115 年 法學知識與英文（包括中華民國憲法、法學緒論、英文）

It is still a problem for many people in the world to have safe water to drink. Some people hold that bottled water isa more convenient product than tap water when you need a quick drink; 41 , few may wonder where the former ismade and why it costs so much. In fact, tap water isn’t a universal luxury. It’s 42 that more than 800 million peoplearound the world don’t have safe drinking water, and even in the US, cities had to use bottled water 43 tap water.The tap water had aging facilities or toxic chemicals in the water supply. On the other hand, bottled water has a hugeenvironmental impact. It usually 44 a lake, spring, or underground aquifer, and on average, 45 need 3 litersof water to make one liter of bottled water. To make plastic bottles, they need billions of gallons of oil every year and2,000 times more energy than tap water needs.

It is still a problem for many people in the world to have safe water to drink. Some people hold that bottled water isa more convenient product than tap water when you need a quick drink; 41 , few may wonder where the former ismade and why it costs so much. In fact, tap water isn’t a universal luxury. It’s 42 that more than 800 million peoplearound the world don’t have safe drinking water, and even in the US, cities had to use bottled water 43 tap water.The tap water had aging facilities or toxic chemicals in the water supply. On the other hand, bottled water has a hugeenvironmental impact. It usually 44 a lake, spring, or underground aquifer, and on average, 45 need 3 litersof water to make one liter of bottled water. To make plastic bottles, they need billions of gallons of oil every year and2,000 times more energy than tap water needs.

It is still a problem for many people in the world to have safe water to drink. Some people hold that bottled water isa more convenient product than tap water when you need a quick drink; 41 , few may wonder where the former ismade and why it costs so much. In fact, tap water isn’t a universal luxury. It’s 42 that more than 800 million peoplearound the world don’t have safe drinking water, and even in the US, cities had to use bottled water 43 tap water.The tap water had aging facilities or toxic chemicals in the water supply. On the other hand, bottled water has a hugeenvironmental impact. It usually 44 a lake, spring, or underground aquifer, and on average, 45 need 3 litersof water to make one liter of bottled water. To make plastic bottles, they need billions of gallons of oil every year and2,000 times more energy than tap water needs.

It is still a problem for many people in the world to have safe water to drink. Some people hold that bottled water isa more convenient product than tap water when you need a quick drink; 41 , few may wonder where the former ismade and why it costs so much. In fact, tap water isn’t a universal luxury. It’s 42 that more than 800 million peoplearound the world don’t have safe drinking water, and even in the US, cities had to use bottled water 43 tap water.The tap water had aging facilities or toxic chemicals in the water supply. On the other hand, bottled water has a hugeenvironmental impact. It usually 44 a lake, spring, or underground aquifer, and on average, 45 need 3 litersof water to make one liter of bottled water. To make plastic bottles, they need billions of gallons of oil every year and2,000 times more energy than tap water needs.

It is still a problem for many people in the world to have safe water to drink. Some people hold that bottled water isa more convenient product than tap water when you need a quick drink; 41 , few may wonder where the former ismade and why it costs so much. In fact, tap water isn’t a universal luxury. It’s 42 that more than 800 million peoplearound the world don’t have safe drinking water, and even in the US, cities had to use bottled water 43 tap water.The tap water had aging facilities or toxic chemicals in the water supply. On the other hand, bottled water has a hugeenvironmental impact. It usually 44 a lake, spring, or underground aquifer, and on average, 45 need 3 litersof water to make one liter of bottled water. To make plastic bottles, they need billions of gallons of oil every year and2,000 times more energy than tap water needs.

Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examplesof public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plentyof blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organizedand committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districtsin any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across thecountry. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes.While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing bodyof evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for studentsthe district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reformless than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, butat destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flippedthe board majority to that camp.Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. Thebroad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact,the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality ofgoverning a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education.But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native andDenver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova nevergot a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new boardgave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's solefocus.Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. Ithas a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving theirside unanimous control.

Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examplesof public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plentyof blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organizedand committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districtsin any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across thecountry. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes.While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing bodyof evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for studentsthe district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reformless than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, butat destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flippedthe board majority to that camp.Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. Thebroad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact,the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality ofgoverning a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education.But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native andDenver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova nevergot a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new boardgave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's solefocus.Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. Ithas a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving theirside unanimous control.

Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examplesof public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plentyof blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organizedand committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districtsin any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across thecountry. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes.While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing bodyof evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for studentsthe district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reformless than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, butat destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flippedthe board majority to that camp.Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. Thebroad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact,the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality ofgoverning a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education.But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native andDenver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova nevergot a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new boardgave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's solefocus.Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. Ithas a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving theirside unanimous control.

Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examplesof public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plentyof blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organizedand committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districtsin any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across thecountry. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes.While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing bodyof evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for studentsthe district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reformless than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, butat destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flippedthe board majority to that camp.Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. Thebroad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact,the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality ofgoverning a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education.But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native andDenver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova nevergot a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new boardgave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's solefocus.Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. Ithas a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving theirside unanimous control.

Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examplesof public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plentyof blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organizedand committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districtsin any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across thecountry. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes.While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing bodyof evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for studentsthe district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reformless than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, butat destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flippedthe board majority to that camp.Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. Thebroad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact,the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality ofgoverning a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education.But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native andDenver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova nevergot a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new boardgave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's solefocus.Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. Ithas a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving theirside unanimous control.