{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018674136321195144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.380952380952381, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Control and Regulation

Abstract 
Written official and formal accounts such as Inspectors’ Reports provide a summary of the teachers’ work, conduct, interactions with pupils, as well as a glimpse of the skills, knowledge and dispositions brought to their work. What can be concluded from these reports is that teachers had little occupational control of their work. What was taught and how they taught were prescribed by the curriculum and mediated against the standards pupils attained. In addition, teachers’ and pupils’ successes and failures were made public in Inspectors’ Reports, although it was the teacher who was more readily identifiable if not explicitly named. This is not to suggest that teachers did not act as agents of change. Increasingly, teachers sought to professionalize their work through qualifications, training and exposure to new ideas and practices. Against this backdrop of the professionalization of the workforce were the increasing bureaucratization of schools and teaching and the institutionalization of teacher preparation and training.