{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.053555750658472345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04214223002633889, 'mean_word_length': 5.705882352941177, '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}}
Homeward Bound? Rural Principal Hiring, Transfer, and Turnover Patterns in Texas

A growing body of literature has recognized that the rural principalship is generally unique from its urban and suburban counterparts in its roles, demands, and expectations (Hansen, 2018; McHenry-Sorber & Hall, 2018; Preston & Barnes, 2017). Research has shown that rural principals have more fluid role definitions, often work with less professional support, and maintain tight networks within the school and community (Cruzeiro & Boone, 2009; Starr & White, 2008; Wieczorek & Manard, 2018). They also face a broadened set of community expectations, with the principalship viewed as a symbolic vanguard of community identity (Harmon & Schafft, 2009), offering less privacy and requiring more public visibility, sociocultural ‘fit,’ and personal responsibility for school (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Budge, 2006; Starr & White, 2008). Networking, limited budgets, professional development, and accountability mandates all present specific challenges due to geographic isolation, smaller staff, and economies of scale (Hite et al., 2018; Klocko & Justis, 2019;