{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024065320154705628, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001289213579716373, 'mean_word_length': 4.805486284289277, '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}}
Reviewer Comments: “Leap into the Boundless …”

This manuscript posed an interesting dilemma for me. I found it well written, and it addressed a topic that I find important that of teacher beliefs and philosophies and how these might play out in classrooms and in curriculum, which can be broadly defined as incorporating issues of freedom and empowerment. However, I do not feel that the manuscript is appropriate for JLR. Although it does (especially near its end) attempt to relate general philosophical statements to literacy, much of what is presented is more appropriate for a general education audience rather than an audience whose primary focus is literacy. Also, I found the link with Chuang Tzu's writings to be somewhat artificial. That is, why choose this particular set of writings rather than others? What makes this set of writings more appropriate for our discussion of the philosophies and teaching most relevant to us? To me, the stated reasons on page 144 are not compelling. For example, I do not see a clear enough link in the manuscript why a philosopher discussing "true freedom" is most relevant to our discussions in literacy. I do note the discussion on the previous pages about teacher empowerment and whole language, but this is not well developed and appears more of an attempt to justify the use of Chuang Tzu's work rather than a real discussion of empowerment, freedom, and teaching. Similarly, Chuang Tzu's work being acknowledged as eloquent and humorous, although interesting, does not make an argument for why this body of work should be used. Finally, I had some difficulty making the links between some of the quotations used and the central point of the article as stated in its title. This, however, would be cleared up by the editors if the manuscript is accepted. In summary, therefore, although I find the topic to be of interest, I do not feel that the manuscript is appropriate for JLR. A general teacher education journal (perhaps the Elementary School Journal, which publishes many things related to literacy but has a more diverse readership) would be more appropriate, as would journals that deal with issues of philosophy. The paper could, I think, easily be recast to make the general education issues stronger, and this would, I think, result in acceptance in another venue.