Smother Love
Every morning,Leanne Brickland and he sister would bicycle to school with the same words ringing in their ears:“watch out crossing the road.Don't speak to strangers”.“Mum would stand at the top of the steps and call that out,”says Brickland,now a primary-school teachet and mother of four from Rotorua,New Zealand.Substitute boxers and thongs for undies(內衣),and the nagging fears that haunt parents haven't really changed.What has altered,dramatically,is the confidence we once had in our children's ability to fling themselves at life without a grown-up holding their hands
Worry-ridden Parents and Stifled Kids
By today'sstandards,the childhood freedoms Brickland took for granted practically verge on parental neglect.Her mother worked,so she and her sister had a key to let themselves in after school and were expected todo their homework and put on the potatoes for dinner.At the family's beach house near Wellington,the two girls,from the age of five or six,would disappear for hours to play in the lakes and sands.
A generation later,Brickland's children are growing up in a world more indulged yet more accustomed to peril.The techno-minded generation of PlayStation kids who can conquer entire armies and rocket through spacecan't even be trusted to cross the street alone.“I worry about the road.I worry about strangers.In some ways I think they're missing out,but I like to be able to see them, to know where they are and what they'redoing.”
Call it smother love,indulged-kid syndrome,parental neurosis(神經癥).Even though today's children have the universe at their fingertips thanks to the Internet,their physical boundaries are shrinking at a rapid pace.According to British social scientist Mayer Hillman,a child's play zone has contracted so radically that we're producing the human equivalent of henhouse chickens-plump from lack of exercise and without the flexibility and initiative of freerange kids of the past.The spirit of our times is no longer the resourceful adventurer Tom Sawyer but rather the worry-ridden dad and his stifled only child in Finding Nemo.
In short,child rearing has become an exercise in risk minimization,represented by stories such as the father who refused to allow his daughter on a school picnic to the beach for fear she might drown.While it's natural for a parent to want to protect their children from danger,you have to wonder;Have we gone too far?
Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool
A study conducted by Paul Tranter,a lecturer in geography at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra,showed that while Australian and New Zealand children had similar smounts of unsupervised freedom,it was far less than German of English kids.For example,only a third of ten-year-olds in Australia and New Zealand were allowed to visit places other than school alone,compared to 80 percent in Germany.
Girls were even more restricted than boys,with parents fearing assault or molestation(騷擾),while traffic dangers were seen as the greatest threat to boys.Bike ownership has doubled in a generation,but“independent mobility”---the ability to roam and explore unsupervised---has radically declined.In Auckland,for example,many primary schools have done away with bicycle racks because the streets are considered too unsafe.And in Christchurch,New Zealand's most bike-friendly city,the number of pupils cycling to school has fallenfrom more than 90 percent in the late 1970s to less than 20 percent.Safely strapped into the family 4x4,children are instead driven from home to the school gate,then off to ballet,soccer or swimming lessons--rarely straying from watchful adult eyes.
In the U.S.Journal of Physical Education,Recreation&Dance,New Jersey assistant principal and hockey coach Bobbie Schultz writes that playing in the street after school with neighbourhood kids--creating their own rules,making their own decisions and settling disputes--was where the real learning took place.“The street was one of the greatest sources of my life skills,”she says.“I don't see‘on-the-street play’anymore.I see adult-organized activities.Parents don't realize what an integral part of character development their children are missing.”
Armoured with bicycle helmets,car seats,“safe”playgrounds and sunscreen,children are getting the messageloud and clear that the world is full or peril--and that they're ill-equipped to handle it alone.Yet research consistently shows young people are much more capable than we think,says professor Anne Smith,directorof New Zealand's Children's Issues Centre.“The thing that many adults have difficulty with is that children can't learn to be grown-up if they're excluded and protected all the time.”
Educational psychologist Paul Prangley reckons it's about time the kid gloves came off.He believes parenting has taken on a paranoid(患妄想狂的)edge that's creating a generation of naive,insecure youngsters whoare subconsciously being taught they're incapable of handing things by themselves.“Flexibility and the ability to resist pressure and temptation are learned skills,”Prangley explains.“If you wrap kids up in cotton wool and don't give them the opportunity to take risks,they're less equipped to make responsible decisions later in life.”
Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective
Sadly,high-profile cases of children being kidnapped and murdered--such as ten-year-old Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in the United Kingdom;five-year-old Chloe Hoson in Australia,whose body was found just 200 metres from where she lived;and six-year-old Teresa Cormack in New Zealand,who was snatched off the street on her way to school--only serve to reinforce parents'fears.Teresa Cormack's death,for example,was one of the rare New Zealand cases of random child kidnap.In Australia,the odds of someone under the age of 15 being murdered by a stranger have been estimated at one in four million.A child is at far greater risk from afamily member or someone they know.
However,parental fear is contagious.In one British study,far more children feared an attack by a stranger than being hit by a car.“We are losing our sense of perspective,”write Jan Parker and Jan Stimpson in their parenting book,Raising Happy Children.“Every parent has to negotiate their own route between equipping children with the skills they need to stay safe and not restricting or terrifying them unnecessarily in the process.”
Dr.Claire Freeman,a planning expert at the University of Otago,points to the erosion of community responsibility as another casualty of that mutual distrust.Not so long ago,adults knew all the local kids and werethe informal guardians of the neighbourhood.“Now,particularly if you are a man,you may hesitate to offer help to a lost child for fear your motives might be questioned.”
More Space and More Attention to Kid's Needs
As a planner in the mid-1990s,Freeman became concerned about the loss of green space to development and the erosion of informal places to play.In a study that looked at how children in the British city of Leeds spent their summer holidays,compared with their parents' childhood experiences,she found the freedom to explore had been severely contracted--in some cases,down to the front yard.Freeman says she cannot remember being inside the house as a child,or being alone.Growing up was about being part of a group.Now a mother offour,Freeman believes the “domestication of play”is robbing kids of their sense of belonging within a society.
Nevertheless,Freeman says children's needs are starting to get more emphasis.In the Netherlands,child-friendly “home zones”have been created where priority is given to pedestrians,rather than cars.And ponds arebeing incorporated back into housing estates on the principle that children should learn to be safe aroundwater,rather than be surrounded by a barren landscape.After all ,as one of the smarter fosh says in Finding Nemo there's one problem with nothing ever will.
1.According to Brickland,parents nowadays have changed their____________.
A)standards of the children's proper dressing
B)worry about the children's personal safety
C)ways to communicate with children
D)confidence in the children's ability
2.When Brickland and her sister were little,they kept the home key because_____________.
A)they wanted to be trusted
B)their mother had to work
C)their mother didn't live at home
D)they were very naughty and wild
3.Mayer Hillman indicates that children now have less and less_____________.
A)space for playing
B)contact with animals
C)concern about others
D)knowledge about nature
4.Paul Tranter finds that eighty percent of the children were allowed to visit places other than school alone in_____________.
A)Australia
B)New Zealand
C)Germany
D)Britain
5.What is ranked by parents as the greatest threat to boys?
A)Gang crimes.
B)Online games.
C)Extreme sports.
D)Dangerous traffics.
6.Bobbie Schultz points out that real learning takes place in______________.
A)on-the-street play
B)adult-organized activities
C)student-centered teaching
D)home and nature
7.What accident had happened to a little girl called Chloe Hoson?
A)She was robbed on her way to school.
B)She was kidnapped and murdered.
C)She fell a victim to domestic violence.
D)She disappeared for no reason.
8.Claire Freeman thinks that lack of mutual trust results in__________________.
9.Freeman concludes that kids are robbed of their sense of belonging to the society by___________________.
10.Netherlands has placed the rights of pedestrians before those of cars in such areas called____________.
答案：
1.[D][定位]首段末句。
解析：題止中的changed與原文該句中的altered為同義詞，可見altered的賓語confidence為答案的關鍵間，在4個選項中，只有D與confidence有關，為本題答案。A中的dressing試圖將考生的註意力轉移到首段倒數第2句的boxers(四腳褲)和undies(內衣)，雖然這兩個詞比較陌生，但看到該句末的haven't changed，就無須考慮太多，可以肯定A並非本題答案。其他兩個選項的內容在原文並未提及。
2.[B][定位]根據題幹中的Brickland, her sister及home key定位到第1個小標題Worry-ridden Parents and Stifled Kids下首段第2句。
解析：原文該句中的...so...表明了與題幹要求的同樣的因果關系，so前面提到的原因與B相同，因此本題應選B。其他選項均來提及。
3.[A][定位]根據題幹中的Mayer Hillman定位到笫1個小標題Worry-ridde Parents and Stifled Kids下第3段第3句。
解析：該句中的contracted與less and less意思相近，與contracted前的play zone
同義的選項為本題答案，因此A為本題答案。要小心B。原文該句中提到的henhouse chickens可能會誤導考生選擇B.事宴上，henhouse chickens用於比喻受過分保護的小孩，與animals沒有關系。
4.[C][定位]根據題幹中的allowed to visit places 和school alone定位到第2個小標題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下首段末句。
解析：原文該段提到多個國家的名稱，只要按照題幹中的eighty percent，再結合選項中的國家名稱。應該很快可以確定本題答案為C。
5.[D][定位]根據the greatest threat to boys定位到第2個小標題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下第2段首句。
解析：原文該句while引出的分句明確表明traffic dangers是對男孩最大的安全威脅，D是對traffic dangers的同義改寫，為本題答案。
6.[A][定位]根據題幹中的Bobbie Schultz和rcal learning定位到第2個小標題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下第3段首句和第3句。
解析：將首句中破折號前後的內容結合起來可以知道playing in the street after school with neighbourhood kids就是真正學到本領的地方。在該段第3句Bobbie Schultz將此簡稱為on-the-street play，因此A為本題答案。
7.[B][定位]根據題幹中的Chloe Hoson定位到第3個小標題Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective下首段首句。
解析：該句笫2個分句中的body暗示Chloe Hoson被murdered(該句開頭提到的)，因此本題應選B。本段提到的是kidnap和murder，其他選項提到的各種罪案在原文並未提及。
8.[the erosion of community responsibility]
[定位]根據題幹中的Claire Freeman和mutual定位到第3個小標題Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective下末段首句。
解析：空白處應為名詞(詞組)。原文該句中的...as another casualty of...，表明mutual distrust導致the erosion of community responsibility，題目中的lack of mutual trust是對mutual distrust的同義改寫，由此可見，the erosion of community responsibility為本題答案。
9.[the“domestication of play”]
[定位]根據題幹中的Freeman和kids are robbed of their sense定位到最後壹個小標題More Space and More Attention to Kids’Needs下首段末句。
解析：空白處應為名詞(詞組)。對比原文與題目可見，兩個句子的語態相反：原文rob為主動語態，而題目中rob為被動語態，兩句的主語和賓語位置相反，所以原文rob的主語the“domestication of play”即為本題答案。
10.[child-friendly“home zones”]
[定位]根據題幹中的The Netherlands和pedestrians定位到最後壹個小標題 More Space and More Attention to Kids' Needs下末段第2句。
解析：空白處應為名詞(詞組)。題幹與原文中where引出的定語從句內容相同，兩句對比可見.題目中缺少了原句中的主語child-friendly“home zones”。