慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門とするオンライン個別指導塾です。塾長紹介
英検準1級の高齢化・介護・地域福祉の長文では、情報支援、専門的ケア、家族介護者の負担を区別して読むことが重要です。慶英会では独自英文3篇・内容一致15問と、段落別の日本語解説、正答の英文根拠、重要語彙、60〜70語の要約模範3本を無料公開します。生活の支援と専門職の役割、評価の限界を具体的な英文で練習できます。
英検協会の準1級公式試験内容では長文内容一致7問、語句空所補充6問などが出題され、社会生活・医療・教育等が題材です。このページの町・慈善団体・住宅計画は慶英会が独自に作った架空の教材です。公式過去問や現実の介護制度の説明ではありません。
結論｜社会福祉の英文で読み分ける4点
英検準1級の関連記事：人口移動・地域政策の長文3題15問。慶英会オリジナルの英文と全解答で次の長文を学習できます。
慶英会｜英検準1級の次の無料長文：芸術・文化の独自3長文15問／旅行・観光の独自3長文15問。本文根拠・段落別日本語解説・60〜70語の英文要約まで、分野を変えて復習してください。
- 情報支援と医療・専門介護の違いを理解し、ボランティアに資格が必要な仕事を任せると読まない。
- 満足度や相談しやすさの自己申告と、健康改善・入院数のような客観指標を区別する。
- 家族介護者の負担と専門職の勤務条件、利用者の安全を同時に考慮する。
- 新しい住宅・支援活動への参加が任意か、費用やアクセスの障壁があるか読む。
使い方｜英文→15問→段落解説→要約
和訳を先に見ず、各長文の4択5問を解き、本文の根拠を確認してください。選択肢にあるalways、all、guaranteeなどの強い語が本文にない場合は注意します。解答・日本語解説のあと、英文要約を60〜70語で書き、掲載する慶英会の独自模範例と比較します。
独自長文1｜高齢者の見守り訪問と医療の役割（約236語）
英文・第1段落
In the fictional town of Brindle, a community center organized short visits to older residents who lived alone. Trained volunteers helped people read notices from public offices, locate local activities, and contact service providers when necessary. The organizers hoped regular conversations would make it easier for residents to ask for assistance before small difficulties became serious. The program attracted praise from some families, but the center emphasized that volunteers were not qualified to diagnose illness, manage medication, or replace professional home-care workers.
英文・第2段落
After three months, the center distributed a questionnaire about how comfortable participants felt requesting help. Many respondents reported greater confidence, yet the organizers noted two limits. Residents who chose to participate might already have been more willing to speak with strangers, and the questionnaire did not independently measure changes in their health. Some volunteers also reported difficulties arranging visits during working hours. The center therefore offered alternative contact times and referred medical concerns to qualified professionals instead of asking volunteers to handle unfamiliar situations.
英文・第3段落
The town council considered expanding the program, but requested information about staff supervision, training costs, and privacy. A list of residents’ needs could help coordinators plan support, although it also had to be stored securely. Officials said the program might strengthen community connections, but a rise in satisfaction ratings alone would not prove that hospital admissions had fallen. They planned a longer evaluation using several indicators before approving permanent funding.
内容一致・独自4択5問
Q1. What help did volunteers primarily offer?
- A. Medical diagnoses and prescriptions.
- B. Practical information and help contacting services.
- C. Guaranteed reductions in hospital admissions.
- D. Replacement of all professional home care.
Q2. Why were questionnaire responses insufficient to prove better health?
- A. No one answered the questions.
- B. The center measured every participant’s health.
- C. They concerned confidence rather than verified health changes.
- D. The program had ended before any visit.
Q3. How did the center address medical problems?
- A. It referred them to qualified professionals.
- B. It asked volunteers to prescribe medicine.
- C. It stopped all communication.
- D. It required residents to manage every situation alone.
Q4. What issue arose from collecting residents’ needs?
- A. Such records could never help support.
- B. Every resident refused contact.
- C. All information was already public.
- D. Personal data needed secure storage.
Q5. What did the council decide to do before funding expansion?
- A. Treat positive feedback as proof of fewer admissions.
- B. Evaluate several indicators over a longer period.
- C. Remove every privacy safeguard.
- D. End professional home care.
段落別の日本語内容
第1段落：架空の町の地域センターは一人暮らしの高齢者を短時間訪ねる取り組みを始めた。訓練を受けたボランティアは行政通知を読んだり地域活動やサービスへの連絡を手伝ったりする。ただし診断・投薬管理・専門介護の代替ではない。
第2段落：3か月後に参加者の相談しやすさは高まったとの感想が集まったが、自発参加者がそもそも対話に積極的だった可能性がある。健康状態を客観的に測った調査ではないため、効果を断定しなかった。訪問時刻を調整し、医療上の問題は専門職へつないだ。
第3段落：議会は拡大前に研修費、監督、個人情報の安全な保存を検討した。満足度が上がっただけで入院が減ったとは証明できないため、複数指標の長期調査を予定した。
重要語彙
- qualified professional：専門職
- questionnaire：アンケート
- admission：入院
- supervision：指導監督
全5問の正解と本文根拠
Q1 正解B：Practical information and help contacting services.。本文根拠：“helped people read notices … contact service providers”。解説：生活・情報面での支援であり医療行為ではない。
Q2 正解C：They concerned confidence rather than verified health changes.。本文根拠：“did not independently measure changes in their health”。解説：心理的な感想と健康状態を区別する。
Q3 正解A：It referred them to qualified professionals.。本文根拠：“referred medical concerns to qualified professionals”。解説：適切な専門職への紹介を重視した。
Q4 正解D：Personal data needed secure storage.。本文根拠：“had to be stored securely”。解説：支援に役立つ記録でもプライバシー保護が必要。
Q5 正解B：Evaluate several indicators over a longer period.。本文根拠：“longer evaluation using several indicators”。解説：単一の満足度評価に頼らない。
英文要約演習｜模範60語
慶英会の独自模範：A community center organized volunteers to visit older residents and help them access practical information. Participants reported greater confidence in asking for support, but voluntary enrollment and self-reported results limited the evidence. Medical concerns were referred to professionals. Before expanding the program, officials wanted to carefully assess training, privacy, and several longer-term outcomes rather than assuming satisfaction proved better health.
要約はまず自分で書いてください。模範は公式採点済み答案ではなく、主要な事実と限定・判断を保持する一例です。
追加・重要表現の意味を確認3問
追加1：might already have been more willing to speak with strangers
追加2：instead of asking volunteers to handle unfamiliar situations
追加3：would not prove that hospital admissions had fallen
追加3問の解答
追加1 解答：元々他人と話すことに積極的だった可能性がある。
追加2 解答：経験のない状況をボランティアへ任せずに。
追加3 解答：入院件数の減少の証明にはならない。
独自長文2｜家族介護者のレスパイト支援と公平性（約243語）
英文・第1段落
In the fictional district of Meadowbrook, some residents spent many hours each week caring for relatives who needed assistance with daily activities. A local charity proposed a respite program that would provide short, scheduled periods of professional support, allowing family caregivers time for work, appointments, or rest. Supporters argued that predictable breaks might make caring responsibilities more manageable. However, the charity had a limited budget, and qualified workers were not available at every hour. It therefore offered a pilot at selected times rather than promising continuous coverage.
英文・第2段落
The program initially recorded the number of booked sessions and asked caregivers about stress. Several participants valued the breaks, but unused appointments made scheduling difficult. Staff discovered that some families could not predict when support would be needed, while others could not travel to the service location. The charity tested clearer cancellation procedures and a small number of home-based visits. Organizers cautioned that a decrease in reported stress during a short pilot would not necessarily establish a lasting change in caregivers’ health or financial circumstances.
英文・第3段落
Before recommending expansion, administrators compared the needs of caregivers, the safety of people receiving care, and staff workloads. They asked whether greater flexibility could be provided without creating irregular working conditions for professional caregivers. They also distinguished requests for companionship from tasks requiring specialist training. The charity concluded that a sustainable program would need reliable staffing and a fair method of allocating limited sessions, not simply a larger number of bookings.
内容一致・独自4択5問
Q6. What was the proposed program mainly intended to provide?
- A. Permanent replacement of all caregivers.
- B. Short breaks for family caregivers.
- C. A guarantee of free care at every hour.
- D. Restrictions on home visits.
Q7. Why did the initial pilot offer limited sessions?
- A. Care recipients had no needs.
- B. All families lived next to the center.
- C. Qualified staffing and funds were limited.
- D. The center had no registration system.
Q8. What barrier affected some families?
- A. Unpredictable needs or difficulty traveling.
- B. A rule against all medical appointments.
- C. Unlimited availability of workers.
- D. A shortage of questionnaires.
Q9. Why did organizers avoid claims about lasting health improvement?
- A. The study covered decades.
- B. Care recipients had all recovered.
- C. Every caregiver had received identical treatment.
- D. Short-term self-reports could not establish lasting outcomes.
Q10. What did administrators identify as critical for expansion?
- A. Only the number of bookings.
- B. Reliable professionals and fair allocation of limited sessions.
- C. Removing all professional training.
- D. Ignoring employees’ working conditions.
段落別の日本語内容
第1段落：架空の地区の慈善団体は家族介護者が仕事や休息の時間を取れるよう、専門職の短時間支援を提案した。人員と予算が限られるため、全時間帯の支援は約束せず限定した時間に試行した。
第2段落：予約数とストレス感の自己申告では、休息への満足が見られた一方、予定が不確定な家庭や移動しにくい家庭は利用しづらかった。キャンセル方法を改善し、一部の自宅支援も試した。短期のストレス軽減から長期の健康・経済改善までは断定できない。
第3段落：拡大に際して利用家庭の必要、支援を受ける人の安全、専門職の勤務負担を考えた。単なる予約数増加より、安定的な人員と限られた支援枠の公平な配分が重要だとした。
重要語彙
- respite care：介護者の休息支援
- caregiver：介護者
- workload：業務負担
- allocation：配分
全5問の正解と本文根拠
Q6 正解B：Short breaks for family caregivers.。本文根拠：“short, scheduled periods … time for work … or rest”。解説：家族介護者が休息できる一時的支援。
Q7 正解C：Qualified staffing and funds were limited.。本文根拠：“limited budget … workers were not available at every hour”。解説：利用枠は人員・予算に制約された。
Q8 正解A：Unpredictable needs or difficulty traveling.。本文根拠：“could not predict when support would be needed … could not travel”。解説：予定と移動への障壁があった。
Q9 正解D：Short-term self-reports could not establish lasting outcomes.。本文根拠：“short pilot would not necessarily establish a lasting change”。解説：短期自己評価を長期効果に広げない。
Q10 正解B：Reliable professionals and fair allocation of limited sessions.。本文根拠：“reliable staffing and a fair method of allocating limited sessions”。解説：長期的な運営と公平性を優先。
英文要約演習｜模範63語
慶英会の独自模範：A charity tested scheduled respite care for family caregivers, hoping short breaks would make responsibilities easier to manage. Budget limits and limited professional staffing prevented continuous coverage. Participants appreciated some sessions, but unpredictable needs and travel difficulties affected access. The charity planned to assess safety, workloads, and fair allocation before expanding, while avoiding claims of lasting health benefits based only on short-term feedback.
要約はまず自分で書いてください。模範は公式採点済み答案ではなく、主要な事実と限定・判断を保持する一例です。
追加・重要表現の意味を確認3問
追加4：rather than promising continuous coverage
追加5：would not necessarily establish a lasting change
追加6：without creating irregular working conditions
追加3問の解答
追加4 解答：継続支援を保証するのではなく。
追加5 解答：持続的な変化を必ずしも立証しない。
追加6 解答：不規則な勤務状態をつくることなく。
独自長文3｜高齢者と若者の共同住宅をどう運営するか（約244語）
英文・第1段落
A fictional housing association considered converting an unused school building into apartments for older residents and younger adults. Its proposal included private rooms and shared spaces where tenants could organize activities. Some supporters expected that residents of different ages would naturally help one another, reducing loneliness and everyday difficulties. The association warned that friendly interaction should not be treated as a guaranteed substitute for medical care or formal support services. Residents would need clear agreements about privacy, quiet hours, and the use of communal facilities.
英文・第2段落
During an introductory workshop, volunteers from both age groups suggested activities such as cooking classes and shared gardening. Their enthusiasm encouraged the organizers, but staff noted that workshop participants had chosen to attend and might not represent future tenants. Several potential residents preferred independent routines and worried that informal expectations to help neighbors could become obligations. The association therefore stated that joining social activities would remain voluntary and that shared spaces could not be used to pressure anyone into unpaid caregiving.
英文・第3段落
The committee next examined building accessibility, maintenance costs, and how disputes would be handled. It also considered whether the affordable apartments would remain available to people with different incomes over time. The association decided to conduct a smaller occupancy trial before investing in a full conversion. It planned to record residents’ experiences without claiming that shared housing would automatically solve social isolation. The central principle was to create opportunities for connection while respecting individual choice and professional responsibilities.
内容一致・独自4択5問
Q11. What did the association propose?
- A. A highway construction project.
- B. A prohibition on private rooms.
- C. Apartments for older and younger residents with shared spaces.
- D. A hospital with no residential units.
Q12. Why was enthusiasm at the workshop insufficient to represent everyone?
- A. Participants had chosen to attend.
- B. Every future tenant was present.
- C. No activities were discussed.
- D. The building had already been renovated.
Q13. What policy governed communal activities?
- A. Participation was required.
- B. Participation remained voluntary.
- C. Only younger tenants could participate.
- D. Each resident had to provide professional care.
Q14. What issues were reviewed before renovation?
- A. The age of school textbooks.
- B. Only the size of the garden.
- C. The schedule of every local bus.
- D. Accessibility, maintenance, affordability, and disputes.
Q15. What principle guided the association?
- A. Mixed-age housing guarantees an end to loneliness.
- B. Neighbors can replace qualified professionals.
- C. Connections should be encouraged without removing individual choice.
- D. All tenants must participate in the same activities.
段落別の日本語内容
第1段落：架空の住宅団体は未使用の校舎を高齢者と若者の共同住宅へ変える計画を考えた。共有施設での交流を期待したが、友好的な交流を医療・専門的な生活支援の代替とはみなさず、プライバシーや静かな時間のルールが必要だった。
第2段落：説明会では共同菜園や料理教室の案が出た。ただし自主参加した人の意見は全入居者の意見を代表しない可能性がある。隣人の介護を無償で引き受けることを求めないよう、交流は任意とした。
第3段落：バリアフリー、維持費、紛争対応、家賃の負担可能性を確認し、全面改修前に小規模な試行を行うとした。共同住宅が必ず孤立を解消するわけではなく、交流と個人の選択の両立を重視した。
重要語彙
- communal facility：共同利用施設
- voluntary：任意の
- social isolation：社会的孤立
- affordable：負担可能な
全5問の正解と本文根拠
Q11 正解C：Apartments for older and younger residents with shared spaces.。本文根拠：“apartments for older residents and younger adults … shared spaces”。解説：世代の異なる住民向けの住宅計画。
Q12 正解A：Participants had chosen to attend.。本文根拠：“participants had chosen to attend and might not represent future tenants”。解説：参加者の選択の偏り。
Q13 正解B：Participation remained voluntary.。本文根拠：“joining social activities would remain voluntary”。解説：交流は任意であること。
Q14 正解D：Accessibility, maintenance, affordability, and disputes.。本文根拠：“building accessibility, maintenance costs … disputes … different incomes”。解説：居住の維持可能性と公平性。
Q15 正解C：Connections should be encouraged without removing individual choice.。本文根拠：“opportunities for connection while respecting individual choice”。解説：交流と自主性の両立。
英文要約演習｜模範60語
慶英会の独自模範：A housing association proposed mixed-age apartments with private rooms and shared facilities to encourage social connections. An introductory workshop drew positive suggestions, but the participants might not represent all future tenants. Organizers therefore kept activities voluntary and rejected expectations of unpaid caregiving. They planned a smaller trial and practical reviews of accessibility, costs, and privacy before converting the entire building.
要約はまず自分で書いてください。模範は公式採点済み答案ではなく、主要な事実と限定・判断を保持する一例です。
追加・重要表現の意味を確認3問
追加7：not a guaranteed substitute for medical care
追加8：might not represent future tenants
追加9：opportunities for connection while respecting individual choice
追加3問の解答
追加7 解答：医療に代わることが保証されているものではない。
追加8 解答：将来の入居者全体を代表しない可能性がある。
追加9 解答：個人の選択を尊重しながら交流の機会を設けること。
3つの支援策の違い
- 高齢者の見守り：情報を届ける役割は、医療的な支援の代替ではない。
- 家族介護者の休息：介護者の都合だけでなく、専門職の人員・支援を受ける人の安全・公平性も必要。
- 共同住宅：交流を促すことと無償の介護を義務にすることは異なる。
7日間の復習
- 初日：15問を解き根拠へ線を引く。
- 2日目：自発参加の偏りと満足度調査の限界を説明する。
- 3日目：支援者と専門職の役割の境界を説明する。
- 4日目：3長文をそれぞれ英語2文で要約する。
- 5日目：追加9問を推量表現を残して訳す。
- 6日目：60〜70語の英文要約を3題書き直す。
- 7日目：準1級公式過去問で社会生活の長文に応用する。
よくある質問
社会福祉について知らないと準1級の長文は解けませんか？
社会制度の背景を知ることは助けになりますが、設問の根拠は本文にあります。医療・介護の実務を説明する記事ではなく、英語の読解練習教材です。
この教材の支援や結果は実在しますか？
いいえ。町、団体、試行、アンケート結果はすべて慶英会の独自の架空設定です。実際の医療成果を示すものではありません。
英文要約は何語ですか？
英検協会の指示文変更資料では準1級英文要約は60〜70語と明記されています。本文にない事実を加えず主要な情報をまとめましょう。
15問の点数でCSEが計算できますか？
できません。公式の内容一致は7問であり、独自15問の正答率から合否やCSEスコアには換算できません。
関連教材と慶英会の無料体験
教育・学習の長文3題15問／公共政策の長文3題15問／科学・医療の長文3題15問／準1級無料教材一覧。
慶英会は中高一貫校の英語と英検準1級の読解・要約・作文を結び、構文と根拠を確認するオンライン個別指導を行っています。最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
参考にした主な公式情報
公式資料確認：2026年10月28日。英文3篇、15問・9追加問題・60〜70語の模範3本と日本語解説は慶英会のオリジナル教材です。
最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談受付中
最大1か月の完全無料体験をご案内
学校教材・学力・目標に合わせた個別指導
入塾前に授業の進め方や講師との相性をお確かめください。
学校英語・定期テスト・英検の学習相談にも対応します。
保護者様の教育相談も無料で承ります。
1.学年 2. 学習目標 3.体験ご希望をお送りください。
体験の期間・回数・担当講師・日程は、ご希望と受付状況を確認してご案内します。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級。中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門としています。塾長の経歴・指導方針を確認する