Four takeaways from our investigation into Texas’ disciplinary schools 

Texas' Disciplinary Schools: A System Under Scrutiny as Student Placements Expand

Each year, a significant portion of Texas' student population finds themselves in a parallel educational system, far from their traditional classrooms. Known as Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs, or DAEPs, these schools were initially conceived as a structured response to serious student misconduct. However, a deep dive into the system reveals a complex reality where the scope of offenses leading to DAEP placement has broadened considerably, raising questions about educational equity and effectiveness.

From Serious Offenses to Everyday Disruptions: The Shifting Landscape of DAEP Placements

Established in the mid-1990s amidst national anxieties about school safety, DAEPs were intended to serve as a more robust alternative to simple suspension for students involved in grave infractions. The legislative intent was clear: provide a structured environment for students who posed a significant risk to the school community.

Yet, over time, the criteria for placement have evolved. State legislation has gradually expanded the range of behaviors that can result in a student being sent to a DAEP. This expansion means students can now face weeks, or even months, away from their regular schools for offenses that include vaping, making threats, bringing prohibited items to campus, or even encountering trouble with law enforcement outside of school grounds.

Educators often highlight the necessity of DAEPs as a vital tool for managing severe behavioral issues and ensuring a safe learning environment for all students and staff. However, a growing chorus of critics points to a perceived lack of rigorous oversight concerning the operation of these programs and the specific reasons behind student placements. A central concern revolves around the quality of education these students receive during their time in alternative settings.

When Minor Missteps Lead to Alternative Schools

An in-depth review of records from numerous school districts across Texas has uncovered instances where students were placed in DAEPs for infractions that many would consider minor. These include issues such as insubordination, attendance problems, dress code violations, and the use of profanity. Notably, these specific behaviors are not explicitly mandated by state law as grounds for DAEP placement.

However, school districts retain considerable discretion in interpreting their local codes of conduct. This flexibility allows them to assign students to DAEPs for any behavior deemed a violation of these local rules. The data illustrates this disparity: in the 2024-25 school year alone, nearly 36,000 DAEP placements were attributed to code of conduct violations, a figure significantly higher than the under 12,000 placements for offenses like assault.

Critics argue that recent legislative actions have further solidified this trend. A bill passed last year, for example, explicitly permits districts to send students to DAEPs for disruptive behavior, potentially codifying the practice of using alternative schools for a wider array of conduct issues.

The Uphill Battle for Families: Challenging DAEP Placements

Navigating the system to reverse a DAEP placement often proves to be an arduous and infrequently successful endeavor for families. State law mandates that a hearing must precede any DAEP placement, requiring an examination of evidence and any mitigating circumstances. However, these hearings are typically conducted by the school district itself, rather than an impartial third party.

The final decision rests with a district employee, leaving families with limited avenues for recourse. In many cases, parents or guardians do not possess an automatic right to appeal these decisions to higher district leadership or the school board. Furthermore, state law does not provide a clear pathway for escalating complaints to the Texas Education Agency.

Judicial intervention in these matters has historically been limited, with courts often declining to assert jurisdiction over school district disciplinary decisions. This complex web of procedures and limited appeal options can leave families feeling powerless to contest a placement they believe is unjust or disproportionate.

The Rigors of DAEP Environments and Their Impact on Students

DAEPs are characterized by exceptionally strict environments, and many students find it challenging to adapt to their demanding structures. An analysis of handbooks from 75 different districts reveals common prohibitions, such as students being forbidden from speaking in class unless explicitly granted permission. Movement between classes often requires students to walk in single-file lines, sometimes with their hands positioned behind their backs.

Strict dress codes are also a hallmark of these institutions, frequently banning items like facial hair, jewelry, and even sandals. The consequences for rule infractions can be severe, with additional days potentially being added to a student's placement for any violation, regardless of its perceived severity.

The educational model within DAEPs often relies heavily on independent work, particularly for students with extended placements. Due to the constant rotation of students across different courses and grade levels throughout the academic year, much of the schoolwork is completed individually, frequently utilizing computer-based platforms. This can translate into months without direct, live instruction for some students.

Research consistently indicates a correlation between DAEP assignments and diminished high school graduation rates. For instance, data shows that only 44 percent of ninth graders placed in a DAEP eventually graduate within four years. This contrasts sharply with the 84 percent graduation rate for students who receive no disciplinary action and the 70 percent rate for those who have experienced a single in-school suspension.

Disproportionate Impacts: Examining Overrepresented Student Groups in DAEPs

A critical aspect of the DAEP system is the disproportionate representation of certain student demographics. In the 2024-25 school year, Black students constituted approximately 13 percent of the overall student body in Texas but accounted for a striking 22 percent of all students placed in DAEPs. This significant disparity raises concerns about potential systemic biases within the disciplinary process.

Furthermore, male students are assigned to DAEPs at a considerably higher rate than female students, making up roughly two-thirds of all placements. This gender imbalance warrants further investigation into the underlying factors contributing to these differences.

Students with Disabilities Face Unique Challenges

While state law mandates that educators consider a student's disability status before assigning them to an alternative school, data reveals that students with special education needs are still overrepresented in DAEP placements. These students comprised nearly a quarter of all placements, despite making up only 17 percent of the total student population.

Experts suggest that the highly structured and rigid nature of DAEP environments can be particularly difficult for students with disabilities to navigate. This often leads to challenges in adhering to the strict rules, potentially resulting in extended placements. The data suggests that the very environment designed to manage behavior may inadvertently exacerbate difficulties for students who require specialized support and understanding.