{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045174537987679675, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01642710472279261, 'mean_word_length': 5.3311688311688314, '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}}
Why “Meddling” is Necessary: A Response to Teddlie, Reynolds, Townsend, Scheerens, Bosker & Creemers

A large proportion of the articles and commentaries contributed by Teddlie, Reynolds, Townsend, Scheerens, Bosker and Creemers in the recent Special Issue on “Twenty Years of School Effectiveness Research” were taken up with defending SER – school effectiveness research (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2001; Scheerens, Bosker, & Creemers, 2001; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2001; Townsend, 2001). Although I often disagreed with the defending arguments, and was left bemused by some, they generally did help to clarify SER perspectives in a way which will be very useful for future analysis. Obviously there is a lot to reply to, but in this short response I want to (i) make a few general comments; (ii) summarise a more extended discussion of Reynolds and Teddlie's arguments provided elsewhere; and (iii) also comment briefly on the contributions by Townsend and Scheerens and colleagues.