{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028128031037827354, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013336566440349175, 'mean_word_length': 5.537242472266244, '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}}
What a Difference a Definition Makes

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which The Washington Post referred to as the "broadest rewriting of federal education policy in decades" and "Washington's top bipartisan achievement of 2001" (Milbank, 2002). In other news stories and editorials, the bill has been referred to as a triumph--the culmination of exhaustive efforts by both houses of Congress and concessions from both political parties (Robelen, 2002). Called the "No Child Left Behind Act," the bill pays homage to Bush's campaign focus on education (Broder, 2001). The revised ESEA significantly increases both the federal role in precollegiate education and the overall amount of federal dollars earmarked for this purpose. The bill, which directly targets poor students and struggling schools by shifting funding formulas, requires mandatory annual testing of students from third through eighth grade and makes schools accountable by tracking test results, reporting to parents, and disaggregating results by race, gender, and other factors. Although the bill's supporters claim it represents an unprecedented consensus, it has also raised concerns. A September letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures to Congress, for example, called the bill "an egregious example of a top-down, one-size-fits-all federal reform" (Education Week, 2001), sharply questioning that annual statewide testing in multiple subjects is necessary for an effective state accountability system. Others are concerned that the heavy-handed emphasis on testing will lead to manipulation of the system and narrowing of the curriculum. Commenting that the bill ought to be called the "No Child Left Untested Act," Robert Schaeffer of FairTest argued that mandatory testing will not show schools where to invest resources but will, on the contrary, take money away from initiatives not directly tested and will penalize (not help) struggling students (Toppo, 2002). Policy analysts have raised questions about the bill as a lever for state education reform, pointing out that although a number of states are still not in compliance with 1994 ESEA requirements, Title I funds have never been withheld from a state for noncompliance (Robelen, 2001). Other concerns include the bill's imbalance between mandates and funding and its inadequate attention to special education as well as the possibility of stigmatizing poor and minority students, the incapacity of the testing industry to keep up with the mandatory testing program, and the new layers of federal regulations that are likely to duplicate state efforts. Of particular interest to the teacher education community is the bill's provision that every state ensure that all teachers are "highly qualified" and are "receiving high-quality professional development" (Section 1119). Highly qualified teachers are defined as those who have obtained full state certification (including through alternate routes) or have passed a state teacher licensing exam (Section 9101). It is worth noting that this provision of the bill implies that college- and university-based teacher education is neither the sole nor required mode of preparation for teaching, cementing into this new federal legislation the legitimacy of current alternate routes that bypass traditional SCDE preparation in more than 40 states (Zeichner & Shulte, 2001). According to ESEA definitions, high-quality professional development may involve partnerships with higher education institutions that give teachers the opportunity to work with experienced teachers and college faculty but must, by definition, improve teachers' subject matter knowledge, align with state standards, and improve teachers' understanding of instructional strategies "based on scientifically based research" (Section 9101). Again this definition leaves ambiguous (and perhaps makes superfluous) the role of colleges and universities in the preparation of highly qualified teachers at the same time that it elevates scientifically based research. …