{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019384264538198404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004561003420752566, 'mean_word_length': 4.8533333333333335, '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}}
The “Grammar” of Schooling: Why Has it Been so Hard to Change?

Why have the established institutional forms of schooling been so stable and why did most challenges fade or become marginalized? We approach these questions by probing a few case studies of reform, some that lasted to become part of the grammar of schooling and some that did not. We begin by exploring the origins of two enduring institutional forms, the graded school and the Carnegie unit. Next we analyze the history of three transient attacks on the grammar of schooling: the Dalton Plan, the Eight-Year Study, and the new model flexible high school of the 1960s. In each case political and institutional perspectives inform our interpretations. Finally, we reflect on what the case studies suggest about the nature of institutional continuity and change and offer some policy implications for reform today.