[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-601894-105":59,"doc-detail-601894-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-texas-special-education-cap-the-texas-special-education-cap-exploration-into-the-statewide-delay-and-denial-of-support-to-students-with-disabilities","The Texas Special Education Cap - The Texas Special Education Cap: Exploration into the Statewide Delay and Denial of Support to Students with Disabilities","","State accountability systems have shaped U.S. elementary school reform for decades, but the Texas special education cap case highlights harmful side effects. In 2004, TEA introduced PBMAS, including an indicator tied to the share of students found eligible for special education under IDEA. From 2004–2016, Texas eligibility declined sharply while the national rate stayed steady. Federal scrutiny then examined statewide implementation. The study evaluates potential indicator-driven manipulation and describes how it may have influenced district and school staff behavior, delaying or denying services to eligible students, and concludes with recommendations and research implications.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-texas-special-education-cap-the-texas-special-education-cap-exploration-into-the-statewide-delay-and-denial-of-support-to-students-with-disabilities/601894/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-texas-special-education-cap-the-texas-special-education-cap-exploration-into-the-statewide-delay-and-denial-of-support-to-students-with-disabilities/601894.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"CatatanPagi","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What accountability indicator did Texas introduce under PBMAS in 2004?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Texas included an indicator focused on the percentage of students found eligible for special education under IDEA, which is the nation’s special education law.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did special education eligibility rates in Texas change from 2004 to 2016 compared with the national rate?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Texas saw a significant decline in the percentage of students found eligible for special education, while the national rate remained constant.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What are the two main goals of the study?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The study aims to assess the potential impact of the PBMAS indicator on manipulation of special education identification practices and to describe how the indicator may have influenced school and district personnel.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},601894,1792208817,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962090894170,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","education policy analysis archives  \nA peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal  \nArizona State University  \nVolume 27 Number 2 January 7, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341  \nThe Texas Special Education Cap:  \nExploration into the Statewide Delay and Denial of Support  \nto Students with Disabilities 1  \nDavidE. DeMatthews  \nUniversity of Texas at Austin  \n&  \nDavid S. Knight  \nUniversity of Texas at El Paso  \nUnited States  \nCitation: DeMatthews, D. E., & Knight, D. S. (2019) . The Texas special education cap: Exploration into the statewide delay and denial of support to students with disabilities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(2). [http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3380](http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3380)  \nAbstract: State accountability systems have been a primary school reform initiative in the US for the past 20 years, but often produce unintended negative consequences. In 2004, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) implemented the Performance Based Monitoring and Analysis System (PBMAS) , which included an accountability indicator focused on the percentage of students found eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the nation’s special education law. From 2004 through 2016, the percentage of students found eligible for special education in Texas declined  \n1 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1661097 and Grant No. 1740695. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.  \nJournal website: [http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ ](http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/  Manuscript)[ Manuscript](http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/  Manuscript) received: d/m/year  \nFacebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: d/m/year  \nTwitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: d/m/year  \nEducation Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 2 2  \nsignificantly, while the national rate held constant. Eventually, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) investigated TEA and the statewide implementation of IDEA. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (a) to evaluate the potential impact of the the PBMAS indicator on manipulation of special education identification practices; and (b) to describe how the indicator may have influenced school and district personnel. We highlight several concerning trends in state and district data and, through an analysis of publicly available reports from the ED, show how district and school personnel knowingly and unknowingly acted in ways that delayed and denied special education to potentially eligible students. We conclude with recommendations for TEA and implications for future research and policy. Keywords: special education; disproportionality; education policy; high-stakes accountability; response to intervention  \nEl límite de educación especial de Texas: Exploración del retraso y la denegaciónde apoyo a los estudiantes con discapacidades por parte del Estado  \nResumen: Los sistemas estatales de rendición de cuentas han sido una iniciativa de reforma de la escuela primaria en los Estados Unidos durante los últimos veinte años, peroa menudo producen consecuencias negativas no deseadas. En 2004, la Texas Education Agency (TEA) implementó el Performance Based Monitoring and Analysis System (PBMAS) que incluía un indicador de responsabilidad centrado en el porcentaje de estudiantes elegibles para educación especial bajo el Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ley de educación especial de la nación. Desde 2004 hasta 2016, el porcentajede estudiantes elegibles para educación especial en Texas disminuyó significativamente, mientras que la tasa nacional se mantuvo constante. Finalmente, el Departamento de Educación de los Estados Unidos (ED) investigó la TEA y la implementación estatal de IDEA. El propósito de este estudio es doble: (a) evaluar el impacto potencial del indicador PBMAS en la manipulació","cbCaimRGpDzRi1JN","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimRGpDzRi1JN","pdf",679048,34,"English","# Abstract\n## Background and policy context (TEA PBMAS, IDEA eligibility indicator)\n## Study purpose and methods focus (public ED reports)\n## Findings overview (delay/denial and staff behavior)\n## Conclusions and implications","[{\"question\":\"What accountability indicator did Texas introduce under PBMAS in 2004?\",\"answer\":\"Texas included an indicator focused on the percentage of students found eligible for special education under IDEA, which is the nation’s special education law.\"},{\"question\":\"How did special education eligibility rates in Texas change from 2004 to 2016 compared with the national rate?\",\"answer\":\"Texas saw a significant decline in the percentage of students found eligible for special education, while the national rate remained constant.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the two main goals of the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study aims to assess the potential impact of the PBMAS indicator on manipulation of special education identification practices and to describe how the indicator may have influenced school and district personnel.\"}]","The Texas Special Education Cap - The Texas Special Education Cap: Exploration into the Statewide Delay and Denial of Support to Students with Disabilities | PDF",1792093641,86]