Texas’ discipline push sends kids to ‘jail-like’ campuses

Texas Schools Turn to 'Jail-Like' Alternative Campuses Amid Discipline Surge

A Texas honors student, suspended for distributing flyers about a protest, found himself unexpectedly assigned to a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP). His mother, Angela Comfort, remains baffled, stating her son Jordan had no new behavior to warrant such a severe consequence. This incident highlights a growing trend in Texas school discipline, where alternative campuses, once reserved for serious offenses, are increasingly used for a wider range of student conduct.

The Expanding Reach of Alternative Discipline

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs, or DAEPs, were initially conceived as a consequence for significant misbehavior, such as bringing weapons to school. However, over the past three decades, their role has dramatically expanded. Data reveals that over 100,000 students in Texas now attend these programs annually, not just for major infractions but also for issues like insubordination and dress code violations.

Before the pandemic, there was a slight decline in DAEP placements, suggesting a shift away from punitive measures. Yet, following the full reopening of schools, these numbers surged. Last year, lawmakers further amplified this trend with House Bill 6, empowering more school districts to place students in DAEPs for disruptive behavior.

A System with Limited Oversight

School districts in Texas possess considerable autonomy in deciding when to assign students to DAEPs and how these programs are administered. This often means educators operate with minimal external accountability, even from the justice system. For parents, challenging a DAEP placement can be an uphill battle, with limited avenues for recourse.

While the Texas Education Agency (TEA) holds oversight responsibility, its requirements are minimal. The agency mandates only that DAEP campuses offer an "academic and self discipline program that leads to graduation." Crucially, the TEA itself acknowledges the inherent risks, classifying any student entering a DAEP as being at high risk of dropping out. Research underscores this concern, showing that less than half of ninth graders placed in these programs graduate high school on time.

TEA officials did not respond to requests for comment regarding their monitoring of DAEPs. A spokesperson for Garland Independent School District, where Jordan's case originated, stated that the district could not comment on specific student situations due to privacy laws but confirmed they were addressing the matter according to established policies.

Echoes of the Criminal Justice System

Critics argue that DAEPs bear a striking resemblance to the criminal justice system. These alternative campuses disproportionately serve Black and Latino students, with a significant majority being male. The rules within DAEPs are considerably more stringent than those on regular school grounds; some districts even mandate uniforms resembling jumpsuits.

The possibility of early release for good behavior further blurs the lines. Paige Duggins-Clay, chief legal analyst at the Intercultural Development Research Association, describes these environments as "jail-like." She observes a concerning shift this year, suggesting that districts may feel emboldened by House Bill 6 to remove students they deem problematic.

A Historical Perspective on Discipline

Angela Comfort's own experience as a teenager in 1997 offers a glimpse into the early days of DAEPs. A Garland administrator attempted to place her in the district's alternative program, a proposal she rejected, asserting her status as a non-troubled student. At that time, DAEPs were a new concept, born from the nationwide "zero tolerance" discipline reforms.

The 1995 Texas Safe Schools Act mandated the removal of students who committed serious offenses, such as assault or drug-related crimes, to alternative settings. This legislation mirrored similar laws in other states aimed at enhancing campus safety by relocating perceived threats. However, in Texas, these alternative schools have become a deeply embedded component of the disciplinary framework.

Over time, Texas lawmakers have expanded the list of behaviors that necessitate a mandatory DAEP placement. While educators are expected to consider a student's disciplinary history and disability status, district administrators retain significant discretion in assigning students to these programs.

The Unseen Data: Misconduct vs. Serious Offenses

State data reveals a startling reality: the most common reason for DAEP placement is a "violation of local code of conduct." In the 2024-25 school year, nearly 36,000 DAEP placements were attributed to this broad category, dwarfing the fewer than 12,000 assignments for assault. In stark contrast, only 208 placements were related to possessing a weapon, out of approximately 5.5 million students enrolled in Texas public schools that year.

"DAEPs were designed originally to be for more serious offenses and more serious behaviors," notes Renuka Rege, a senior staff attorney at Texas Appleseed. "But unfortunately, they’ve been expanded." Comfort, like many parents, initially believed DAEPs were strictly for students involved in severe incidents, such as bringing weapons or persistently disrupting learning environments. Jordan's placement shattered this perception.

The context of Jordan's situation is also significant. Governor Greg Abbott had previously threatened to cut state funding for districts whose students participated in protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Despite these warnings, students across Texas, including in Garland, proceeded with planned walkouts. Comfort reports that, to her knowledge, no other students at Jordan's school faced DAEP placement for similar actions, including those who assisted him with the flyers.

Legislative Shifts and Parental Recourse

In 2025, Texas Appleseed advocated for a bill that would have prohibited DAEP placements for minor infractions like attendance issues or disrespectful language. Simultaneously, a group of superintendents lobbied the legislature to reform the state's discipline code, granting educators greater flexibility in disciplinary actions. While the advocacy group's efforts stalled, the superintendents' proposals gained traction.

This marked the third legislative expansion of reasons for DAEP placement in six years. A 2019 law mandated DAEP assignments for teacher harassment, and a subsequent law in 2023 required placement for e-cigarette possession (though this was later amended to apply only to repeat offenders). House Bill 6, passed in June 2025, further broadened these grounds, allowing districts to send students to DAEPs for disruptive behavior and mandating placement for harassing school employees or disorderly conduct involving a firearm. The bill also removed time limits on in-school suspensions and reinstated out-of-school suspensions for younger students.

State Senator Charles Perry, a co-sponsor of HB 6, expressed at a May 2025 hearing that he anticipated the deterrent effect of peer punishment on disruptive behavior. "I hope there’s not many kids that end up in that situation," he stated, "but at the same time, the benefit of the whole in this area has to be dealt with." David Vinson, superintendent of Conroe ISD, a proponent of the bill, emphasized the need to create safer environments for teachers and students, citing instances where repetitive behavior remained unresolved. "I do not want to put a kid in a DAEP," Vinson remarked, "But I’ve got to think about the other 21 kids I have in a class."

When Cyberbullying Leads to Alternative Schools

Laura Wickwire faced a similar predicament when her son, Kevin Jenkins, was recommended for a 75-day DAEP placement. The alleged offense: threats sent via his hacked school email account. Kevin, then 15, had endured over a year of cyberbullying, including numerous false reports to school tip lines alleging he possessed a weapon or was suicidal. His school email had been compromised multiple times, even resulting in a death threat sent from his account to both Wickwire and Kevin.

The school district was aware of the cyberbullying, having reset Kevin's account three times. Wickwire and Kevin assert he couldn't even log in when some of the alleged threatening emails were sent. Despite presenting this evidence, a district employee reportedly dismissed their concerns, focusing solely on the May threats. "I literally was so mad," Kevin recounted. "She was like, ‘I don’t care.’"

A spokesperson for North East ISD stated that impartial hearing officers review cases, considering factors like student intent and disciplinary history. "All allegations of bullying are taken seriously and investigated," the spokesperson said, adding that decisions are based on a "preponderance of the evidence." However, Wickwire felt the decision was made before the hearing even concluded, and North East ISD policy offers no avenue for appeal.

State law does not mandate appeal processes for DAEP placements, nor does it provide clear guidelines for how such processes should function or how families should be informed. While the state does not track outcomes of DAEP placement meetings, advocates report that reversals are rare. For families with the financial means, withdrawing their child and enrolling them in private school is often the only recourse.

Both Comfort and Wickwire ultimately withdrew their sons from public school and pursued homeschooling or online private schooling. Law enforcement was frequently involved due to the false reports made about Kevin Jenkins, and his mother meticulously documented these interactions.

A Year-Long Sentence for Alleged Threats

Sharenda Claros sought a fresh start for her son, Brandyn, by moving to Seguin, Texas. After two weeks at a regular middle school, where he began making friends and considering joining sports teams, his academic records from his former charter school arrived. Seguin assigned Brandyn to a year-long DAEP based on an accusation of physically threatening students, an allegation he vehemently denies.

Despite police investigation and the district attorney declining to pursue charges—information Claros shared with Seguin officials—the DAEP placement stood. For nearly the entire eighth-grade year, Brandyn followed a strict routine: arriving at school by 8 a.m., passing through a metal detector, and spending most of his day in silence, working through computer programs. He found few teachers approachable for help, with most redirecting him to on-screen lessons.

"It’s like setting him up for failure," Claros lamented. "I feel like they know that." Seguin officials declined to comment on specific student cases, referring inquiries to the district's Student Code of Conduct. Brandyn's experience, however, is far from unique. Across Texas, DAEP students primarily engage in individualized, computer-based work under stringent rules.

The Rigidity of DAEP Environments

Analysis of handbooks from 75 Texas districts reveals common DAEP protocols: students are typically forbidden from speaking without permission, must walk in single file with hands behind their backs, and adhere to strict dress codes that ban facial hair, jewelry, and even certain footwear or hair dyes. Rule violations can extend placement duration.

Examples of extreme measures include students in White Settlement ISD spending their first week sitting on stools in wall-facing cubicles, with chairs only granted for good behavior. In Andrews ISD, students who misbehave may face "physical conditioning." Commerce ISD requires students to eat lunch in silent cubicles. Officials from White Settlement ISD explained that these practices are designed to "provide safety and limit student interaction," with restrictions gradually easing for compliant students.

In Seguin, officials did work with Claros to potentially reduce Brandyn's placement. A path to returning to his regular campus involved 30 consecutive days of perfect work and no rule violations. However, given the multitude of rules and Brandyn's diagnoses of disruptive mood disorder and ADHD, which can make sustained stillness challenging, this seemed an unlikely outcome.

Disability Rights and the DAEP Divide

Advocates highlight that students with disabilities are disproportionately placed in DAEPs and often do not receive the legally mandated services and accommodations. "They’re placed more often. A lot of times we find that they struggle more, and we find that they stay longer," states Colleen Potts of Disability Rights Texas. "Not every kid learns the same, and the DAEP does not have the ability to be individualized like the main campus would."

Brandyn, for instance, lacks access to the support outlined in his individualized education program (IEP). Accommodations, such as being allowed to step out to a different room when overwhelmed, are not permitted and count as an unsuccessful day. "It’s kind of annoying, because they see me as somebody I’m not," Brandyn expressed. "I feel like they see me as a dangerous person, and I’m not a dangerous person."

Claros worries about the long-term psychological impact on her son, particularly how he will transition from such a restrictive environment to a regular high school. "This is the stage I believe is a make-or-break stage," she said. "He may think this is okay in the future. He may feel like, ‘Oh, I have to be locked up.’"