Texas’s Zero-Tolerance Policies Are Just One of Many Issues with Its Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs)

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) may have been created in good faith to separate disruptive students from Texan pupils who genuinely want to learn. Yet the concerns about DAEPs were apparent from the start—including who has the power to brand a student as disruptive, and the harm that results when you remove a student from their social network and familiar learning environment.

There is also the glaring issue of inconsistency from one school district to the next, and even from one school to the next.

Though the independent school districts (ISDs) in Texas must comply with the Texas Education Code (TEC), each district has substantial influence in the design and implementation of DAEPs. This influence includes setting the boundaries for what offenses can trigger discretionary and mandatory removal of a student from their familiar educational environment into an unfamiliar, likely substandard DAEP.

Depending on the district, the school teacher, or the administrator who oversees disciplinary decisions, a student might have no idea whether they’ll face grace and leniency or, instead, a hasty decision to remove them from school for the slightest offense.

These are just some of the problems that we see resulting in unfair and severe discipline affecting Texas students. Before they even have a chance to form an identity or understand the true consequences of their actions, they are stigmatized and set back by discipline that changes the course of their lives.

It’s not right, and we stand up for those students. Call the LLF National Law Firm Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online so we can fight for a fair disciplinary response, rather than the traumatic removal of the student from their school.

A Dubious Start: The Birth of DAEPs in Texas

The birth of DAEPs came through the passage of the Safe Schools Act in 1995. With this Act, the Texas Legislature created both:

• DAEPs: As the name of the Safe Schools Act suggests, many of the measures within were explicitly aimed at making schools safer. One aspect of this mission was to create DAEPs, which are alternative education programs, generally on another campus, where “disruptive” students could be placed. Placement was typically meant to be temporary, though a student who does not meet the criteria to return to their school might remain in a DAEP for an extended period.
• JJAEPs: Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs) are generally reserved for students expelled for committing violent offenses. These programs were required initially in counties with more than 125,000 people, though that population threshold has lowered, and the number of JJAEPs has expanded since the Safe Schools Act’s passage.

The same source notes that the Safe Schools Act generally granted more power to school administrators to make life-changing disciplinary decisions without the go-ahead from higher authorities. These powers included “to expel students for reasons in the local student code of conduct,” which would often result in the student being placed in a DAEP or JJAEP.

We call this a “dubious start” because, when the Safe Schools Act passed, it was not hard to see that there were unresolved questions and issues that would lead to students suffering unnecessary harm and unjustifiable removal from their native learning environments.

The Problems With DAEPs, Including Overuse, Were Apparent from the Start

Texas has consistently been recognized for its no-nonsense, straight-to-the-point handling of problems. It’s a state defined by bold, decisive action, and the concept of simply removing “problem” students from schools to isolate the “problem” falls in line with the Texan ethos.

That said, we typically associate Texas’s take-the-Longhorn-by-the-horns-without-second-thought approach to adults. Such boldness (sometimes without regard for longer-term consequences) does not translate as well to children or education.

Young people need consistency and compassion—we must remember this when recognizing DAEPs’ inherent flaws, which include:

• Lack of acknowledgement of what it means to be young and immature: Some students commit serious, unprovoked violence, engage in prolonged disrespect for their educators, or engage in other behavior that makes it virtually impossible to keep them in a regular classroom. However, when the Safe Schools Act green-lit the removal of “disruptive” students, it opened the door to remove students who were simply exhibiting the symptoms of the angst and immaturity of youth.
• Uneven rules and enforcement across school districts: The Safe Schools Act, as well as later Texas legislation, has granted school districts substantial autonomy to shape their policies related to DAEPs. While some may consider this autonomy a positive thing, it comes with obvious issues. For instance, if a student changes schools from Dallas to Austin, they might find unrecognizable DAEP policies and practices—this might lead to that student being placed in a DAEP simply because they did not understand the rules and expectations.
• Overly aggressive zero-tolerance policies for removing students from their classrooms: Since 1995, Texas statutes have named offenses that trigger mandatory removal of a student from their school (and placement in a DAEP or even JJAEP). While there can be exceptions to these mandatory triggers—like a student using violence to defend themselves from another’s aggression—many consider zero-tolerance DAEP policies to be heavy-handed and overly punitive.
• Too much leeway in discretionary removal policies: Principals and teachers have the discretion to assign a student to a DAEP or pursue a less severe disciplinary track. Local school districts have immense leeway to determine what offenses can justify removing a student from their school and placing them in an alternative program. Such leeway means that students are too often subject to the whims, biases, and miscalculations of humans who may not value the student’s best interests as highly as they should.
• School districts can partner with third parties: Texas statutes explain that “an individual school district or an SSA may contract with third parties for DAEP services.” This fact opens questions about who these third parties might be, what (potentially critical) roles the third parties may play in the DAEP ecosystem, and what kind of oversight these third parties face to ensure they’re acting in students’ best interests.
• Substandard learning conditions in DAEPs: Alternative learning environments are typically associated with substandard academics. These programs have an elevated focus on discipline, which inevitably takes away focus from learning. This fact means that a student who wants to learn but is assigned to a DAEP may fall behind academically through no fault of their own—and may never catch up, even if they can return to their regular school eventually.
• Failure to recognize how stigmatizing DAEP placement is: Anyone who has gone through school understands that kids can be cruel. When a student is held back, suspended, sent to a DAEP, or branded as different in any other way, the stigma can be crushing. This stigma is even more severe when a student is physically removed from their familiar social network and forced to go to another physical environment for schooling.

Educators do not truly comprehend the social, academic, psychological, and emotional consequences of placing a student in a DAEP. We know this because the state’s leaders continue to engage in conversations about zero tolerance of student misconduct with relatively little focus on the unintended consequences of such discipline-focused agendas.

DAEPs’ Shortcomings Have Only Become More Glaring Over Time (and More Aggressive Enforcement)

When DAEPs were first implemented, it seemed like a reasonable short-term fix. As decades have passed since their creation in 1995, though, we have seen the long-term consequences of over-reliance on DAEPs and zero-tolerance policies that lack nuance:

• Removal practices that have only become more aggressive (and less compassionate): We need look no further than discourse among Texas legislators to see how students face increasingly severe consequences for alleged misconduct. At least one legislator has proposed removing students who make certain types of threats and placing them in JJAEPs. While this may seem reasonable, we have witnessed how increasingly aggressive, rigid disciplinary policies have contributed to students facing unduly harsh discipline.
• Failure of DAEPs to evolve into better learning environments: Studies of Texas’ alternative education landscape have dredged up several concerns. For one, they found that the academic progress of students in DAEPs is not consistently measured. While proponents of DAEPs tout the enhanced safety of removing “problem students,” the students who are placed in DAEPs seem to be largely forgotten.
• Frustrated teachers and administrators over-relying on removal as Texas schools grow in capacity: The data shows that two-thirds of students sent to DAEPs in Texas are sent under administrators’ discretion. This means that the law did not require the student to be assigned to a DAEP, but decision-makers elected to assign them anyway. This is one indicator that, when given a choice between various types of discipline, Texas educators often choose the extreme measure of removing the student from their school.
• Exacerbating mental health and behavioral problems in increasingly fragile young generations: We know that young people suffer from serious, potentially life-threatening mental health deficits. When a young person is torn from their social fabric and placed in a DAEP, it stands to reason that the likelihood of potentially catastrophic mental health consequences would skyrocket.

Yet, despite these pressing concerns, some Texas legislators are plowing ahead with policies that jeopardize students’ rights and well-being. A group of them has even signaled intent to give schools greater ability to discipline K-2nd-grade students, as well as severely discipline homeless ones.

The threat of students being unjustly assigned to DAEPs is not going away. As a student or guardian, then, your imperative is to fight such unjust punishment when facing the threat of assignment to a DAEP.

How DAEP Placement Works in Texas

The sequence of events that can lead to a student being placed in a DAEP is:

• The student is accused of committing an infraction, or engaging in a pattern of disruptive (or otherwise prohibited) conduct
• School officials investigate the alleged misconduct
• The investigators should generally speak with witnesses, gather concrete evidence (such as video footage of an incident), consider mitigating factors (like a student defending themselves during a physical altercation), and reach various conclusions based on the investigation
• A disciplinary hearing or conference may take place
• The student and their guardian(s) are notified of the school’s decision to remove them from school and place them in a DAEP

During this process, school officials must consider Texas law and local policies to determine if DAEP placement is mandatory or discretionary. If school officials have discretion in the matter, they have a choice to make—move forward with the DAEP placement, or impose less severe discipline.

How Students and Their Loved Ones Can Fight to Avoid DAEP Placement in Texas

Students in Texas have rights, including the right to due process before being taken from their school and placed in a DAEP. Your opportunities to fight a DAEP placement order may come:

• During a hearing before the school formally mandates a DAEP placement
• Through an appeal, which you should receive information about when you are notified of the intent to place the student in a DAEP

A designated official or board of officials may oversee both the hearing and any appeals you choose to file. Take full advantage of every opportunity to fight for your student, and allow the LLF National Law Firm to lead that fight.

How the LLF National Law Firm Team Helps Students Facing DAEP Placement (and Related Disciplinary Consequences)

Our National Education Defense Team fights for students. It’s our job and our mission. We are the natural choice to serve as advocates for students facing DAEP placement anywhere in Texas because:

• We provide start-to-finish guidance, advice, and advocacy
• When we represent a student (and their guardians), we have a stake in their immediate and long-term well-being
• Our understanding of Texas’s DAEP-specific laws and procedures (including procedures specific to various school districts) is extensive and actionable

Remember that students placed in DAEPs can suffer profound psychological, emotional, social, and even long-term professional and financial consequences. If ever there is a time to fight for students, it’s in the face of a potential or pending DAEP order.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online. Learn more about us, and let us learn more about your student. Let’s get this done.