowthatthechildrenwhoreceivedvoucherswere15—20%morelikelytofinishsecondaryeducation,fivepercentagepointslesslikelytorepeatagrade,scorcedabitbetteronscholastictestsandweremuchmorelikelytotakecollegeentranceexams.VouchersprogrammesinseveralAmericanstateshavebeenrunalongsimilarlines.GregForster,astatisticianattheFriedmanFoundation,acharityadvocatinguniversalvouchers,saystherehavebeeneightsimilarstudiesinAmerica:sevenshowedstatisticallysignificantpositiveresultsbutwasnotdesignedwellenoughtocount.Thevoucherpupilsdidbettereventhoughthesatespentlessthanitwouldhavedonehadthechildrenbeeneducatedinnormalstateschools.Americanvoucherschemestypicallyofferprivateschoolsaroundhalfofwhatthesatewouldspendifthepupilsstayedinpublicschools.TheColombianprogrammedidnotevensetouttoofferbetterschoolingthanwasavailableinthestatesector;theaimwassimplytoraiseenrollmentratesasquicklyandcheaplyaspossible.Theseresultsareimportantbecausetheystripoutotherinfluences.Home,neighborhoodandnaturalabilityallaffectresultsmorethanwhichschoolachildattends.Ifthepupilswhoreceivedvouchersdifferfromthosewhodon’t----perhapssimplybycomingfromthesortofgo-gettingfamilythatelbowsitswaytothefrontofeveryqueue---anyeffectmightsimplybetheresultofanynumberofotherfactors.Butassigningthevouchersrandomlyguardedagainstthisrisk.Opponentsstillarguethatthosewhoexercisechoicewillbethemostableandcommitted,andbyclusteringthemselvestogetherinbetterschoolstheywillabandontheweakandvoicelesstolanguishinrottenones.SomecitetheexampleofChile,whereauniversalvoucherschemethatallowsschoolstochargetop-upfeesseemstohaveimprovedtheeducationofthebest-offmost.ThestrongestevidenceagainstthiscriticismcomesfromSweden,whereparentsarefreerthanthoseinalmostanyothercountrytospendastheywishthemoneythegovernmentallocatestoeducatingtheirchildren.Sweepingeducationreformsin1992notonlyrelaxedenrolmentrulesinstatesector,allowingstudentstoattendschoolsoutsidetheirownmunicipality,butalsoletthemtaketheirstatefundingtoprivateschools,includingreligiousonesandthoseoperatingforprofit.Theonlyrealrestrictionsimposedonprivateschoolswerethattheymustruntheiradmissionsonafirst-come-first-servedbasisandpromisenottochargetop-upfees(mostAmericanvoucherschemesimposesimilarconditions).Theresulthasbeenburgeoningvarietyandabreakneckexpansionoftheprivatesector.Atthetimeofthereformsonlyaround1%ofSwedishstudentswereeducatedprivately;now10%are,andgrowthinprivate2schoolingcontinuesunabated.AndersHultinofKunskapsskolan,achainof26Swedishschoolsfoundedbyaventurecapitalistin1999andnowrunningataprofit,saysitsschoolsonlyrarelyhavetoinvokethefirst-come-first-servedrule----thechainhasrespondedtodemandbyexpandingsofastthatparentskeentosendtheirchildrentoitsschoolsusuallygetaplace.Sotheprivatesector,byincreasingthetotalnumberofplacesavailable,caneasethemadscrambleforthebestschoolsinthestatesector(bureaucrats,bycontrast,dislikepayingforextraplacesinpopularschoolsiftherearevacanciesinbadones).MoreevidencethatchoicecanraisestandardsforallcomesfromCarolineHoxby,aneconomistatHarvardUniversity,whohasshownthatwhenAmericanpublicschoolsmustcompetefortheirstudentswithschoolsthatacceptvouchers,theirperformanceimproves.Swedishresearcherssaythesame.Itseemsthatthosewhoworkinstateschoolsarejustlikeeverybodyelse:theydobetterwhenconfrontedbyabitofcompetition.没有什么教育观念比学券更容易引发争议。所谓学券，就是让父母花纳税人的钱随意为孩子选择去哪里上学。经济学家MiltonFriedman1955年首次提出这一概念，其原则十分简单，但令人信服：即国家出钱；父母选择；学校竞争，标准提升；各方受益。这一原则虽然简单，但引发了教育机构的反对。这是预料之中的，但常常是致命的。让父母为孩子选择在何处接受教育的想法很荒唐；专业人士才是最懂行的。合作而非竞争才是提高所有学生教育水平的方式。学券会增加不平等，因为最难教的孩子将会被甩在后面。但是这些说法在强有力的证据面前正败下阵来。一些不同的国家正在实行学券计划，但并没有对社会疑聚力造成负面影响；用抽签方式发放学券的国家也证明：接受学券者比不接受学券者获得了更好的教育。世界银行的教育经济学家HarryPatrinos列举了20世纪9