Early Childhood Education: reading answers and analysis
A New Zealand politician argues that the first three years of a child's life matter most. He compares the US 'Headstart' programme, which started at age three and failed despite heavy funding, with Missouri's pilot that trained parents from birth and produced remarkable results. He concludes that New Zealand needs parent education as well as pre-school places.
The section matching (1-4) uses D, B, C and E. The classification (5-10) depends on sections C and D, plus checking for things neither programme did. The TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN block (11-13) is entirely in section E.
Answer key and self-check
Type what you wrote and hit mark. Hide the key first if you haven't done the passage yet. Every question number jumps to its explanation.
Q
Your answer
Answer
Questions 1-4 · Matching information (sections A-F)
How to attack this block: Each section has a clear job: research on the early years, Headstart's failure, Missouri's design and Missouri's results. Match the type of information (reasons, outcomes, family types) rather than the topic words.
Question 1
Answer: DSection D, middle
Which section lists the different kinds of families in a programme?
They included single-parent and two-parent families, families in which both parents worked, and families with either the mother or father at home.
Question says → Passage says
the range of family typesa cross-section of socio-economic status, age and family configurations
involved in an education programmeThe four-year pilot study included 380 families
Why: D describes who took part in the Missouri pilot: single-parent and two-parent families, working parents, a parent at home. That list is the 'range of family types'.
The trap: Section E also mentions single parents, but there they're one of the 'risk' measures in the results, not a description of who was in the programme.
Question 2
Answer: BSection B
Which section explains why the first years of a child's life matter so much?
Researchers claim that the human personality is formed during the first two years of life, and during the first three years children learn the basic skills
Question says → Passage says
reasons why a child's early years are so importantby the age of three, most children have the potential to understand about 1000 words / the human personality is formed during the first two years of life
Why: B is all research evidence about ages 0-3: vocabulary by three, curiosity suppressed in years two and three, personality formed in the first two years. Each fact is a reason those years matter.
The trap: Section F says 'the vital importance of the first three years', which names the idea but gives no reasons. The reasons are in B.
Question 3
Answer: CSection C, second half
Which section explains why a programme didn't work?
Despite substantial funding, results have been disappointing. It is thought that there are two explanations for this. First, the programme began too late.
Question says → Passage says
failedresults have been disappointing
reasons whytwo explanations for this. First… Second, the parents were not involved
Why: C gives Headstart's two problems: it started too late, at three, and parents weren't involved. 'Two explanations' for 'disappointing' results are the reasons it failed.
The trap: D opens by mentioning 'the disappointing results from Headstart', but only as background. The actual reasons are in C.
Question 4
Answer: ESection E
Which section describes the good results of a programme?
The results were phenomenal. By the age of three, the children in the programme were significantly more advanced in language development than their peers
Question says → Passage says
the positive outcomesThe results were phenomenal
Why: E reports the Missouri evaluation: better language, problem solving and social development, and child abuse virtually eliminated. These are the positive outcomes.
The trap: F calls the findings 'exciting', but it's discussing what they mean for New Zealand, not describing the outcomes.
Matching features (A-D)
Questions 5-10
How to attack this block: Read C for Headstart and D-E for Missouri, then decide whether each feature belongs to one, both or neither. 'Neither' answers are features nobody mentions, and one of them reverses what is said about funding.
Question 5
Answer: BSection D, third sentence
Which programme served families from a mix of income levels?
380 families who were about to have their first child and who represented a cross-section of socio-economic status
Question says → Passage says
a variety of poor and wealthy familiesa cross-section of socio-economic status
Why: B, Missouri. A 'cross-section of socio-economic status' means rich, poor and in between.
The trap: Headstart (A) was aimed at 'the children of poorer families', so it doesn't cover wealthy families. That rules out C (both).
Question 6
Answer: DSection D, last sentence
Which programme carried on helping children once they reached elementary school?
Parent resource centres, located in school buildings, offered learning materials for families and facilitators for child care.
Question says → Passage says
in elementary schoolslocated in school buildings
Why: D, neither. The Missouri programme followed children to age three, and Headstart ended when children went home each day. Neither is described as continuing into elementary school.
The trap: Missouri's resource centres were 'located in school buildings', which looks like B. But that's where the centres were, not follow-up help for children in school.
Question 7
Answer: ASection C
Which programme failed to achieve what it set out to do?
was supposed to help the children of poorer families succeed in school. Despite substantial funding, results have been disappointing.
Question says → Passage says
did not succeed in its aimwas supposed to help… results have been disappointing
Why: A, Headstart. 'Was supposed to' signals an aim that wasn't met, and the results were 'disappointing'.
The trap: Missouri's results were 'phenomenal', so B and C are out.
Question 8
Answer: BSection D, second half
Which programme gave parents lots of different kinds of help and training?
Information on child development, and guidance on things to look for and expect as the child grows were provided, plus guidance in fostering the child's intellectual, language, social and motor-skill development.
Question says → Passage says
many forms of support and training to parentstrained parent-educators visiting the parents' home / Information on child development… plus guidance / monthly group meetings
Why: B, Missouri. Home visits, information, guidance, check-ups, group meetings and resource centres are many forms of support. Headstart is criticised precisely because parents weren't involved.
Question 9
Answer: DSection C
Which programme didn't get enough money?
A lot of money was poured into it… Despite substantial funding, results have been disappointing.
Question says → Passage says
insufficient fundingA lot of money was poured into it / substantial funding
Why: D, neither. Headstart had 'substantial funding', and nothing says the Missouri pilot was short of money.
The trap: Headstart failed, so people assume it was underfunded and choose A. The passage says the opposite: it failed despite plenty of money.
Question 10
Answer: CSection C and Section D
Which programme was meant to improve young children's learning before school?
It took children into pre-school institutions at the age of three and was supposed to help the children of poorer families succeed in school.
Question says → Passage says
designed to improve pre-schoolers' educational developmentsupposed to help the children of poorer families succeed in school / helping children get off to the best possible start in life
Why: C, both. Headstart took three-year-olds into pre-school to help them succeed in school. Missouri worked with parents from birth to give children the best start, and was evaluated on development at age three.
The trap: Because Headstart failed, some people give this to Missouri only. But the question is about what each was designed to do, not whether it worked.
TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN
Questions 11-13
How to attack this block: All three are about the Missouri results in E. Match each skill in 11 to its partner in the passage. For 13, the passage mentions family stress but never compares rich and poor families.
Question 11
Answer: TRUESection E, third and fourth sentences
Did most Missouri three-year-olds do well in listening, speaking, reasoning and social skills?
the average child on the programme was performing at the level of the top 15 to 20 per cent of their peers in such things as auditory comprehension, verbal ability and language ability
Question says → Passage says
listeningauditory comprehension
speakingverbal ability
reasoningproblem solving and other intellectual skills
interacting with otherssocial development
Why: TRUE. Each skill in the statement has a partner: auditory comprehension is listening, verbal ability is speaking, problem solving is reasoning, and social development is interacting. The average child was in the top 15-20 per cent.
The trap: 'Most' vs 'the average child' worries some students. If the average child scored at the top level, most children scored highly, so it's TRUE.
Question 12
Answer: FALSESection E, fifth and sixth sentences
Did Missouri children of young, uneducated single parents score lower?
the traditional measures of 'risk', such as parents' age and education, or whether they were a single parent, bore little or no relationship to the measures of achievement
Question says → Passage says
young, uneducated, single parentsparents' age and education, or whether they were a single parent
scored less highlybore little or no relationship / performed equally well
Why: FALSE. Parents' age, education and single-parent status had little or no link to results, and children 'performed equally well regardless'. So these children didn't score lower.
Question 13
Answer: NOT GIVENSection E, last two sentences
Did richer Missouri families have more stress?
The one factor that was found to affect the child's development was family stress leading to a poor quality of parent-child interaction. That interaction was not necessarily bad in poorer families.
Question says → Passage says
stress levelsfamily stress
Why: NOT GIVEN. Family stress is named as the factor that mattered, but the passage never compares stress levels between rich and poor families.
The trap: 'Not necessarily bad in poorer families' tempts you to infer that richer families were worse. That's your inference, not the passage's claim.
NOT GIVEN. Stress mattered, and poorer families weren't necessarily worse, but richer families' stress is never compared.
Words from this passage worth keeping
equity(A)
fairness, especially equal access for everyone
suppressed(B)
held back or stopped from developing
under-achievement(C)
doing less well than you are capable of
predicated on(D)
based on
bypassing(D)
going around someone instead of involving them
phenomenal(E)
extraordinarily good
perpetuate(F)
make something continue
Sit this test on Langujet, then come back
The full Cambridge 5 Test 3 reading paper: all three passages, 60 minutes, marked the second you finish with a review of every answer. Already done it? Take it again and see if the same traps still get you.
Cambridge IELTS 5, Test 3, Reading Passage 1. The passage and questions belong to Cambridge University Press and are not reproduced here. We quote short extracts only as evidence for our own commentary, and the answers are published for self-marking. Get the book for the full text, or sit the test on Langujet.
