{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01682085786375105, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00336417157275021, 'mean_word_length': 5.611111111111111, '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}}
Why a coordinated accreditation system benefits school health education programs: a response to Clark's commentary.

BACKGROUND
Concerns about a coordinated accreditation system for professional preparation programs in school health education were raised by Clark in a commentary published in the October 2009 issue of the Journal of School Health. The purpose of this article is to clarify information presented by Clark as well as offer alternative views to some of his opinions.


METHODS
To provide context, an overview is provided about efforts to strengthen quality assurance systems for school and community health education. Additional topics address the Dallas II conference, generic competencies, unification of the profession, National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education/Teacher Education Accreditation Council, competency-based vs settings approach, and CUP implications.


RESULTS
In the discussion, the authors address several key points raised by Clark and note areas of agreement, alternative views, and clarification of facts.


CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion summarizes the benefits of accreditation for school health education and the health education profession.