[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-602071-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-602071-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","policy-and-principal-turnover-the-impact-of-the-texas-special-education-cap-602071","Policy and principal turnover - The impact of the Texas special education cap","","Accountability policies in education significantly shape principals’ responsibilities for implementing school-level reforms. Although such policies are often framed to improve student outcomes, they can also harm schools while principals remain accountable for compliance. In Texas, a federal investigation found the TEA reduced access to special education by encouraging districts to enroll fewer than 8.5% of students and using these enrollment shares to gauge district performance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/policy-and-principal-turnover-the-impact-of-the-texas-special-education-cap-602071/602071/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/policy-and-principal-turnover-the-impact-of-the-texas-special-education-cap-602071/602071.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"acoobca","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What accountability mechanism in Texas affected special education access?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"A federal investigation found the Texas Education Agency restricted access to special education by incentivizing districts to enroll fewer than 8.5% of students and using that share to measure district performance.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the 8.5% cap relate to principal turnover after implementation?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"After the cap was implemented, principals in schools enrolling more than 8.5% of students in special education had higher odds of switching districts (0.39) and exiting the profession (0.14).",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did the study find about principal turnover before the cap?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Before implementation of the cap in 2004, the study found little association between the proportion of students receiving services and principal turnover.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},602071,1792171851,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},3985747870733,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","| education policy analysis archives\u003Cbr>A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal | |\n| --- | --- |\n| Arizona State University |  |\n| Volume 29 Number 152 November 15, 2021 ISSN 1068-2341 |  |\n\nPolicy and Principal Turnover: The Impact of the Texas  \nSpecial Education Cap  \nZoë Mandel  \nPenn State University  \nUnited States  \n&  \nAndrew Pendola  \nAuburn University  \nUnited States  \nCitation: Mandel, Z., & Pendola, A. (2021). Policy and principal turnover: The impact of the Texas special education cap. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(152) .  \n[https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.5681](https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.5681)  \nAbstract: Accountability policies in education play a significant role for the principals tasked with facilitating the implementation of these reforms at the school-level. While these policies are most often intended to improve student outcomes, this is not always the case. In some instances, these policies can prove detrimental to schools, yet principals are still responsible for compliance. In Texas, a federal investigation found the Texas Education Agency (TEA) was restricting access to special education services by incentivizing districts to enroll fewer than 8.5% of students, utilizing these numbers as a measure of district performance. The implementation of the “8.5% cap” in 2004 resulted in a sharp decline in special education enrollment. Employing a sample of all principals in Texas before and after the 2004 law, this paper examines how the 8.5% cap impacted school leader attrition during its implementation. Prior to the implementation of the cap in 2004, we find little association between the proportion of students receiving services and  \nprincipal turnover. After its implementation however, we find that principals in schools enrolling more than 8.5% of students in special education had a .39 higher odds ratio of switching districts and a .14 higher odds ratio of exiting the profession. We conclude by highlighting the scarcity of school labor market research that accounts for state-level education policies and note that policy may be more associated with principal turnover than student characteristics themselves.  \nKeywords: principal turnover; attrition; special education policy; role conflict  \nPolítica y rotación de directores de escuela: El impacto del límite máximo deeducación especial de Texas  \nResumen: Las políticas de accountability en educación juegan un papel importante para los directores encargados de facilitar la implementación de estas reformas a nivel escolar. Si bien estas políticas suelen estar destinadas a mejorar los resultados de los estudiantes, no siempre es así . En algunos casos, estas políticas pueden resultar perjudiciales para las escuelas, pero los directores de las escuelas siguen siendo responsables del cumplimiento. En Texas, una investigación federal encontró que la Agencia de Educación de Texas (TEA) restringió el acceso a los servicios de educación especial al incentivar a los distritosa inscribir a menos del 8. 5% de los estudiantes, utilizando estos números como unamedida del desempeño del distrito. La implementación del “límite del 8.5%” en 2004 resultó en una fuerte disminución en la matrícula de educación especial. Empleando unamuestra de todos los directores de escuelas en Texas antes y después de la ley de 2004, este documento examina cómo el límite del 8. 5% afectó la deserción de líderes escolares durante su implementación. Antes de la implementación del límite en 2004, encontramos poca asociación entre la proporción de estudiantes que reciben servicios y la rotación de directores. Sin embargo, después de su implementación, encontramos que los directores en las escuelas que matriculan a más del 8.5% de los estudiantes en educación especial tenían una razón de probabilidades .39 más alta de cambiar de distrito y una razón de probabilidades .14 más alta de salir de la profesión. Concluimos destacando la escasez de investigación de","cbCailGwXtsrxSHq","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailGwXtsrxSHq","pdf",618832,32,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Citation\n## Policy context and accountability\n## Findings on principal turnover\n## Implications","[{\"question\":\"What accountability mechanism in Texas affected special education access?\",\"answer\":\"A federal investigation found the Texas Education Agency restricted access to special education by incentivizing districts to enroll fewer than 8.5% of students and using that share to measure district performance.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the 8.5% cap relate to principal turnover after implementation?\",\"answer\":\"After the cap was implemented, principals in schools enrolling more than 8.5% of students in special education had higher odds of switching districts (0.39) and exiting the profession (0.14).\"},{\"question\":\"What did the study find about principal turnover before the cap?\",\"answer\":\"Before implementation of the cap in 2004, the study found little association between the proportion of students receiving services and principal turnover.\"}]","Policy and principal turnover - The impact of the Texas special education cap | PDF",1792093975,81]