{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01827485380116959, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00804093567251462, 'mean_word_length': 5.74384236453202, '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}}
Validity Issues Surrounding Title I ESEA Eligibility Criteria

Recent renewal of federal support for compensatory education is under debate and is hearing challenges to the criteria —economic indicators—currently employed to target the funds. Various alternative criteria have been suggested over the years to supplement or replace economic status as a criterion for compensatory education. The purpose of this report is to examine the probable shortand long-term outcomes of selecting one or more criteria to identify children in need of educational services. Under the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and its amendments, federal grants are made to state education agencies for the purpose of providing financial assistance to school districts with large concentrations of children from lowincome families. According to federal guidelines, these funds are to be used to improve educational programs "which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children" (Section 101, PL 8910, as amended). Increasingly, however, dissatisfaction with the allocation guidelines has surfaced, and alternative means of determining eligibility have been suggested. Burnes and Moss (1978) summarized the history of this program and reiterated the rationale underlying the Title I ESEA program: