{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024539877300613498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.04320987654321, '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}}
Notes: What Does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Tell Us About Where to Draw the Line in the Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Debate?

Many educational policymakers in this country favor a hybrid top-down, bottom-up approach to reform, arguing that it provides for the best of both worlds—that is, guidance and accountability at the state level combined with ample room to move at the local level. There is considerable uncertainty about how best to implement such an approach, however. Should states, districts, schools, or teachers be responsible for decisions about grade-level content? If so, in what form? This study uses data gathered as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study to shed light on these issues. Examining how a range of decisions is made worldwide, from those relating to overall systems goals to specific pedagogical practices in the classroom, should help ground the debate about educational governance in this country.