{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021929824561403508, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005847953216374269, 'mean_word_length': 4.756302521008403, '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 dynamic tension at the core of the grammar of schooling

The American system of schooling has been remarkably resistant to change, with most changes coming in the form of tinkering around the edges. Large-scale reform that alters what David Tyack and Larry Cuban (1995) referred to as the “grammar of schooling” has tended to fizzle out. David Labaree suggests that the practices that are most likely to become part of this persistent grammar of schooling, such as the age-graded classroom, are those that align with schools’ social mission and that meet schools’ organizational needs. Those two elements of the grammar of schooling must remain in balance if reform is to succeed.