High childcare costs are putting British mothers off going out to work. It really is that simple. Eurostat figures show that 66 per cent of mothers in the UK work, less than France (72 per cent), Denmark (86 per cent), the Netherlands (78 per cent) or Germany (69 per cent). This not only damages Britain’s economic prosperity—it limits women’s careers and squeezes family ines. It would be fine if this is the choice parents want to make, but it isn’t. Half of those surveyed want to go to work and the expense of childcare is one of the key reasons they couldn’t.
Despite claims made by Labour (工党) about childcare, a forthing (即将到来的) report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) confirms the true legacy of their time in government. They left behind a childcare system with high costs to parents, variable quality and patchy (不均匀的) coverage, despite soaring government spending. British parents now face the highest childcare bills in the world after Switzerland.
In the Eighties and Nineties under Mrs Thatcher and John Major, the picture was very different. Mothers in England were more likely to go out to work than their Dutch or German counterparts. But the position has reversed, despite a huge rise in public spending.
So why does the British Government spend more on childcare than France or Germany, even though the costs given to parents are sky-high? As always, under the previous government, money was frittered away (浪费) without adequate focus on improving quality. Instead of clear and transparent funding, four separate funding streams were created, skewing (偏离) the market and confusing parents and providers alike. The majority of the money was given away in cash benefits; so much of it did not get through to the front line.
The IPPR report points out that continental systems, in countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, manage to deliver better value for money. What all of these systems have in mon is a focus on quality, with greater flexibility and autonomy given to local providers. They also see a much higher proportion of government money getting to the front line.
【小题1】Which of the following doesn’t belong to the disadvantages caused by the mothers prevented from going to work?A．Damaging Britain’s economic development.B．Causing damage to women’s careers.C．Decreasing the family ines.D．Causing childcare costs to go up.【小题2】According to the second paragraph, we can infer that the former government of the Labour Party .A．was highly praised by British peopleB．made British people face the highest childcare bills C．left behind a childcare system full of problemsD．managed to decrease the government spending【小题3】We can learn from the passage that .A．in the Eighties and Nineties, mothers in the UK were likely to workB．there is a prejudice against mothers in the UK employment marketC．most of the mothers surveyed in the UK don’t want to workD．the percentage of mothers who work in the UK is the lowest in the worldD
网友回答
(答案→)D
解析：本文介绍了由于高昂的儿童保育成本，许多英国妇女不得不放弃工作在家带孩子，这不仅影响经济发展，也不利于女性职业发展和家庭增收。造成这种现象的原因在于政府资金没有得到合理利用，造成浪费。
【小题1】细节题，根据第一段中“This not only damages Britain’s economic prosperity—it limits women’s careers and squeezes family ines. ”这不仅损害了英国的经济繁荣--它限制了女性的职业生涯和挤压了家庭收入。A、B、C项均有提到，只有D项没有提到。故选D。
【小题2】细节题，根据第二段中“They left behind a childcare system with high costs to parents, variable quality and patchy (不均匀的) coverage, despite soaring government spending.”尽管政府开支加大了，可他们留下了一个对父母来说是高额抚养成本，具有不未定性和不完整性的儿童保育系统。可知这套系统问题很多。故选C。
【小题3】推理题，根据第三段中“Mothers in England were more likely to go out to work than their Dutch or German counterparts.”英格兰的妈妈比他们荷兰、德国同行更有可能外出工作。此句中是“England”，而不是“UK”，故A项错误；根据第三段中“But the position has reversed, despite a huge rise in public spending.
e”景观公共支出大幅上升，但这个职位已经发生转变，由此可知给女性的就业机会减少了，故B正确；根据第一段中“Half of those surveyed want to go to work ”一半的受访者想去工作，可知C项错误；根据第一段中“Eurostat figures show that 66 per cent of mothers in the UK work, less than France (72 per cent), Denmark (86 per cent), the Netherlands (78 per cent) or Germany (69 per cent)”可知这些数据是欧盟在其成员国中统计出来的，不是全世界范围内统计出来的，因此D错误。故选B。