{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04835820895522388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011940298507462687, 'mean_word_length': 4.92226148409894, '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}}
40th Anniversary of Curriculum Inquiry—Part II A: Introduction to the Essay Reviews

In this issue (number 2) we continue the celebration, introduced in volume 40, number 1, of the 40 anniversary of Curriculum Inquiry (CI). We divide this editorial into two segments. In the first segment, for the convenience of readers, we reprint the first few pages from our first editorial (including the section, “A Celebration in Two Issues”) to provide an introduction and an overview of the essay reviews in both issues. For additional comments on the first issue, please see the editorial in volume 40, number 1, entitled, “40 Anniversary of Curriculum Inquiry—Part I.” The second segment of this editorial is at the end of the issue and is entitled, “Changing ‘Tradition’ of Reviews in Curriculum Inquiry.” In the first issue, we described our “classic” approach to this two-issue celebration. Nine members from our International Editorial Board (Bernadette Baker, Alison Cook-Sather, Freema Elbaz-Luwisch, Peter P. Grimmett, Andy Hargreaves, Rita L. Irwin, Allan Luke, William H. Schubert, Ciaran Sugrue) and eight other scholars in the field (Michael Apple, Eric Bredo, Mark Havorson, Janet L. Miller, Reba N. Page, William F. Pinar, Karen Reynolds, Christine E. Sleeter) submitted essay reviews of some of the “classic” texts in or relevant to our field that were published in the 5 decades in which Curriculum Theory Network (CTN) and then, from 1976, CI have been a contributing partner to the development of curriculum studies. Our “classic” approach to the 40 anniversary of CI honours the “review” tradition, and specifically the “essay review” tradition of the journal. In