{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021645021645021644, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002886002886002886, 'mean_word_length': 5.391705069124424, '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}}
Out-of-Field Teaching in Physical Education Teacher Education: Should We Be Concerned?

Physical education teacher educa tion (PETE) is one of many disciplines in higher education responsible for preparing future educators. Education in general is increasingly politicized by public officials and scrutinized by the media, and the programs that train tomorrow's public school teachers are no exception (Goodlad, 1990). Between the politics that shape many of the choices in teacher preparation and teachers' own sense of what needs to be taught, PETEfaculty struggle to answer the question, "How can we deliver the best possible teacher education program to our undergraduates?" Numerous factors contribute to the success of a PETE program. At their core, good programs must be philosophically committed to providing more than just an endless supply of employees for public education. Furthermore, quality programs must include access to basic facilities and learning experiences that expose prospective teachers to the tools and situations necessary for a thorough and diverse undergraduate preparation. In the classroom, students of quality programs are grounded in the principles that shape and guide professionalism in teaching. In the gymnasium, students are exposed to the content they will teach and to a variety of methods and models. In addition, some quality programs have re-