When University of California-Berkeley released a study this month showing alarmingly high teacher turnover (人員流動(dòng)) rates at Los Angeles charter schools, I wasn’t surprised.

That’s not a slam at local charter schools. It’s just that the study echoed something I’d observed many times, starting with my niece.

Bright and cheerful, my niece longed to teach high-needs children. She started out in the San Francisco public schools, where she was assigned to the district’s toughest elementary school. Fifth-graders threw chairs across the room — and at her. Parents refused to show up for conferences.

She wasn’t willing to deal with this level of indifference and teacher abuse, so she switched to a highly regarded charger elementary school in the Bay Area where she poured her energy into her job and it showed. Her students’ test scores were high as those in a nearby wealthy school district, despite the obstacles these children faced.

Yet by her fourth year, my niece was worn out, depleted (耗盡) of the energy it took to work with a classroom of sweet but deeply needy children who pleaded to stay in her classroom when it was time to leave. The principal’s offer of a $10,000 raise couldn’t stop her from giving notice. She went to work at that wealthy school district next door — for less money.

Over the years, I’ve met many impassioned (充滿激情的) teachers at charter schools, only to call them the next year and find they’ve left. The authors of the Berkeley study theorize that the teachers leave because of the extraordinary demands: long hours, intense involvement in students’ complicated lives, continual searches for new ways to raise scores. Even the strongest supporters of the reform movement concede that the task of raising achievement among disadvantaged students is hard work.

It’s unlikely that we can build large-scale school reform on a platform of continual new demands on teachers — more time, more energy, more devotion, more responsibility — even if schools find ways to pay them better. This is the bigger challenge facing schools. We need a more useful answer to the Berkeley study than “Yea, its really hard work.”

62. Why wasn’t the author surprised at the high teacher turnover rates at Los Angles charter schools?

[A] She had participated in the Berkeley study.

[B] She had noticed the phenomenon repeatedly.

[C] She had been involved in the local school reform.

[D] She had been informed of the problem by her niece.

63. What do we learn about the students in the public school the author’s niece taught?

[A] They were undisciplined. [B] They were tough and strong.

[C] Many of them enjoyed less parental care. [D] Many of hem dropped out of school halfway.

64. What does the author say about her niece’s work in the charter elementary school?

[A] It won high praise from her school and colleagues.

[B] It was cited by the Berkeley study as an example.

[C] It contributed to the success of the school reform.

[D] It was well received by the disadvantaged children.

65. Why were the teacher turnover rates so high according to the Berkeley study?

[A] The students were indifferent to learning.

[B] Teachers’ salary was not high enough.

[C] Teachers’ work was too demanding.

[D] Jobs elsewhere were too meaningful.

66. What is the author’s comment on the current school reform movement?

[A] It will give rise to more problems.

[B] It is not likely to be successful.

[C] It will have a positive impact on education.

[D] It demands the local authorities’ support.

【答案】62-66 BADCB