{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019896193771626297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005190311418685121, 'mean_word_length': 5.254054054054054, '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}}
Counterpoint: Should Financial Support of Public Schools be Assumed Completely by States?

Nearly a decade ago the California Supreme Court declared the state's laws for financing public education unconstitutional because they made "the quality of a child's education a function of the wealth of his or her parents and neighbors," (Serrano v. Priest, [1971]). Since then, courts in nearly a dozen other states have adopted similar reasoning to strike down school finance systems, and approximately 20 state legislatures have substantially altered the way they raise and distribute revenues for their schools to eliminate the kinds of inequities identified in the Serrano case. Yet despite some progress in the states that have adopted reform laws, and to a greater degree in the majority of states that have not, the basic problems that sparked the cases are still with us: marked variations among districts in available educational resources highly correlated with the size of the local tax base. Even in some apparently wealthy districts, like those in the central cities, the competing demands for other public services and higher cost levels prevailing