{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043689320388349516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009708737864077669, 'mean_word_length': 5.471014492753623, '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}}
Community Contexts Up Close: What Does It Mean to Be “Legitimate” in Today's Education Policy Environment?

In their final chapter, the editors of a book on the topic of education policy provided a summary of the then-existing evidence indicating a continuing 21st−century centralization of governance in American schooling (see Mitchell, Shipps, & Crowson, 2011). With policymaking moving sharply over time toward added state and federal levels of activity, some consequences have been: (a) a vast expansion of comparative data collection and analysis vis-à-vis school operations and performance; (b) a continuing national dialogue regarding school improvement and its means of accomplishment (e.g., market approaches, core curricula, higher standards, better-prepared teachers); and, relatedly, (c) a decided expansion of interest groups, think tanks, foundations, forprofits, government and business executives, partisan politicians, and citizens’ organizations—as actors of importance in the school-improvement debate. Mitchell et al. (2011) noted, “In short, education is [now] too important to be left to educators . . . ” (p. 288). Indeed, education (even more broadly considered) is now regarded as too essential for economic growth, national security, cultural integration, and international competition to be left any longer to the traditional purview of local educators, local school boards, and community residents. Observed the authors (p. 289): “These [broader] concerns have trumped historically powerful commitments to providing children with in loco parentis school environments,” with sheltered school nurturing and child-development environments, and with a view of public schooling as primarily an “expression of local cultural beliefs”—which are engaged essentially in endowing youngsters with the preparatory expectations, values, skills, and understandings that are important to their parents and the community. Interestingly, although education is now too important to be left to educators, and too important additionally to be left without a very active program of state/federal intervention—there continues to be room for much that is fully “local” in public school governance. One very essential variable at the local level was brought to our attention by William Boyd, in 2003. Boyd spoke of our nation’s “double crisis” of educational performance and legitimacy. Indeed, he said, these twin components “interact and reinforce one another” (Boyd, 2003, p. 11). The more attention we pay to the underperformance of the schools, the more we seem to suffer a loss of faith and a loss of societal support for public education generally. Contrariwise, the