Texas’ School to Prison Pipeline: The Impact of School Discipline and Zero Tolerance, Texas...

8/7/2019 Texas’ School to Prison Pipeline: The Impact of School Discipline and Zero Tolerance, Texas Appleseed, 2007

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/texas-school-to-prison-pipeline-the-impact-of-school-discipline-and-zero 1/166

Texas’

School-to-PrisonPipeline

Dropout to Incarceration

Te Impact of School Discipline and Zero olerance



TEXAS APPLESEED

1609 Shoal Creek

Suite 201

Austin, TX 78701

512-473-2800

www.texasappleseed.net

’

S--PP

Dropout to Incarceration


October 2007

http://www.texasappleseed.net/




Report Team

D F F, Legal Director 1

R L, Executive Director J M, Communications Director 2

E , Policy Analyst L W, Mayer Brown Legal Fellow 1P A 2E

S E A U P C

R A S--P .

Texas Appleseed Mission

A’

fi - .

O

— H S C R’ “-- ”—

, ,

“” .

Texas Appleseed Executive Committee

J. C D, Chair Emeritus , Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody ,* austin

R. J G, Chair , George & Brothers, LLP,* austin

R L, Chair Elect , Marshall & Lewis LLP,* houston

J C, Secretary-reasurer , Crews Law Firm, P.C.,* austin

M L, Immediate Past Chair , Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP,* dallas

G Hff, Tompson & Knight, L.L.P.,* dallas

A V F, Greenberg raurig, LLP,* houston

Texas Appleseed School-to-Prison Pipeline Committee

J C, Crews Law Firm, P.C.,* austin

C K, Mayer Brown LLP,* houston

L K, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.,* houston

C P, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,* houston

C P H, Shell Oil Company ,* houston

*Affi liations listed for identification purposes only.

F E ©2007, A. A , : F

. R fi (5)

. T

...





Acknowledgements

T

, Vinson & Elkins LLP, S F E P. W

Denton, Navarro, Rocha &

Bernal, PC; Escamilla & Poneck, Inc.; ExxonMobil; Greenberg raurig, LLP; Mayer

Brown LLP; Patton Boggs LLP. O

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anipakos, P.C.; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. A D R, E J W F, A,

I., .

A’ --

Houston Endowment Meadows Foundation,

Simmons Foundation.

A C C

-- .

School-to-Prison Pipeline Consulting Committee

K LEducation Policy Specialist

Advocacy, Inc.

C R, P.D.Chair

Zero Tolerance Task Force

American Psychological

Association

A S KPublic Policy Analyst

Children at Risk

C O. JProject Manager

Jobs for the Future

D C, P.D.Research Scientist

Public Policy Research Institute

Texas A&M University

J B, P.D.Co-chair

Support Services Committee

Austin/Travis County Reentry

Roundtable

D RFellow/Attorney

Equal Justice Works

Advocacy, Inc.

C KCommittee Director

Children’s Rights

Litigation Committee

American Bar Association

D LSenior Education Law and Policy Associate

The Civil Rights Project

S H, P.D.Research Psychologist

Mental Health Mental Retardation

Authority of Harris County

J H, P.D.Professor

Department of Educational Psychology

Texas A&M University

M LDirector

Center for Effective Justice

Texas Public Policy Foundation

R LSenior Attorney

Advocacy, Inc.

S SProgram Director

Center for Public Policy

Dispute Resolution

The University of Texas

School of Law

L F, P.D., J.D. Associate Director

Hogg Foundation

for Mental Health

L SEducation Program Director

National Economic &

Social Rights Initiative

I GCoordinator

Texas Coalition Advocating Justicefor Juveniles

C School Safety Specialist

Texas School Safety Center

Texas State University





+

1983

The National Commission on Excellence in Education releases

“A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” —claiming

that U.S. students lag those in other nations and warning of

“a rising tide of mediocrity.”

The reconstituted Select Committee on Public Education headed

by H. Ross Perot begins to examine “every aspect of the public

education system”—ultimately recommending state-funded

alternative schools and Texas Education Agency approval of

discipline management programs implemented by school districts.

1985

The 69th Legislature replaces

out-of-school suspension and

expulsion of students with their

being assigned to alternative

education programs. School

districts are required for the

first time to adopt a discipline

plan, provide teacher training

in discipline management,

and develop and distribute a

Student Code of Conduct.

1986

A special session of the 69th Legislature amends the

Education Code to allow school boards to suspend

students for up to six days without referring them to

an alternative education program. The Code does not

mandate suspension or expulsion for any offense—that

decision is left to local districts.

1992

The State Board of Education

begins to call for zero tolerancepolicies to prevent school

violence and drug abuse,

a shift rooted in the state

and national “war on drugs”

campaigns of the 1980s and

the passage of the federal Gun

Free School Zones Act in 1990.

1995

In his State of the State address to the 74 th

Legislature, Governor George W. Bush notes: “We

must adopt one policy for those who terrorize

teachers or disrupt classrooms—zero tolerance.”

The 74th Legislature rewrites the Texas

Education Code to include Chapter 37—

creating Disciplinary Alternative Education

Programs (DAEPs) and Juvenile Justice

Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs),

listing the offenses that trigger mandatory

referrals to these programs, and giving school

districts discretion to refer students for other

Code of Conduct violations.

In its 1995 Long-range Plan for Public Education,

the State Board of Education includes: “Promote

zero-tolerance guidelines for behaviors

and actions that threaten school safety.”

1996-2007

The Texas Education Code, Chapter

37, Discipline; Law & Order, is

amended almost every legislative

session in this period.

In 2007, state lawmakers pass

legislation requiring the Texas

Education Agency (TEA) to develop

minimum standards for DAEPs,

but stop short of requiring

TEA to monitor or implement

those standards.





table of contents

EXECUIVE SUMMARY 1

INRODUCION 13

EXAS EDUCAION CODE, CHAPER 37: 17D; L & O, Safe Schools Act

EXAS SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICIES: 25I S--P P

SCHOOL DISRIC / PAREN FOCUS GROUP INERVIEWS: 63

S D P—W W W N C

BES PRACICE MODEL: 79 A M- A S S D

CONCLUSION & POLICY PROPOSALS 99

APPENDIX

QUANIAIVE MEHODS: 105 A O S D D

A HISORY: 115S D & Z

LEGISLAIVE ANALYSIS: 135 E C, C 37, D; L & O

’ S--P P:Dropout to Incarceration






Visit the exas Appleseed website at www.texasappleseed.net to review this

report along with the following data tables used to create this analysis:

D H P D R M S E

S I-S S (ISS), 2001-06

D H P D R M S E

S O--S S (OSS), 2001-06

D H P D R M S E

S D A E P (DAEP), 2001-06

D D D R P-K, K & 1 G S, 2001-06

O I-S S (ISS) R R S D, 2001-06

O O--S S (OSS) R R S D, 2001-06

O D A E P (DAEP) R R

S D, 2001-06

O M S E S D R

I-S S (ISS), 2001-06

O M S E S D R

O--S S (OSS), 2001-06

O M S E S D R

D A E P (DAEP), 2001-06

S E & O D R R, 2001-06

S D & M R, C Off, 2001-06







E X E C U I V E S U M M A R Y

“He who opens a school door, closes a prison.” – Victor Hugo

I

— - , ,

D A E P (DAEP)

,

, .

I ,

- --

DAEP. F , .

O , exas Appleseed — fi —

fi ,

,

P P F, A I., H C R P

“-- ”

.

N fi , ,

.T . One in three juveniles

Y C — more than 80 percent of exas adult prison inmates are school dropouts .





Executive Summary

W ’

— -

(ISS), -- (OSS), D A

E C (DAEP). T ff

J J A E P (JJAEP) Y C

. T “” .

A A&M U’ P P R I 2005 , “ ”

, single most important predictor is a history of disciplinary referrals at school .

I , ISS , --

— (DAEP)—

-1990 F G F S A 1994

1995 ( exas Education Code,Chapter 37, Discipline; Law & Order ). C 37 ff

must DAEP . I

C C. T written

, C 37

ff , , C

C.

W P R C T U ,

A -

E A— - (ISS), --

(OSS), D A E P (DAEP)

. T fi

fi- (2001-06)— ff (

School-to-Prison Dropout Link…

• More than a third 2005-06.

• D A E P five times the dropout rate .

• One in three juveniles Y C .• More than 80 percent .

School-to-Prison Dropout Link…

• More than a third 2005-06.

• D A E P five times the dropout rate .

• One in three juveniles Y C .• More than 80 percent .

T .

– Public Policy Research Institute,exas A&M University (2005)

T .

– Public Policy Research Institute,exas A&M University (2005)



Executive Summary

), , , ,

. I fi

DAEP, OSS, ISS

. (F

, Quantitative Methods Appendix .)

A 40 fi

, , ,

ffi ,

, D A

E P (DAEP). T

, , . A

DAEP

.

O fi ff,

- , ,

’ — . A

fi can be done while maintaining safe schools

.

Major Findings: Discipline in Texas Public Schools

— 4.4 million

students 1,037 school districts. T

—

C 37, E C,

’ .

T fi

:

❖ High recidivism and dropout rates underscore the failure of Disciplinary

Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) to meet the needs of large numbers

of students—a problem compounded by the lack of state oversight.

◆ I , DAEP five times the dropout rate .

◆ I 2005-06 , recidivism rate approached 30 percent — 105,530

137,000 DAEP .

T D A

E P 2% a year , 167 school districts two to six times the state average 2001 2006.

– Analysis of data self-reported by schooldistricts to the exas Education Agency

T D A

E P 2% a year , 167 school districts two to six times the state average 2001 2006.




Executive Summary

◆ T 80 L 2007 E A (EA)

’ fi DAEP— did not require EAto monitor or enforce them.

◆ - DAEP discretion of school districts , .

❖ Where a child attends school—and not the nature of the offense—is the greater

predictor of the likelihood of a student’s receiving a disciplinary referral.

◆ T D A E

P 2 percent a year — 167 districts two to six times the state average 2001 2006.

◆ I 2005-06, 79 school districts -- (OSS)

20 percent or higher — 14 percent .T “ 10” OSS ranging from 37 to 58 percent .

◆ More than 300 districts (326) ISS

17 percent 2005-06, “ 10” ISS

ranging from 45 to 67 percent .

❖ African American students—and to a lesser extent Hispanic students—are

significantly over-represented in schools’ discretionary disciplinary decisions

(suspensions and DAEP referrals) compared to their percentage in the overall

student population.

◆ I , 211 school districts A A

DAEP 2001 2006. I 2005-06, 15 school districts A A at more than twice their representation in the student population, with discretionary referral rates ranging from 21 to 65 percent.

◆ F 2001 2006, 503 school districts -

A A --

(OSS) 347 districts -

- (ISS).

◆ Forty school districts H DAEP

, 224 districts , 92districts - ISS

(2001-06).



Executive Summary

❖ Special education students are significantly overrepresented in discretionary

disciplinary referrals compared to their percentage in the overall school population.

◆ A 11 percent

2005-06, 22 percent

DAEP , 26 percent -- , 21 percent

ISS .

◆ A ’ — 412 districts—

DAEP

2001 2006.

◆ E fi- , 79 school districts

DAEP, 317 districts

, 328 districts - ISS.

❖ exas school districts referred about 500 pre-K and kindergarten students and

about 2,700 1st graders to DAEPs between 2001 and 2006—even though exas

law restricts referral of children under age 6 to those who bring a gun to school .◆ Fourteen school districts— Pasadena ISD (85 referrals)—account almost

half (271) -K DAEP

fi- .

What These Findings Mean for Students and Parents

R

fewer discipline problems in schools where parents are involved. W

—

—

.

I ’

, , D

A E P (DAEP) , it is critical that a parent or guardianattend. I ffi —

,

.

A ’ — 412 districts— DAEP 2001 2006.

L, A A — H— fi DAEP .


A ’ — 412 districts— DAEP 2001 2006.

L, A A — H— fi DAEP .




Executive Summary

P

. T

, ff

.

Policy RecommendationsB fi, A

, ,

.

Amend the exas Education Code to :

• Provide state oversight of DAEPs. R E A (EA)

D A E P

(DAEP). I 2007, EA ’ fi DAEP,

.

• Factor “intent” into discretionary discipline decisions. R ffi ’ “”

. C, may .

• Place a cap on suspensions. P

- -- (ISS OSS) .

• Notify districts with disproportionate disciplinary referrals. R

E A (EA)

’ ISS, OSS, DAEP

. T EA .

• Compliance with federal laws. R EA DAEP

E S L

.

• Improve DAEP academic standards and course offerings. R EA

ff— explore the use of technology ff DAEP .

• Early parent notification requirements. R immediately . C fi .

• Rights and responsibilities. R E A

“B R R” ’

C C.

I , S funding for expanded school-based mental health services

.



Executive Summary

T E A discretionary grant program to

-

.

Policy recommendations at the school district and campus level include:

• Research-based discipline strategies. D, ,

- research-based strategies

.

• Positive behavior support. E

-fi, , - ,

ff, , . R positively reward .

• eacher/staff training. P ff

,

.

• Formalized plans to monitor at-risk students. A , - -

.

• ransition planning. S , ,

.

• Parent involvement. E

— ,

ff

’

DAEP -, - .

• Improve administrative oversight of ISS academics. E

ISS on track in regular classes .

T Houston Endowment Meadows

Foundation Simmons Foundation.

A Vinson & Elkins LLP

. A ff Denton,

Navarro, Rocha & Bernal, PC; Escamilla & Poneck, Inc.; ExxonMobil; Greenberg raurig, LLP; Mayer Brown LLP; Patton Boggs LLP. O

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anipakos, P.C.; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.



Executive Summary

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Statewide Discretionary vs. Mandatory DAEP Referrals, 2001-06

Mandatory

Expulsions

Mandatory DAEP

Referrals

Discretionary

Nonviolent DAEP

Referrals

Discretionary DAEP

Referrals(i.e. Gang/Fighting/

Nonillegal knife)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Statewide DAEP Referral Rate by Grade Level, 2005-06

Referral Rate



Executive Summary

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

20%

10%

0%

100%

Student Body

45%

37%

15%

ISS

45%

29%

24%

OSS

46%

17%

36%

DAEP

49%

23%

26%

Overrepresentation of Minority Students

in Discretionary Discipline Referrals, 2005-06

Hispanic African AmericanWhite

0

10

20

30

40

50

N u m b e r o f D a y s

Academic Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Length of Stay at DAEPs, By Race/Ethnicity, 2002-05




Executive Summary

Special Education Students in Texas Special Education Students in DAEPs

Special Education OSS Referrals Special Education ISS Referrals

Statewide Profile of Disciplinary Referrals of Special Education

Students, 2005-06

Special Education StudentsNon-Special Education Students

78%

22%

79%

21%

74%

26%

89%

11%

School Districts Referring More than 40

1st Graders to DAEPs, 2001-06

School District 1st Graders Referred

Alief ISD 124Arlington ISD 125

Conroe ISD 55

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 42

Dallas ISD 148

Ector County 40

Harlingen CISD 44

Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD 46

Irving ISD 46

Leander ISD 40

Mesquite ISD 153North East ISD 147

Northside ISD 57

Pasadena ISD 345

Waco ISD 94



Executive Summary


Pre-K & Kindergarten Students to DAEPs, 2001-06

School DistrictPre-K & KindergartenStudents Referred to DAEPs

Dallas ISD 13Denton ISD 10

Ector County 12

Grand Prairie ISD 12

Irving ISD 14

Katy ISD 11

Killeen ISD 19

Leander ISD 19

Mesquite ISD 14

Northside ISD 19

Pasadena ISD 85

Plano ISD 10

Temple ISD 16

Waco ISD 17





I N R O D U C I O N

I , ,

, - --

(ISS OSS) D A E P (DAEP).

T

. S

- ,

1999 C H S L, C,

14 ( ) . H,

, ff

, , “” .

W , E C

C C—,

, the vast majority of students sent to DAEPs in exas are there at the discretionof the school district .

A’ --

. I 2000, A F D R,

.

O

.

I 2004, H C R P A

-- . I ,

— —

,

. I 2006, A -

-- —





Introduction

’ , 80 .

Tis report focuses on the initial segment of the school-to-prison pipeline: school

discipline resulting in suspension or referral to a Disciplinary Alternative Education

Program. T :

• In-School Suspension (ISS)—A , C C,

ISS .

T ISS.

• Out-of-School Suspension (OSS)—A

.

• Referral to a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP)—S

DAEP—

J J A E P

ff. T E C DAEP fi

-; ,

DAEP fi C C.

A DAEP . S

(, E, ) . T

DAEP 30 40 . S

DAEP ,

.

T A

exas Education Code, Chapter 37, Discipline; Law & Order . (S Appendix

E C .)

T C 37

DAEP - E A

fi- (2001-06). A , A fi

:

• S -

-- (ISS OSS) DAEP (mandatory and discretionary referrals combined );

• S - A A, H, discretionary referrals DAEP, OSS, ISS

;

• School districts sending very young children (pre-K, kindergarten, 1 )

DAEP, .



Introduction

I fi fi , “”

EA F E

R P A (FERPA). I , “ ”

. (S Quantitative Methods Appendix .)

G “” , it is probable that this report underestimates the impact of discretionary disciplinary referrals of minority and special education students.

A fi

V & E LLP. (S Acknowledgements

fi.) M 40

DAEP , , , ,

ffi (, , ).

I ,

, DAEP. I fi

fi

.1

T , “Best Practice Model: A Multi-layer Approach to Successful School Discipline,” ff -

ff -, - U.S. D

E . B

, fi ,

—A, A, F Bff— P

B S .

1 N , .





E X A S E D U C A I O N C O D E , C H A P E R 3 7:

D; L & O, Safe Schools Act

I 1995, L C 37 E C—

’ fi ff ff.2 T ,

, mandate fi ff wide discretion

C C.

A C 37 Appendix . W C 37’

.

Student Code of Conduct

E C C .3 T , , D A E

P.4 Tese Codes of Conduct vary among school districts.

T C C : -, , ’ , ’ .5 C,

, , ’ . A S 2007, “” , .6

2 . S.B. 1, 74 L. S., R.S. (1995).

3 ex. Educ. Code § 37.001()(2006).

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 . H.B. 851, 80 L. S., R.S. (2007).



exas Education

Code Chapter 37

,

I , ’ C C

’ .7

C fi .8

Removals from the Classroom

A ’ ffi “to maintain effective discipline in the classroom”— permanently

’ ’ .9 D

ff , I-S

S (ISS), D A E P (DAEP).10 F

ff, ,

’ ’ .11 I ,

-

.12

Suspension

C 37 , .13 L

O--

S S (OSS). M

I-S S (ISS),

“ .”

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs)

E DAEP,

.14 I , , DAEP

, DAEP .

S 1995, DAEP

, . T 80 L HB

426 S 2007 E A (EA) minimumstandards DAEP, fi EA

—

.15 I, EA L 2009

.16

7 ex. Educ. Code § 37.001()(2006).8 Id.

9 ex. Educ. Code § 37.002()(2006).

10 Id.

11 Id. § 37.002().

12 Id.

13 ex. Educ. Code § 37.005 (2006).

14 Id. §§ 37.007() & 37.008.

15 . H.B. 426, 80 L. S., R.S. (2007).

16 Id.



exas EducationCode,Chapter 37

A , DAEP 10 .17 S DAEP only one reason: fi .18

C 37 mandates ’ DAEP : 1) ; 2) ; 3) , , , fl

; 4) ff , , .19 T DAEP off campus , , , .20 T — C E.21

C 37 DAEP ff C C.22 D , ff fi , , (.., [ ]), , -- , ( ).

[F , A excluded fighting, school-related gang violence, and criminal mischief ff DAEP.23 O , - E A , : 1) ff DAEP; 2) minority and special education students are significantly overrepresented C C; 3) , where a student goes to school in

exas—and not the nature of the offense—is the greater predictor of the likelihood of a student’s receiving a disciplinary referral .] S Quantitative Methods Appendix (G C, 108) “ ” A .

P DAEP, ( ). 24 T ’ , .25 T .26 T , .

17 ex. Educ. Code §§ 37.006( ) & 37.007( )(2006).18 Id. § 37.006()(1).

19 Id. §§ 37.006() & 37.006().

20 Id. § 37.006().

21 Id. § 37.006()-().

22 Id. § 37.001.

23 ex. Educ. Code §§ 37.001 & 37.002.

24 ex. Educ. Code § 37.009 (2006).

25 Id.

26 Id.



exas Education

Code Chapter 37

,

A DAEP

’ .27 T DAEP

30 40 .28 T DAEP

C C,

120

.29 T DAEP(E, , ),

.30

Expulsion

C 37 . E

not DAEP. I, J J A E

P (JJAEP) , JJAEP , “ .”

E mandatory , , fi, ,

, -

- .31 A ( ), , ,

, , , ,

.32 S, , , ,

, 300 — —

.33 M ff

fi P C. U G-F S A,

fi . F

fi “fi” , , , , , .34

discretion

— fi — 300 -

: , , ,

, — ; ff

, ;

; ;

fi P C.35 A , fi, , .36

27 Id.28 See ex. Educ. Agency, Comprehensive Annual Report on exas Public Schools.

29 ex. Educ. Code § 37.009 (2006).

30 Id. § 37.008.

31 Id. § 37.007().

32 Id.

33 Id. § 37.007()(3).

34 S S A, 18 U.S.C. § 921.

35 ex. Educ. Code § 37.007()(2006).

36 Id.




A “ ” ’ C C D AE P.37

B , ff ( ).38 T .39 A ,

, , .40 T / ff .41 I ’ , — de novo .42

A , .43 A ’ .44

Emergency Disciplinary Placement

A ’ DAEP ’ , .45

T — “ ,” 10 .46

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP)

A 125,000 JJAEP, J P C.47 J JJAEP fi 3 F C.48

S 125,000 JJAEP,

.

37 Id. § 37.007().

38 Id. § 37.009().

39 Id.40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id. § 37.019.

46 Id.

47 Id. § 37.011().

48 Id. § 37.011(). 3 F C.



exas Education

Code Chapter 37

,

JJAEP ff DAEP. JJAEP

, 180 ,49

DAEP 2007 . F ,

JJAEP ’ .50

Discipline of Special Education Students

W , I D E

A 2004.51

A

10

not related ’ not ’

’ I E P (IEP).52

T ’

“ .”53 T

, , ’ IEP A,

R, D (ARD) 10

’ .54 E

,

, ,

’ .55

I

’ , ’ IEP ,

,

.56 I ,

.57 T ,

, . I , 45

’ .58 C 37

fi, , , .59

I ’ not related to his or her disability ,

49 Id. § 37.011().

50 Id. § 37.011().

51 L W, Te Special Education Due Process Hearing – Discipline and Behavioral Issues Under the New

IDEA, in State Bar of exas, CLE Materials for Special Education Issues and the Juvenile JusticeSystem (J 2006).

52 Id. 2.

53 Id. 3.

54 Id. 7; ex. Educ. Code § 37.004 (2006).

55 Id. 6.

56 Id. 7.

57 Id. 7-8.

58 Id. 9.

59 ex. Educ. Code § 37.0021 (2006).




.60 H, , fi .61 .62

T I D E A (IDEA)

10 .63 IDEA , AC .64 I ffi ’ .65

Resources for Students

C 37 .66 F , ffi . T . T

E A optional programs - :

• School-Community Guidance Centers. T ff , , ffi , ff .67

• Cooperative Programs. S fi .68

Conclusion

C 37 (, DAEP, ) ff . A ff , .

60 W, supra 51, 12.

61 Id. 8.

62 ex. Educ. Code § 37.004 (2006).

63 W, supra 51, 8.

64 Id. 9-10; ex. Admin. Code § 89.1165 (2006).

65 W, supra 51, 11.

66 ex. Educ. Code § 37.014 (2006).

67 Id. § 37.051.

68 Id. § 37.052.





E X A S S C H O O L D I S C I P L I N E P O L I C I E S :

I S--P P

A , 1995

(exas Education Code, Chapter 37, Discipline; Law & Order)

— , fi

, - ff

.

S -1990, - (ISS), --

(OSS), D A E P (DAEP)

. O ,

. , using their discretionunder state law DAEP C

C — disrupting class, talking back to a teacher, or using profanity . A ’ “”

, . A

1,000 A P E 2006

C C

-.

F , A excluded fighting,school-related gang violence, and criminal mischief - E A (2001-06).

O : 1) ff ; 2) fi ff; 3) — ff— ’ .

– See Quantitative Methods in the Appendix (Group C, page 108) for “referral reason”codes used in the Appleseed analysis.

F , A excluded fighting,school-related gang violence, and criminal mischief - E A (2001-06).

O : 1) ff ; 2) fi ff; 3) — ff— ’ .

– See Quantitative Methods in the Appendix (Group C, page 108) for “referral reason”codes used in the Appleseed analysis.



exas School Discipline

Policies

C, 4.4 1,037

. B 2001 2006, DAEP

- .

I 2005-06 , 62,981 DAEP

27,093 - ff

E C. W DAEP fi - ,

A’ discretionary DAEP referrals for other violations of a student Code of Conduct out-numbered referrals for fighting and like offenses 6:1in 2005-06. (S Appendix

E A.)

I , -- -

(OSS ISS) 2001 2006. A

E A, school districts sent 613,549 students to

OSS and more than 1.7 million to ISS in 2005-06.

A - DAEP

:

• Learned negative behaviors. D ISS, OSS, DAEP

, ,

“” .

• Negative impact on academics. D

’ . R ISS OSS

. DAEP,

. D

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06


Mandatory

Expulsions

Mandatory DAEP

Referrals

Discretionary

Nonviolent DAEPReferrals

Discretionary DAEP


Nonillegal knife)

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06


Mandatory

Expulsions

Mandatory DAEP

Referrals

Discretionary

Nonviolent DAEPReferrals

Discretionary DAEP


Nonillegal knife)



exas School Discipline Policies

’ .

• Higher dropout rates. D ’ . R

— E A, DAEP five times .69

• Overrepresentation of minorities. A-A H

, .

• Overrepresentation of special education students. O

,

IDEA ’ IE P (IEP) B I P (BIP).

• Stigmatizing young children. C -K, , 1 DAEP . A ,

“ ” ffi .

• Lack of consistency in discipline. R DAEP

. A , , ’

, ff.

Disciplinary Referrals Fail to Make Schools Safe

I 2006, A P A (APA) ff

.70

I , APA

:

• R

;

• T ff

, .71

R . I ,

“ frequent use of suspension has no measurable positive deterrent or academic benefit to either the students who are suspended or to non-suspended

69 exas Education Agency, Comprehensive Annual Report on exas Public Schools: A Reportto the th Legislature from the exas Education Agency 54 (2006).

70 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, Zero olerance ask Force, Are Zero olerance Policies Effective in theSchools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations (2006).

71 Id. 5-6.




Policies

students .”72 A fi. W

10 , 87

“.”73

T APA

.74 T fi,

good school climate .75 I , “”

, , .76

S “”

.77

T APA’ ,

-- (OSS)

.78 I , ,

ff

.79

T fi

. EA 794,845 2005-06,

’ “ ” ( )

2,587,550.80

72 L M. Rff M, Predictors of Suspension and Negative School Outcomes: A Longitudinal Investigation ,in Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline 17, 25 (N D Y D 2003).

73 Ass’n of ex. Prof’l Educators, Report on the APE Discipline Survey 2 (2006).

74 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 5-6.

75 Denise Gottfredson, School-Based Crime Prevention, Preventing Crime: What Works, What

Doesn’t, What’s Promising, a Report to the United States Congress (1997); U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,Early Warning, imely Response A Guide to Safe Schools (); U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide ().

76 J W & M K, Connected in Seattle? An exploratory study of student perceptions of discipline and attachments to teachers , in Deconstructing the School to Prison Pipeline 35, 38(N D Y D 2003).

77 Id. 38.


79 Id.

80 E A, S L A D S PEIMS D D 2005-2006,available at ://....//D_D_P/D_D_P.

“U ( DAEP), . T ….

S , . M . T , ( ), …. S ‘’ .”

– A teacher’s description of a highly structured DAEP

“U ( DAEP), . T ….

S , . M . T , ( ), …. S ‘’ .”

– A teacher’s description of a highly structured DAEP

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Disciplinary_Data_Products.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Disciplinary_Data_Products.html




R DAEP. I 2005-06 , DAEP

30 — OSS ISS

.81 I 2005-06, 105,530 DAEP ,

DAEP 136,938.82 T , 1.7

ISS 652,460 ,83 638,257 OSS

311,940 .84 Well-administered suspension and DAEP programs are needed, however high recidivism rates are a persuasive indicator that

current approaches to managing problem behavior are not working for significant numbers of students.

T A&M P P R

I 2005 among the “risk factors” commonly associated with referral to the juvenile justice system, the single most important predictor for referral was a history of disciplinary referrals at school.85 T

: , , , E fi,

, , /,

, ff , ff,

, .86 T :

Holding all other risk factors statistically constant, students involved in one or more disciplinary incidents were 23.4 percent more likely to encounter areferral [to the juvenile justice system] than those with no school disciplinary contact. Not surprisingly, the more severe the disciplinary history, the higher the probability of a referral. Each additional disciplinary infraction increased the likelihood of justice involvement by a maximum of 1.5 percent. Eachday a juvenile was suspended from school elevated the probability by 0.1 percent. Still, there was a clear “threshold effect” so that even a single

contact with school discipline authorities greatly increased a student’s

chance of a [Texas Juvenile Probation Commission] referral .87

81 Id.

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 he Public Policy Research Institute, Study of Minority Overrepresentation in the exas Juvenile Justice System Final Report (2005), available at ://DMCFR...

86 Id. 16-18.

87 Id. 24.

DAEP DAEP - .

– Interviews with nine exas school

districts conducted by exas Appleseedpro bono partners

DAEP DAEP - .

– Interviews with nine exas school

districts conducted by exas Appleseedpro bono partners

http://dmcfinalreport.tamu.edu/

http://dmcfinalreport.tamu.edu/




Policies

S fi

.88 T

.89 T

.90 Tis phenomenonalso is discussed in a federal report on crime prevention—which found that intervention

programs that brought “high-risk youth” together led to increased, rather thandecreased, delinquency.91

S ff “ ” “ .”92 E,

,

“” ,

.93 I , “ …-

.”94 T,

ISS DAEP

.

G , exas policymakers should reexamine the discretionary practice of referring more than60,000 students annually (2001-06) to DAEPs. L DAEP, OSS,

ISS , ,

.

Academic Impact of Disciplinary Referral

T

ff . M

DAEP ,

.95

Suspension

A ’

.96 T .97 D

88 Am. Psychol. Ass’n supra 70, 49-52.

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Lawrence W. Sherman et al, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t What’s Promising A Report to the United States Congress 35 (1997).

92 T J. D & J MC, When Interventions Harm, Am. Psychologist, V. 54, N. 9, 755-64;T J. D & K A. D, Peer Contagion in Interventions for Children and Adolescents:

Moving owards an Understanding of the Ecology and Dynamics of Change , J. of Abnormal Child Psychol.,V. 33, N. 3, 395-400.

93 D & MC, supra 92.

94 Id.

95 Augustina H. Reyes, Discipline, Achievement, Race – Is Zero olerance the Answer 42-43(R & Lfi 2006).

96 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 47.

97 Id. 47.




-- (OSS)

.98

I . H

- --

. I-

. A, —

—

ISS. I , ISS,

. S

(OSS) . C,

--

.

I ,

’ ,

, , .99 S

.100

DAEP Referral

I , DAEP . S

,

DAEP .101 T DAEP

“” : E, , , .102 H,

-

. I , —

, .

U 2007, DAEP E C’

.103

T , DAEP .104 C

H B 426, ff S 1, 2007, DAEP

- , .105

A

DAEP.106 H B 426, , EA

98 L M. Rff M, supra 72, 25-26 .


100 Id.

101 ex. Public Policy Found., Schooling a New Class of Criminals? Better Disciplinary Alternativesfor exas Students 11 (2006), available at ://../._=99.

102 ex. Educ. Code §37.008()(4).

103 Id. §37.008().

104 Hogg Found. for Mental Health, School Discipline and Children with Serious EmotionalDisturbances (2005)( DAEP ), available at ://.../_SE.; ex. Public Policy Found., Schooling a New Class of Criminals?, supra 101, 12 (EA DAEP 2 ).

105 . HB 426, 80 L. S., R.S. (2007).

106 Reyes, supra 95, 53-56; ex. Public Policy Found., supra 101, 12.

http://www.texaspolicy.com/publications.php?cat_level=99

http://www.hogg.utexas.edu/programs_SpecialEd.html

http://www.hogg.utexas.edu/programs_SpecialEd.html

http://www.texaspolicy.com/publications.php?cat_level=99




Policies

DAEP.107 T /

; ; , , ;

. 108 H,

EA .109 I,

EA 81 L .110

W ,

EA .

S , ,

.111 S DAEP ,

.112 DAEP

’ .113

S DAEP , .114

A 2006 A P

E (APE) DAEP

.115 DAEP’ , 47

DAEP.116 APE

:

• Academic standards are lowered and grades are inflated in DAEPs. Instruction is not aligned to the EKS (exas Examination of Knowledge and Skills). Some students are sent to the DAEP just so that their grade point averages will improve. When the student returns to the regular classroom, he is behind. Accountability is lost.

107 . HB 426, supra 105.

108 Id.109 Id.

110 Id.

111 Id.

112 Augustina H. Reyes, supra 95, 55; ex. Public Policy Found., supra 101, 11-12.

113 Augustina H. Reyes, supra 95, 55.

114 Intercultural Development Research Ass’n, Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs inexas – What is Known; What is Needed 22 (1999).

115 Ass’n of ex. Prof’l Educators, supra 73, 9.

116 Id. 10-11.

S DAEP .

S DAEP , .F , “ DAEP . A . S ,” .

– Interviews with nine exas schooldistricts conducted by exas Appleseedpro bono partners

S DAEP .

S DAEP , .F , “ DAEP . A . S ,” .





• DAEPs need more rigorous instruction and supervision. oo many students view the DAEP as an easier and less stressful classroom environment. It is ‘fun’ for them, or they sleep through it. Students actually look forward to being reassigned to the DAEP.

• More computers and access to lab facilities are needed to help students stay on grade level, particularly in math and science.

• DAEPs need certified teachers in every subject .• Students referred to DAEPs should follow the lesson plan and complete the homework

and quizzes prepared by the original classroom teacher, rather than the DAEP teacher.Te student’s work should be returned to his or her regular classroom teacher, not just grade reports. DAEPs should consider video conferencing with the regular classroom.

• More communication and interaction is necessary between the regular classroom teacher and the DAEP teacher.

• Te DAEP schedule should match that of the regular classroom. oo often the DAEP offers a shorter instructional day, and students like this.117

T fl ’ DAEP ’ . O APE

DAEP “commensurate with regular K-12 public education requirements.”118

Link Between Dropout and Disciplinary Referrals

Suspension and Dropout

S

.119 A

.120 S 6

- .121 A 16

.122 T A A

, fi

A A .123 A

A P A “

” , , “

117 Id. 11-12.


119 L M. Rff M, supra 72, 26; Government Accountability Office, SchoolDropouts, Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating PromisingPrevention Strategies 3 (2002).

120 he Justice Matters Institute, urning O Each Other Not ON Each Other, How SchoolCommunities Prevent Racial Bias in School Discipline 4 (2000).

121 L M. Rff M, supra 72, 30.

122 E S E J. G, When and Why Dropouts Leave High School , 38 Y & S 29 (2006).

123 Id. 45.




Policies

‘-.’”124 T

DAEP APE

. T :

oo many DAEP students fail the AKS and end up dropping out of school. 125

T

. E

A fl 6

9 . I

16,

. T -fi ,

EA DAEP ,

10 .126

W , DAEP

3 5 8 6

9 .127 T DAEP

2005-06, fi- (2001-06).



126 Christopher B. Swanson, Editorial Projects in Research Education Center, High SchoolGraduation in exas Independent Research to Understand and Combat the GraduationCrisis (2006).

127 B A E A.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%



Referral Rate

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%



Referral Rate




T fi A A

ISS, OSS, DAEP, fi

A A .

I A&M U, --

H .128 T

A A .129 O--

ff H A A ’ AAS .130

DAEP Dropout Rate

I 2006 C A R P S, E

A DAEP five times the dropout rate .131

DAEP

. M DAEP

, ’ DAEP

,

fi . M

- . S .132

T DAEP

, . 15

.133 O 74 ’

.134 F A A H ,

, 68 A A 65 H

.135

128 Rene R. Rocha, Spare the Rod, Suspend the Child: Discipline Policy and High School Dropouts11 ( E E P 2003), available at ://..//024..

129 Id.

130 Id. 14.

131 exas Education Agency, supra 69.

132 he Justice Matters Institute, supra 120, 4; J W & D J. L, Defining and Redirecting a School-to-Prison Pipeline , in Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline 9, 13 (2003).

133 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, An Overview of Alternative Education 9 (2006).

134 Harvard Civil Rights Project, Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in exas (2006).

135 Id. T , EA . T H C R P . O A A 55 L 53 . Id. 21.

S DAEP .


S DAEP .


http://teep.tamu.edu/reports/report024.pdf

http://teep.tamu.edu/reports/report024.pdf




Policies

Overrepresentation of Minority Students in Disciplinary Referrals

N A A, H,

.136 T ,

.137 T —

-.138 Almost half of exas’ school districts

A A, H,

one or more academic years between 2001 and 2006 .139 ’ — APE , 43

,

, DAEP.140

136 Russell J. Skiba et al, he Color of Discipline, Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Discipline (2000), available at ://../~/.; J W &D J. L, supra 132, 12-13; Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 56-62.

137 Florence Linelle Clark, Zero-olerance Discipline: he Effect of eacher Discretionary Removal on Urban Minority Students (2002) ( A A 1996 ).

138 B EA A.

139 Id.


30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

20%

10%

0%

100%

Student Body

45%

37%

15%

ISS

45%

29%

24%

OSS

46%

17%

36%

DAEP

49%

23%

26%




30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

20%

10%

0%

100%

Student Body

45%

37%

15%

ISS

45%

29%

24%

OSS

46%

17%

36%

DAEP

49%

23%

26%




http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf

http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf




I , A A H DAEP

, , . S, E A

:141

African American Students

A A

C C. T

DAEPS, -- (ISS), --

(OSS). I , A

A .

Discretionary DAEP Referrals

A ’ , 211 A

A DAEP 2001 2006.142

Of these school districts, 45 districts disproportionately referred African American students each year during this five-year period.

141 exas Education Agency, Annual Report; exas Education Agency, Annual Report;exas Education Agency, Annual Report; exas Education Agency, Annual Report;exas Education Agency, Annual Report.

142 I E A, A ff. EA fi ff . T A - C C (fi ff). F , Appendix . D A ...

0

10

20

30

40

50


Academic Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05



0

10

20

30

40

50


Academic Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05








Policies

T 143

A A DAEP 2005-06:

Overrepresentation of African American Students in DAEPs, 2005-06

Referred at More Tan wice Teir Representation in Student Population

School District African American Percentagein Student Body

African American Percentagein DAEP Discretionary Referrals

Amarillo ISD 11% 24%

Austin ISD 14% 37%

Bryan ISD 25% 56%

Carthage ISD 27% 63%

Corsicana ISD 23% 50%

Greenville ISD 25% 56%

Humble ISD 15% 38%

Huntsville ISD 28% 63%Klein ISD 15% 40%

Lubbock ISD 15% 39%

Midland ISD 10% 21%

North East ISD 10% 23%

Temple ISD 29% 65%

Waxahachie ISD 14% 35%

Wichita Falls ISD 18% 43%

F A A

DAEP, A ...

Discretionary Referrals to Out-of-School Suspension

O A A

-- (OSS) - (ISS).

F 2001 2006, 503

A A OSS C C

; 143 of these school districts disproportionately referred African American students in each of these five school years.144

143 F A A DAEP fi , A ...

144 F A A -- (OSS) 2001 2006. F A A -- (OSS) 2001 2006, A ...










Overrepresentation of African American Students in OSS, 2005-06



African American Percentagein OSS Discretionary Referrals

Alamo Heights ISD 2% 15%

Allen ISD 10% 38%Amarillo ISD 11% 25%

Athens ISD 16% 41%

Austin ISD 14% 32%

Belton ISD 7% 16%

Brenham ISD 28% 64%

Bryan ISD 25% 55%

Burton ISD 25% 77%

Center ISD 27% 63%

Clear Creek ISD 9% 20%

College Station ISD 14% 40%Columbus ISD 17% 56%

Commerce ISD 23% 51%

Conroe ISD 7% 18%

Corsicana ISD 23% 51%

Crandall ISD 5% 23%

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 14% 30%

Dayton ISD 11% 28%

Denton ISD 13% 27%

Diboll ISD 14% 44%

Edna ISD 16% 47%Elgin ISD 15% 32%

Fort Bend ISD 32% 65%

Frisco ISD 10% 28%

Georgetown ISD 4% 11%

Giddings ISD 15% 53%

Grapevine-Colleyville ISD 4% 11%


Hillsboro ISD 20% 59%

Humble ISD 15% 41%

Huntsville ISD 28% 60% Jacksonville ISD 22% 48%

Katy ISD 9% 24%

Keller ISD 6% 19%

Kerrville ISD 4% 10%

Kilgore ISD 21% 45%

Klein ISD 15% 42%

La Porte ISD 10% 24%




Policies

Lewisville ISD 9% 21%

Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD 6% 34%

Lubbock ISD 15% 43%

Luling ISD 9% 21%

McKinney ISD 11% 32%

Midland ISD 10% 24%

Montgomery ISD 5% 16%

New Boston ISD 22% 49%


Palestine ISD 30% 62%

Pasadena ISD 8% 17%

Plano ISD 11% 35%

Richardson ISD 27% 67%

Rockdale ISD 14% 36%

San Antonio ISD 9% 19%

Sherman ISD 16% 36%

Shiner ISD 15% 56%

Snook ISD 34% 74%

Spring Branch ISD 8% 26%

Temple ISD 29% 61%

Tomball ISD 7% 23%

Vernon ISD 11% 35%

Waxahachie ISD 14% 45%

White Settlement ISD 8% 20%

Whitehouse ISD 11% 26%

Wichita Falls ISD 18% 44%

Willis ISD 9% 26%

Discretionary Referrals to In-School Suspension

I , 347 A A

- (ISS) 2001 2006,

152 school districts have done so for each of these five school years.145 T

A A

ISS C C 2005-06:

145 T A A - (ISS) 2001 2006. F A A ISS 2001 2006, A ...


African American Percentagein OSS Discretionary Referrals




Overrepresentation of African American Students in ISS, 2005-06



African American Percentagein Discretionary ISS Referrals


Allen ISD 10% 23%

Boling ISD 15% 31%

Brownfield ISD 6% 15%

College Station ISD 14% 36%

Frisco ISD 10% 22%

Humble ISD 15% 35%

Keller ISD 6% 15%


Klein ISD 15% 32%

Lexington ISD 12% 25%


Midway ISD 9% 20%

Montgomery ISD 5% 14%

Plano ISD 11% 26%

Round Rock ISD 10% 22%

Spring Branch ISD 8% 19%

Tomball ISD 7% 19%

Why are African American Students Referred at Higher Rates?

N, A A

.146 A A

.147 T

.148

A A ,

ff.149 Dff ,

, ff

.150 A A P A

(APA), A A

.151 T -fi, -

fi APA.

146 Skiba et al, supra 136; Am. Psychol. Ass’n., supra 70, 58-62.

147 Skiba et al, supra 136; Am. Psychol. Ass’n., supra 70, 59.

148 Skiba et al, supra 136; Florence Linelle Clark, supra 137, 35-36; Am. Psychol. Ass’n., supra 70, 57-58.

149 Skiba et al, supra 136.

150 Id .





Policies

S D. E M

. H

. D. M’ 18

.152 D , “, ,

.”153 M fi, D. M :

[A]dults saw many boys…as ‘bad’ and occasionally threatening. Tis was particularly true for Latino and African American boys. In my observations,

members of these groups were the most likely to ‘get in trouble.’

154

D. M , “the ‘blackness’ of students seemed to indicate aggression and forcefulness .”155 H “[s]chools employing disciplinary regimes steeped in race, class and gender assumptions (however well intentioned) risk pushing many students away and,ironically, reproducing the very inequalities they are attempting to change.”156 H

A A — “[t]heir assertive behaviors, which schools and families often subtly encouraged for white and middle-class children,...tended to be interpreted as abrasive and abrupt .”157

T D. M, fl

A A EA,

, , /

. T APA

A A .158 D ,

, -. I-fi ff “

” -

ff -.159

152 E W. M, “uck in that Shirt!” Race, Class, Gender, and Discipline in an Urban School, SociologicalPerspectives, V. 48, N. 1, 25-48 (2005); E W. M, “Ladies” or “Loudies”?: Perceptions and Experiences of Black Girls in Classrooms , 38 Youth Soc’y 490 (2007).

153 M, “uck in that Shirt!”, supra 152, 44.

154 Id. 35-36.

155 Id. 44.

156 Id . 45-46.

157 M, “Ladies” or “Loudies”?, supra 152, 510.

158 Id. 60.

159 See R G , Zero olerance: A Basic Racial Report Card , in Zero olerance: Resisting theDrive for Punishment in our Schools 165, 171 (2001); R C, Punishing Dangerousness Trough Preventive Detention: Illustrating the Institutional Link Between School and Prison , in Deconstructingthe School-to-Prison Pipeline 55, 59 (2003).

I-fi ff “ ” - ff -.

– Deconstructing theSchool-to-Prison Pipeline (2003)

I-fi ff “ ” - ff -.

– Deconstructing theSchool-to-Prison Pipeline (2003)




A H C R P,

’ .160 T

“ ” .161 D

U S, . T

,

70 50 .162

, , : 70 ’

, 40 . 163 I 1994,

E A

:

[]eachers may interact more successfully with students who have culturally similar backgrounds to their own…Consistent findings in unrelated studies suggest that Hispanic teachers are better able than white teachers to engage Hispanic students in learning. Tere are similar findings in studies of African American teachers and students.164

T “teachers...report they do not always understand students ethnically different from themselves .”165 T fi

,166

. I ,

—

ff. A APE ,

’ C

C; 87

.167

160 Harvard Civil Rights Project, he Segregation of American eachers 3 (2006), available at ://...///__12-06.

161 Id.

162 Id.

163 A EA’ AEIS , ’ 70 , 9 A A, 20 H. T AEIS EA’ , ://....///.

164 exas Education Agency, exas eacher Diversity and Recruitment (1994), available at ://....///4.

165 Id.

166 Id.

167 Ass’n of ex. Prof’l Educators, supra 73, 3, 17-18.

A DAEP .


A DAEP .


http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/segregation_american_teachers12-06.pdf

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr4.pdf

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr4.pdf

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/

http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/segregation_american_teachers12-06.pdf




Policies

T

- - .168 T

“’ ( -)

- -

’ .”169 T

— A A —

C .170 T

.171

T - .172 T fi

.173 W A

A

, A A ’

.174 B — -

- — .175 T

, “rather than leveling the playing field, experiences in school may contribute to widening racial disparities in educational attainment .”176

I A A

, ff ,

A A ,

.177 T “an increased focus on helping teachers connect with students and their parents”

.178

T ff

, 2005-06, A A DAEP

’ .179

168 J H O- K, Influence of Student-eacher and Parent-eacher Relationships on Lower Achieving Readers’ Engagement and Achievement in the Primary Grades , J. of Edu. Psych., V. 99, N. 1, 39-51(2007); see also J N. H ., Relationship Influences on eachers’ Perceptions of Academic Competence in Academically At-Risk Minority and Majority First Grade Students , 43 J. of School Psychol. 303 (2005).

169 J H O- K, supra 168, 39.

170 Id. 40.

171 Id. 46.

172 Id. 47.

173 Justice Matters Institute, supra 120; Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Way to Go School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs(2006); U.S. Dep’t of Education, Safeguarding Our Children An Action Guide (2000).

174 J H O- K, supra 168.

175 J H O- K, supra 168, 10.

176 Id.

177 Id. 9.

178 Id. 10.

179 F , A DAEP A A .




Profile of Teachers in Select School Districts, 2005-06

Districts Referring African American Students to DAEPs at More Tan wice Teir Representation in Student Population

School District

Percentage of White Teachers

State average (69.4%)

Percentage of African American Teachers

State average (9.1%)

Percentage of HispanicTeachers

State average (20.1%)Amarillo ISD 90% 2% 7.6%

Austin ISD 66.7% 7.3% 24.2%

Bryan ISD 81.9% 5.4% 12.3%

Carthage ISD 88.9% 8.6% 1.5%

Corsicana ISD 90.5% 5.7% 3.3%

Goose Creek ISD 76.6% 9.7% 13.1%

Greenville ISD 84.3% 10.4% 4%

Humble ISD 88.5% 4.9% 6%

Huntsville ISD 88.1% 8.7% 3%

Klein ISD 86.8% 6.3% 6.1%

Lubbock ISD 84.1% 3.5% 11.8%Midland ISD 78.8% 3.4% 17.4%

North East ISD 77.2% 2.2% 19.8%

Temple ISD 84.1% 7.6% 7.8%

Waxahachie ISD 90.3% 4.9% 4.6%

Wichita Falls ISD 90.2% 4.3% 4.5%

A’ fi

’

. ,

E A

—

- .

Hispanic Students

H ,

A A . T, , fl .180 H,

E A’

H DAEP 6 10.181


F H DAEP— —

2001 2006. wo districts—Lewisville ISD and Abilene

180 Augustina H. Reyes, supra 95, 25.

181 exas Education Agency, Annual Report; exas Education Agency, Annual Report;exas Education Agency, Annual Report; exas Education Agency, Annual Report;exas Education Agency, Annual Report.




Policies

ISD—disproportionately referred Hispanic students annually during this five-year period .F , 2006, H 33 L’

, 43 DAEP . I A

, 18 H, H 35

DAEP C C .

B - A A

DAEP 2001 2006.

L A .

Profile of Teachers in Select School Districts, 2005-06

Districts Disproportionately Referring Hispanic Students to DAEPs Annually (2001-06)

School District

Percentage of WhiteTeachersState average (69.4%)

Percentage of African American TeachersState average (9.1%)

Percentage of Hispanic TeachersState average (20.1%)

Lewisville ISD 89.8% 3% 5.6%

Abilene ISD 90.7% 2.6% 6.5%

Discretionary Referral to Out-of-School Suspension

H fi --

. O ’ 1,037

, 224 H OSS

2001 2006— 28 districts disproportionately referred Hispanic students each year of that five-year period.182 O 28 ,

H OSS 2005-06:

Overrepresentation of Hispanic Students in OSS, 2005-06

Referred at Rates 10% or More Tan Teir Representation in Student Population

School DistrictHispanic Percentagein Student Body

Hispanic Percentagein OSS Discretionary Referrals

Abilene ISD 33% 46%


Calhoun County ISD 56% 67%

Carrollton-Farmers Branch 46% 60%

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 33% 45%

Georgetown ISD 30% 47%

Katy ISD 26% 40%

Lamar CISD 46% 56%


182 E H OSS 2001 2006. F H OSS 2001 2006, A

...







New Braunfels ISD 43% 62%

Plano ISD 15% 26%

Pleasanton ISD 66% 83%


San Angelo ISD 51% 66%

Snyder ISD 49% 63%

Victoria ISD 55% 74%


H ISS

. N- - H

ISS 2001 2006— 30 districts have disproportionately referred Hispanic students to ISS each year of that five-year period (rate at

least 10 percent above their representation in student body):

Overrepresentation of Hispanic Students in ISS, 2005-06

Referred at Rates 10% or More Tan Teir Representation in Student Population


Hispanic Percentagein ISS Discretionary Referrals


Boerne ISD 21% 35%

Frenship ISD 30% 42%

Gregory-Portland ISD 44% 56%Lake Travis ISD 14% 25%

Levelland ISD 58% 73%



Plano ISD 15% 25%

Overrepresentation of Special Education Students in

Disciplinary Referrals

I 2004, H F M H

.183 I

DAEP, -- OSS),

- (ISS).184 T .

183 Hogg Found. for Mental Health, School Discipline and Children with Serious EmotionalDisturbances (2004).

184 Id.


Hispanic Percentagein OSS Discretionary Referrals




Policies

I , E A (EA) Offi S

E P (OSEP) U.S. D E IDEA’ ’ -

-

.185 OSEP

I D E A (IDEA).186

W EA fi , :

…review, and if appropriate, revise (or require the state agency or [school district] to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of Individual Education Plans (IEP)s,the use of behavioral interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure

that the policies, procedures, and practices comply [with IDEA].187

185 L S S L, D, Offi S E P, H S J. N, C C, E A (D 13, 2004),available at ://..///I./I.//.

186 See Offi S E P, ://..//ffi ////.=

187 Id. 10.




Students, 2005-06


78%

22%

79%

21%

74%

26%

89%

11%




Students, 2005-06


78%

22%

79%

21%

74%

26%

89%

11%

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guId./Id.ea/monitor/index.html

http://www.ed.gov/about/offi%20ces/list/osers/osep/index.html?src=mr

http://www.ed.gov/about/offi%20ces/list/osers/osep/index.html?src=mr

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guId./Id.ea/monitor/index.html




T OSEP fi 2004,

.188 I J 2007 EA, OSEP EA

fi -

58 ,

.189 O , OSEP

EA .190

I 2004, EA OSEP 43 ’

-

- .191 M 25

10

.192 R, EA OSEP

( ff

), EA A P R OSEP

4 “fi ”

- -

.193


A - ’ — 412 —

DAEP

2001 2006. Seventy-nine districts disproportionately referred special education students to DAEPs annually for the five-year period between 2001 and 2006.

I , DAEP

.

188 L P J. G, A D, Offi S E P H S J. N, S C, E A (J 15, 2007); L A P, D,Offi S E P H S J. N, C C, E

A (M 22, 2006), L R. J, A D, Offi S E P H S J. N, C C, E A (S 1, 2005),all available at ://..//////.

189 L P J. G, supra 188 ( ).190 Id.

191 L S S L, supra 185, 10.

192 Id.

193 exas Education Agency, Annual Performance Report FFY 2005 (2007)( fi fi 2005-2006, 58 – 4.6 – fi ); exas Education Agency, State Performance Plan (2006)(O fi , 13 fi . EA , , fl APR 2007); L P J. G, supra 188.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html




Policies

Overrepresentation of Special Education Students in DAEPs, 2005-06

Referred at More Tan Double Teir Representation in Student Population

School District

Percentage of SpecialEducation Studentsin Student Body

Percentage of Special Education Students in Discretionary DAEP Referrals

Abilene ISD 17% 37%Allen ISD 11% 37%

Arlington ISD 10% 24%

Austin ISD 12% 38%

Bastrop ISD 13% 39%

Brenham ISD 13% 28%

Brownsville ISD 12% 31%


Dallas ISD 8% 19%

Desoto ISD 12% 27%

East Central ISD 12% 26%

Ector County ISD 11% 27%

Ennis ISD 16% 35%

Fort Worth ISD 9% 22%

Frenship ISD 10% 32%



Harlandale ISD 13% 31%

Harlingen CISD 9% 20%

Huntsville ISD 11% 24%Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD 10% 27%

Katy ISD 9% 52%

Keller ISD 8% 17%

Kilgore ISD 12% 33%

La Joya ISD 9% 30%

Laredo ISD 12% 32%

Leander ISD 11% 36%


Lockhart ISD 14% 30%

Longview ISD 13% 38%

Lubbock-Cooper ISD 18% 54%

Lubbock ISD 13% 32%

Lufkin ISD 14% 34%

Madisonville ISD 11% 33%

Mansfield ISD 10% 20%




Mesquite ISD 14% 28%

Midway ISD 10% 33%

Nacogdoches ISD 8% 17%

Nederland ISD 14% 46%

New Caney ISD 13% 31%


Northside ISD 13% 29%

Paris ISD 14% 33%

Pearland ISD 9% 20%

Plainview ISD 15% 33%

Plano ISD 11% 35%

Red Oak ISD 16% 33%

Round Rock ISD 9% 23%San Benito CISD 10% 22%

Taylor ISD 12% 30%

Temple ISD 16% 36%

Terrell ISD 14% 33%

Texarkana ISD 16% 35%

Tomball ISD 8% 20%

Vidor ISD 18% 48%

F - DAEP

2001 2006, A ...

Discretionary Referrals to Out-Of-School Suspension

S -- (OSS)

. I , 722

OSS 2001

2006. A, 317 school districts disproportionately referred special education students to OSS each year of the five-year period ending 2005-06.194 S

five times .

194 S- -- (OSS) 2001 2006. F OSS 2001 2006, A ...

School District


Percentage of Special Education Students in Discretionary DAEP Referrals








Policies

Overrepresentation of Special Education Students in OSS, 2005-06

Referred at More than riple Teir Representation in Student Population

School District


Percentage of SpecialEducationStudents in OSS Discretionary Referrals (Nonviolent Offenses)


Aledo ISD 10% 54%

Allen ISD 11% 50%

Bellville ISD 15% 45%

Belton ISD 14% 43%

Brownwood ISD 13% 40%

Canyon ISD 12% 37%

Carroll ISD 11% 45%

Center ISD 11% 36%


Columbus ISD 11% 47%

Coppell ISD 9% 39%

Cotulla ISD 11% 36%

Early ISD 16% 77%

Franklin ISD 8% 50%

Frisco ISD 8% 25%

Goliad ISD 14% 53%

Gonzales ISD 11% 38%


Ingram ISD 9% 34%

Joshua ISD 11% 37%

Katy ISD 9% 31%

Keller ISD 8% 25%


Klein ISD 9% 31%

La Joya ISD 9% 27%

La Vernia ISD 12% 57%

Lake Dallas ISD 12% 36%

Lake Travis ISD 9% 38%

Lampasas ISD 15% 51%

Laredo ISD 12% 37%

Lexington ISD 9% 53%

Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD 15% 46%

Lockhart ISD 14% 42%




Los Fresnos CISD 10% 31%

Lytle ISD 9% 27%

Marble Falls ISD 12% 43%


Midway ISD 10% 36%

Pearland ISD 10% 34%

Plano ISD 11% 35%

Pleasant Grove ISD 9% 37%

Poteet ISD 11% 35%

Robinson ISD 14% 45%

Rockwall ISD 10% 34%


Royse City ISD 11% 45%

San Benito CISD 10% 33%

Sealy ISD 14% 59%

Sharyland ISD 6% 19%

Sherman ISD 14% 52%

Shiner ISD 15% 52%

Terrell ISD 14% 46%

Tomball ISD 8% 28%

Tuloso-Midway ISD 11% 35%

United ISD 12% 36%


I , 699

ISS 2001 2006,

. Almost half of those (328 districts) have over-referred special education students to ISS every year between 2001 and 2006.195

195 E - (ISS) 2001 2006. F ISS 2001 2006, A ...

School District


Percentage of SpecialEducationStudents in OSS Discretionary Referrals (Nonviolent Offenses)






Policies

Overrepresentation of Special Education Students in ISS, 2005-06

Referred at More Tan Double Teir Representation in Student Population

School District


Percentage of Special EducationStudents in Discretionary ISS Referrals

Aledo ISD 9% 30%Allen ISD 11% 29%

Athens ISD 11% 23%

Austin ISD 12% 25%

Boerne ISD 13% 31%

Borger ISD 14% 33%

Brownsville ISD 12% 25%

Buffalo ISD 13% 27%

Callisburg ISD 11% 25%

Cameron ISD 13% 32%

Canton ISD 10% 23%

Canutillo ISD 9% 20%

Carroll ISD 10% 30%

Clyde ISD 15% 33%


Dawson ISD 13% 28%

East Chambers ISD 13% 27%

Ed Couch-Elsa ISD 8% 19%

Frisco ISD 10% 26%

George West ISD 11% 23%

Glen Rose ISD 13% 30%


Gunter ISD 17% 41%

Henderson ISD 13% 27%

Highland Park ISD 8% 21%

Hudson ISD 11% 25%

Humble ISD 9% 20%

Huntington ISD 14% 29%

Jacksboro ISD 13% 29%


Klein ISD 9% 19%

La Grange ISD 12% 28%

Lake Travis ISD 9% 24%

Laredo ISD 12% 27%

La Vernia ISD 12% 26%

Leander ISD 11% 24%

Lone Oak ISD 16% 47%

Lubbock ISD 18% 37%




Lufkin ISD 14% 31%

Lumberton ISD 11% 27%

Manor ISD 12% 25%


Millsap ISD 16% 33%

Monahans-Wick ISD 15% 32%

Natalia ISD 13% 27%

New Braunfels ISD 10% 21%

Northwest ISD 12% 27%

Pampa ISD 12% 27%

Pearland ISD 9% 23%

Perryton ISD 9% 20%

Plano ISD 11% 25%

Pleasant Grove ISD 9% 29%Port Neches ISD 11% 24%

Poth ISD 12% 36%

Rockwall ISD 9% 22%

Rogers ISD 13% 30%


Stanton ISD 13% 30%

Stephenville ISD 10% 21%

Sulphur Springs ISD 13% 27%

Tomball ISD 8% 20%

Tyler ISD 12% 25%United ISD 12% 28%

Van Alstyne ISD 12% 29%

West ISD 17% 37%

Wylie ISD (Collin County) 10% 22%

Wylie ISD (Taylor County) 10% 27%

Why are Special Education Students Referred at Higher Rates?

S ’ .F , fi

.196 B , , , , , .197 O fl ’ I E P BI P,

196 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Failing to Qualify: he First Step to Failurein School 4 (2003).

197 Id.

School District


Percentage of Special EducationStudents in Discretionary ISS Referrals




Policies

.198 IP, ( ) I D E A (IDEA).199 O, .200

S DAEP .201 Special education students are even less likely to succeed academically if they are suspended .202

Disciplinary Referrals: Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten,

and 1st Grade Students

R .203 Y - .204

I , -K, , 1 DAEP. T , 205 - - . I , -- W ISS “ ” .206 I , -- ISS .207


I , 103 school districts have referred about 500 pre-kindergarten and kindergartenstudents to DAEPs between 2001 and 2006 — E C 6 DAEP unless they bring a firearm to school (

).

208

I 2005-06 , 112 -K DAEP— 88 . Tese discretionary referrals violated state law if the child was under age six .

198 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Way to Go School Success for Children with MentalHealth Care Needs 4 (2006).

199 Pennsylvania Protection Advocacy, Inc., Arrested Development: Student with Disabilities and School Referrals to Law Enforcement in Pennsylvania (2004).

200 Id. 3.

201 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 196, 2 ( 73 fi fi ,

35 ).

202 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 196, 2.

203 Found. for Child Development, Pre-kindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in StatePrekindergarten Programs (2005).

204 Id.

205 ex. Educ. Code § 37.005.

206 4-- A I , KXXV-V N C 25 (D 18, 2006), ..//.=5785699

207 See ...

208 ex. Educ. Code §37.006()(1).

http://www.kxxv.com/global/story.asp?s=5785699

http://www.natlyngracia.blogspot.com/

http://www.natlyngracia.blogspot.com/

http://www.kxxv.com/global/story.asp?s=5785699




S . T

15 10 2001 2006:


Pre-K & Kindergarten Students to DAEPs, 2001-06

School DistrictPre-K & KindergartenStudents Referred to DAEPs

Dallas ISD 13

Denton ISD 10

Ector County 12

Grand Prairie ISD 12

Irving ISD 14

Katy ISD 11

Killeen ISD 19

Leander ISD 19Mesquite ISD 14

Northside ISD 19

Pasadena ISD 85

Plano ISD 10

Temple ISD 16

Waco ISD 17

T 14 almost half DAEP

-K fi- . F

P-K 2001 2006,

A ...

I , more than 179 school districts together referred about 2,700 1st graders toDAEPs between 2001 and 2006. I 2005-06 , 600 1

DAEPS— 89 . G

, . T

15 40 or more 1st graders 2001 2006:


1st Graders to DAEPs, 2001-06


Alief ISD 124

Arlington ISD 125

Conroe ISD 55

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 42

Dallas ISD 148






Policies

Ector County 40

Harlingen CISD 44

Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD 46

Irving ISD 46

Leander ISD 40

Mesquite ISD 153

North East ISD 147

Northside ISD 57

Pasadena ISD 345

Waco ISD 94

Variation in Disciplinary Referral Rates Across Texas

Z fi .209

T fi fi .210 T

.

DAEP Referrals

I , ’ DAEP 2 . H,

2001 2006, 167 school districts have referred students to DAEPs at two to six times the state average for one or more years between 2001 and 2006. O , B ISD, 22 DAEP 2004-05.

T “ 10” DAEP

2001 2006. S Appendix .

“TOP 10” LIST: Highest Overall DAEP Referral Rates, 2001-06

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Aransas Pass ISD11%

Aransas Pass ISD12%

Midland ISD10%

Benavides ISD22%

Midland ISD11%

Galveston ISD11%

Galveston ISD11%

Pasadena ISD10%

Laneville ISD12%

Laneville ISD10%

Marlin ISD11%

Spring Branch ISD11%

San Benito ISD9%

Midland ISD11%

Benavides ISD9%

Spring Branch ISD10%

Pasadena ISD9%

Slaton ISD9%

San Benito ISD9%

Morton ISD8%

Pasadena ISD9%

Slaton ISD9%

Marlin ISD8%

Pasadena ISD9%

Pasadena ISD8%


210 Id.





Katy ISD8%

Cranfills Gap ISD9%

Waskom ISD8%

Marlin ISD8%

Boys Ranch ISD8%

La Vega ISD8%

Masonic Home ISD9%

Boys Ranch ISD8%

Waelder ISD7%

Alvin ISD7%

Coldspring-Oakhurst ISD

8%

Midland ISD

8%

Carthage ISD

8%

Commerce ISD

7%

San Vicente ISD

7%

Nordheim ISD8%

Katy ISD8%

Katy ISD8%

Jasper ISD7%

Marlin ISD7%

Laneville ISD8%

Dime Box ISD8%

McGregor ISD7%

Morton ISDMunday ISDGoldberg ISD6%

Waelder ISD7%

S , —P

ISD— “ 10” 2001 2006. T

it is not the behavior that determines whether a student is referred to a DAEP—it is, in large part, the district where the child goes to school.

In-School and Out-of-School Suspension

T -- -

(OSS ISS). T OSS 14

2005-06, 79 school districts in exas referred students to OSS at a rate of 20 percent or higher—and four school districts’ exceeded 50 percent.

“TOP 10” LIST: Highest Overall OSS Referral Rates, 2001-06

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Laneville ISD48%

West Orange Cove ISD46%



Lancaster ISD58%

Sabine Pass ISD40%

Desoto ISD39%

Premont ISD54%

Beaumont ISD52%

Duncanville ISD53%

Fort Worth ISD38%

Fort Worth ISD39%

Duncanville ISD51%

Lancaster ISD50%

West Orange Cove ISD

52%

Marshall ISD37%

Port Arthur ISD36%

Beaumont ISD50%

Fort Worth ISD45%

Beaumont ISD51%

Karnack ISD34%

Waco ISD35%

Karnack ISD45%

Desoto ISD44%

Fort Worth ISD47%

Hitchcock ISD

33%

Castleberry ISD

33%

Fort Worth ISD

44%

Duncanville ISD

40%

Corsicana ISD

45%Desoto ISD32%

Karnack ISD32%

Temple ISD43%

Laneville ISD39%

Alief ISD39%

Waco ISD32%

Kingsville ISD32%

Port Arthur ISD40%

Tyler ISD38%

Newton ISD38%

West Orange-Cove ISD

32%Hitchcock ISD30%

Desoto ISD39%

Castleberry ISD38%

Tyler ISD37%

La Joya ISD30%

Alief ISDRobstown ISD30%

Galveston ISD38%

Temple ISD Alice ISD37%

Waco ISDRobstown ISD37%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06




Policies

O - (ISS) 17 2005-06;

326 school districts had ISS referral rates exceeding 20 percent — “ 10”

ISS rates of 45 to 67 percent .

H “ 10”

- ISS,

ISS fi- .

“TOP 10” LIST: Highest Overall ISS Referral Rates, 2001-06

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Slocum ISD43%

Dime Box ISD53%

Nordheim ISD64%

Nordheim ISD64%%

Boys Ranch ISD67%

Calvert ISD41%

Laneville ISD51%

Boys Ranch ISD60%

Boys Ranch ISD60%

Laneville ISD65%

Union Hill ISD40%

Calvert ISD50%

Masonic Home ISD60%

Karnack ISD55%

Calvert ISD55%

Boys Ranch ISD39%

Karnack ISD47%

Wharton ISD53%

Duncanville ISD48%

Newton ISD49%

Coldspring-Oakhurst ISD

39%Boys Ranch ISD42%

Star ISD52%

Trinidad ISD48%

Duncanville ISD47%

Masonic Home ISD39%

Star ISD41%

Bay City ISD51%

Godley ISD48%

Somerville ISD46%

Pettus ISD38%

Milford ISD40%

Karnack ISD50%

Wharton ISD48%

Waco ISD45%

Oglesby ISD38%

Slocum ISD39%

Godley ISD47%

Spurger ISD47%

Southside ISD45%

Nordheim ISD

37%

Trinidad ISD

39%

Trinity ISD

47%

Lockhart ISD

46%

Wharton ISD

45%Clarksville ISDDime Box ISDMilford ISD36%

Clarksville ISD38%

Italy ISDWaelder ISDWaco ISD46%

Waco ISD46%

Kemp ISD45%

T “ 10” DAEP,

OSS, ISS . W , the huge variationin referral rates—from none to more than 60 percent—indicates a wide disparity in

policy and application of discretionary disciplinary sanctions from district to district.




Conclusion

A’ —

E A - —

. E -

DAEP —

ff. A ’ DAEP, , ,

“”

.

F ,

“-- .” W

, ,

. I

, ,

,

.211

211 See State Board of Education, Long-Range Plan for Public Education - (1995).





S C H O O L D I S R I C /

P A R E N F O C U S G R O U P I N E R V I E W S :

S D P—W W W N C

A’

—

.

M 40 fi ,212

A, , , ffi ,

, ,

. T

. I , A ff

fl D A E

P (DAEP) .

School Selection & Confidentiality

I, 15 fi U P R C

- . A

,

, - ,

, .

G . T : , , , DAEP.

W , .

N .

212 V & E LLP ff A . O fi G , LLP; P B, LLP; D, N, R & B, PC; E & P, I.;M B LLP; EM. A’ , , .



School District/ Parent

Focus GroupInterviews

B ,

. T A

. W , A

. E

, —K ISD, L ISD, M W

ISD, P ISD, ISD, C ISD— .213

Zero Tolerance Policies

W ,

E C

C C.

A A P A’ Z F,

:

Discipline policies that apply predetermined consequences, usually severe and punitive, without considering the severity of the student’s behavior, the student’s intent, or the situational context in which it occurred.

While some interviewees believed that zero tolerance policies could be effective,

nearly all stated that at least some additional factors should be considered before

imposing punishment.

• A “-

,” “ ,

.” A

ff , ff.

• A DAEP , ,

, , , fi .

• “T ff . W ,

,

,” DAEP .

• A — ,

,

DAEP.

• A ffi -- .• A APA fi ( )

. I

, . T

,

fi ff, .

213 B , A .



School DistricParent Focus GroupInterviews

• A , “

DAEP

.”

• A DAEP “

C H S,

’ . I , . A ( )

’ DAEP, .”

• A “

.”

• A

APA fi ,

fi :

, . H

ff - . H, ff -

.

• A DAEP ff. “W

, ,

.”

• A DAEP , : “S

,

. C ff ,

.”

Referrals to DAEPs

P

DAEP. A DAEP

, fi, . P

fi DAEP,

. S :

• A , ,

fi, ,

.





• A , “ ,

X, , .

H,

.”

• A , “T ,

’ . D .”

• A ,

DAEP .

Most school principals and assistant principals interviewed said that nearly all

discretionary referral decisions are made consistently, but others disagreed —

. S :

• A ,

, , .

• A ,

.

• A 10--

. T ,

, , “

” .

• A DAEP

. A -- . N

, .

W DAEP, “ ,

.”

• A DAEP . F

, DAEP ff

“ .” A “

.” S

, .

• A P F G ,

’ . L,

, .

• A ffi

30 . A

.




Many parents and students are critical of the disciplinary referral process and zero

tolerance policies.

P , ,

. (See .. (Z) ..

(KZ).) T

:

• A DAEP

. B , ’

. I 9 ,

,

.

• A 9 DAEP . S

, “

” . B , , ,

. T .

• A DAEP .

• A DAEP

. (KZ )

• A 13-- DAEP “” . (Z )

• A 15-- DAEP

.

• A 15-- DAEP fl “W”

. (Z )

• A 12-- DAEP

. (Z )

• A - “”

. H

DAEP 45 , .

Many counselors and DAEP principals indicated that referrals are often made without

adequately addressing the reasons for the behavior or considering other approaches.

• A DAEP DAEP, ,

, ’

.

• A “ DAEP,

.”

http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/

http://www.katyzerotolerance.com/




http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/





• A “ - ff

,”

DAEP.

• A DAEP

. S

“ ” . T

- .

Many interviewees stated that school districts should take into account a student’s

age when referring a student to a DAEP, in addition to the reasons for the behavior.

• A DAEP

ff . “F

, ’ . F

, . S

, , .”

• A DAEP “

...[] .”

While school administrators and teachers generally denied any bias in connection

with referrals to DAEPs, some acknowledged that the statistical data shows an

overrepresentation of certain groups in DAEPs.

In contrast, some parents and students suggested cultural bias may figure into some

disciplinary referrals.

• “S -, -

,” . S , “

.”

• S — , “

”— , “ ” .

• D H , , “C,

ff . W .”

• S ,

. I , ’

—“

, .”

• P

, . T

.




Efforts to Reduce DAEP Referrals

Additional training of teachers may help reduce DAEP referrals by providing tools

to address behavioral issues before they escalate.

S . W

,

fi, .

S ,

P B S (PBS),

fl

. O

ff .

:

• A DAEP “

. C

,

.”

• A “

ff - .”

• A “

[] P B S.”

• A , ,

“ ‘ ’ , ,

.” A ,

“ … - .”

• A “ .”

• A “- - .”

• A “ -

.”

• A DAEP “

’ .”

Prevention and intervention programs may also help reduce DAEP referrals, but better

quality programs (not greater quantity) are needed to obtain the desired results.

T

, , —

, , ,

.





O

. P fi fi P B

S, - , - . O

fl

. N,

/ ,

fi. F , “” P C , .

School prevention programs should be particularly attentive to students at risk of

referrals for reasons relating to poverty, language diffi culties, and other factors

beyond the student’s control.

M fi fi

. S

. W

, , , , ,

. S ffi

. P ff :

• A ’ “

. T ’ , .”

• A “,

, , .” H “

95 98 3 .”

• A “

.”

• A “ .”

• A “ .” H

“ ,

.”

Schools should consider formalized programs to monitor “at-risk” students.

M . S

. F ,

, - ’ . A

, , - - .

I , , -

. I , ffi

- .

• A “ ,

.” T “

, .”




• A “ -

…() MS .”

Regardless of what school programs are implemented, parental involvement plays a

significant role in addressing and correcting behavioral problems.

T . O

.

S ff . S

ff .

A , ,

’ , .

T fi

. A,

- .

• A “ .” S ff “ fi,

.”

• A ffi “

, []

.” T “

.”

• A “” “

PA .”

• A “ .” A ,

“ ...[]

.”

Effectiveness of DAEP Programs

Tose interviewed had differing views on the quality and effectiveness of Disciplinary

Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), which may be attributable to the varying

quality of DAEPs in different school districts.

S DAEP fi ff ( E C, C 37),

DAEP C C. T

30 40 , . I DAEP,

. T DAEP. A

2007 E A

DAEP, .





M DAEP ,

ff . DAEP

DAEP fi , - , fi

(

), ,

, .

I “” DAEP :

• Structure. M DAEP

. O DAEP : “U

, . T

. T ff ff

. P, , , , , - ,

. S

. M .

T , ( ),

. T ,

. O ff, .S “” .”

• Focus on social skills. A

. O DAEP “

,”

.

• Rewards. S DAEP

, . A

, “ .”

• Innovative programs. O DAEP

, , , .

• Behavior management . O DAEP

. T fl

, .

• Counseling specialists. M DAEP

DAEP ff

. F , DAEP

, , ,

, .

• Small classes. T / DAEP

. I 5:1 6:1.

• Parental involvement . M DAEP ’ . I

, - .

A .




At the same time, DAEP administrators, counselors, teachers, and parents noted

several challenges to implementing high quality DAEP programs and expressed

concerns about some students who are sent to the program. I

“” DAEP :

• Poor facilities in some districts. O DAEP “

. T ffi .” A “ . T

, .” I , ,

DAEP . S

, .

• Not enough books and materials in some districts. O

DAEP ff ,

DAEP “ / .” I

, ,

- .

• ransportation issues. I , fi DAEP. I , DAEP

fi.

• Inadequate communication with main campuses. A DAEP

— .

• Inconsistency in DAEP referral process. S

DAEP . O

“

.”

• Inappropriate referrals. DAEP ,

DAEP, . O ,

’

DAEP , —

--

.

DAEP teachers and administrators noted improvements in grades and the behavior

of students while attending DAEPs, however many teachers and administrators on

mainstream campuses—as well as parents—question these gains.

• O , , DAEP :

“I’ . I .”

• A DAEP “ — .”

S ,

.”





• A ,

“,” “ ’ ,

”

• A DAEP “

,

.”

• A ’ DAEP .

• A

.

• S . O

“ , DAEP ’ .

N, .”

Working With Students After They Attend DAEPs

DAEP administrators and teachers almost uniformly suggested that mainstream

campuses should pay greater attention to students during the transition back from

DAEPs to prevent recidivism and avoid additional problems for “at-risk” students.

DAEP ,

, DAEP

. A

“-” .

M ,

DAEP . O

DAEP

• O , “T []

. []

/

DAEP.”

• O []

.

• O ,

.




H, ff

DAEP . I , .

• O DAEP , DAEP

, 27 . S ,

7 .

• O DAEP 10 DAEP . H DAEP

DAEP , .

• O

. A

, .

• O “ ,”

- ff. S “

,” .

• A DAEP DAEP . M

, , .

Students who attend DAEPs may be at greater risk for academic problems.

M DAEP

. A

, . M

. B

:

• O DAEP DAEP ’ .

• O “”

.

• O ,

DAEP “ - .”

• Sometimes students need specialized tutoring after attending a DAEP, a principal said.

• O

’ ,

DAEP .

Some interviewees suggested that students referred to DAEPs are more likely to

skip school or drop out than other students.





R DAEPs have five times the dropout rate s.

Sfi :

• O DAEP 70 80

. “A

, ,” .

• A DAEP 45 . W ,

. H . T

’

.

Parent involvement is critical to ensuring students’ successful transition from a

disciplinary placement to the regular classroom.

P ’

DAEP, DAEP ,

.

CONCLUSION

T , ,

ff —

—

. R improved transitional support

- ,

more training for teachers

, some consideration of intent , focused programs

to monitor at-risk students, improved parent involvement . T —

.







B E S P R A C I C E M O D E L :

A M- A S S D

R- ff

. S :

• ;

• Use well-coordinated methods and approaches that are “research-based” and deemed effective;

• I -;

• P ff ;

• I , , , , ,

;

• I ,

.

U, , ,

ff

.214 A

:

[O]n the whole, the quality of...prevention activities is poor. Tese findings...suggest that schools need to improve the quality of prevention programming through

attention to needs assessment, planning, increased use of research-based approaches, and monitoring of implementation.215

214 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Planning and Evaluation Service, Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools (2002); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office ofthe Under Secretary, Planning and Education Service, Progress in Prevention Report on theNational Study of Local Education Agency Activities Under the Safe and Drug Free Schools

and Communities Act (2000).

215 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Planning and Evaluation Service, Wide Scope, Questionable Quality, supra 214, .



Best Practice Model

T U.S. D E , ,

,

.216 O 1,200

,

— 61

ff ffi .217 T U.S. D E :

• C .218

• P .219

• W ,

.220

T U.S. D E (DOE)

quantity quality .221 Also encouraged was an increase in the amount of resources

allocated to planning and monitoring prevention activities.222

T fi fi DOE . A

, 500 fl

S D F S A .223

T , fi :

• A

ff

.

• S ,

, 20

ff.224

• D

.

• O 9 ff

-.225

216 Id. 33.217 Id. 39, 41.

218 Id. 41.

219 Id. 42.

220 Id. 43.

221 Id. 59.

222 Id.

223 Id.

224 Id. 1-2.

225 Id. 22.



Best Practice Model

• O 40

.226

T “[w]ell-planned prevention programs unite district needs for preventionwith goals and objectives for preventing and reducing problem behavior .”227

S fi

do not reduce . F :

• P reinforces

.

• I , ff

, ff .

• A ff .

T

.

• C

ff .

• “S S”

ff ’ .

• I , ,

, ff 228

T fl -

-- (ISS OSS) D A

E P (DAEP) . I ,

ISS, OSS, DAEP fi

.

A Closer Look: Characteristics of Successful Programs

S , U.S. D E’

G S S,229 .230 T

231

A P A (APA).

226 Id. 44.

227 Id. 9.

228 L W. S , Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (N I J 1998).

229 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Early Warning imely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools (1998).

230 Lawrence W. Sherman et al., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, a Report to the United States Congress (1997); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Early Warning imely Response, supra 229; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools (1998); Bipartisan Working Groupon Youth Violence, Final Report to the th Congress (1999); U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Preventing School Violence (2000); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide (2000).

231 See Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70.



Best Practice Model

Early Intervention

I ’ .232 I F R 106 C, T B W G Y V , “ preschool experiences are vital…Programs targeting young children, even infants and toddlers, could provide a way to reduce the likelihood of juvenile violence .”233 T

H S, ,, , , - .234

Community Partnerships

R .235 T ’ .236 S , , , - , , .237 C

.238

Improving School Climate

A positive safe .239 S “ ” .240 A , , .241 B .242

, ff , .243 A fl

, , , , ,, , , , .244

Improving Mental Health Services for Students

T , “”

, .245 T B R ,

232 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Preventing School Violence, supra 230, 28.

233 Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence, supra 230, 22.

234 Id. 23.

235 Id. 2.

236 Id. 7.

237 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Early Warning imely Response, supra 229, 3.238 I. 7, 33; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Way to Go School Successs for Children

with Mental Health Care Needs 47 (2006).


240 Id.

241 Id.

242 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Preventing School Violence, supra 230 30.

243 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Early Warning imely Response, supra 229, 4.

244 Id.

245 Id. 26.



Best Practice Model

, 90,000 41.4

’ — 513 .246

P ,

, .247 “W”

— -, - —

, ,

, - .248 T ff

fi .249

Parental involvement

P . 250

F,

’ .251 I

.252 S

.253


247 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, upra 238.

248 Safe Responsive Schools Project, Effective Responses – Wraparound (2002),available at ../~.

249 Id.

250 Id.



253 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Early Warning imely Response, supra 229, 3.

School Discipline: Responsibilities of Parents & Guardians

• R ’ C C .

• B ’ — must .

• A ’ ( ,, ) ’ .

• C ’ — fi ( Resource List ).

• C ’ .

• R / ’ .

http://www.indiana.edu/




Best Practice Model

W ,

.254

Model Discipline Programs Focus on the Entire School

B “ ,”

.255

S - —

—

ff .256

A U.S. D E

“

” :

[R]esearch suggests that some of the most promising prevention and interventionstrategies involve the entire educational community—administrators, teachers, families, students, support staff, and community members—working together

to form positive relationships with all children.257

T “[p]revention requires understanding and changing social environments, more so than targeting specific individuals.”258

A Model That Works

A Guide to Safe Schools , U.S. D E

.259 T fi

, ,

, ff , ffi fi ,

.260

T .261 T B C

M H L , -

, .262

T - ffi -ff

.263

254 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 238, 41 (2006).255 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Preventing School Violence, supra 230, 29.

256 Sherman et al, supra 230, 12.

257 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Early Warning, imely Response, supra 229, .

258 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Preventing School Violence, supra 230, .

259 U.S. Dep’t of Education, Safeguarding our Children, supra 230.

260 Id. 2.

261 See Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 87; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 238.

262 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 238.

263 Id.



Best Practice Model

T ff . W ( ), . A .264 T U.S. D E all three tiersmust be in place, “[a] school that builds a school-wide foundation will still fail if

it ignores the needs of children at risk of severe academic or behavioral problems or childrenwho are seriously troubled .”265

I - ’ .266 T - - - .267 I .268 I S S , . 269 TS S : ; ffi ; ; ff, , ;

; .270

264 Id. 4.

265 Id.

266 Id. 41.

267 Id.

268 Id.

269 Id. 5.

270 Id.

Intensive

Intervention

Schoolwide Foundation of

Positive Behavior Expectations for All Children

Intervene Early

for Some Children



Best Practice Model

T - ,

fi - . I

“-”

.

I -

.

First Tier: Building a School-wide Foundation

T , ff -

.271

Component 1: Create a caring community in which all members feel connected,

safe, and supported.

T

.272 S

ff ,, fl. T -

:

• Bullying Prevention Programs. T - ff

.273 T A P

A (APA) , “well-designed programs can reduce, eliminate, and prevent bully-victim problems, and significantly improve overall school climate .”274 B

50 ,

.275 R- O B

P P, Sffi A-B P, S-S-S C P.276

• “Schools-within-Schools” Programs. P S T

U S (SAUS)

fl , ff

.277

271 Id. 7.

272 Id. 7.

273 Safe Responsive Schools, Early Identification and Intervention – Bullying Prevention,available at ../~.


275 he International Association of Chiefs of Police, Developing an Anti-Bullying Program:Increasing Safety, Reducing Violence, available at http://www.theiacp.org/raining/bullyingbrief.pdf.

276 Safe Responsive Schools, Bullying Prevention, supra 273; Am. Psychol. Ass’n,supra 70, 87.

277 Sherman et al, supra 230, 10 ( “” ).


http://www.theiacp.org/Training/bullyingbrief.pdf


http://www.theiacp.org/Training/bullyingbrief.pdf



Best Practice Model

Component 2: each appropriate behaviors and social problem-solving skills.

T -

fl- . T U.S. D E

- . I

, — ff, ,

.

R- :

• Resolving Conflict Creatively Program. T -, fl

12 . T

ff fl,

, ’

, ,

. T

- .278

• Promoting Alternative hinking Strategies (PAHS). T -

5

- ,

, . T ,

-, , , . 279

• Second Step Curriculum. T

. T -

.280

Component 3: Implement positive behavior support systems.

Eff , , . S

, ff, . B

, research shows that proactive approaches—

such as intervening before a verbal dispute escalates into a physical fight—and positive

support are far more effective than reactive approaches that emphasize punishment.

P :

• Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS or PBS). T -

.281 T

A P A (APA) B C M

278 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Safeguarding our Children, supra 230, 9.

279 Id.

280 Id. 10.




Best Practice Model

H L ff, - .282 I

ffi , ,

.283

• Project ACHIEVE. T -,

, fl ,

, , .284 A

, --

(OSS), fi ,

fi 50

-- .285

Component 4: Provide appropriate academic instruction.

D

,

. T -

ff, : C-W P , , .286

• Class-Wide Peer utoring . T -, . T

. S

. , , .287

• Cooperative Learning . S

.288 L

.289 R

C L, S A D (SAD),

J, G I, S A.290

S

.291

282 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 92; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, supra 238.283 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 92.


285 Id.

286 Id. 7-15.

287 Id. 15.

288 Safe Responsive Schools, Cooperative Learning, available at ../~.

289 Id.

290 Id.

291 Id.





Best Practice Model

Second Tier: Early Intervention for Children Exhibiting Warning

Signs of Problem Behavior

O 10 15 .292

S :

Component 1: Review the early warning signs of violence and develop the capacity

to address them.

T ’ ;

; ; ;

; / ;

; ;

, , ; ;

; ff ;

; ffi ; , ,

fi; .

H, “balance must be found between responding to the signs of a child who may need help

and being harmful by labeling or overreacting to a situation.”293 T “ ,”

, ,

, .

A ff

. T , ff ,

. I

fi . I

ff , , , fi —

.

T A P A , fi

,

- “ ” .294 T

fi .295 A

.296 T

,

.297

292 Id. 17.

293 Id. 17.


295 Id.

296 Id.

297 Id.



Best Practice Model

Component 2: Establish a Student Support eam to connect the early warning signs

to early intervention.

A S S

, , ’ fi

. A :

• Give scheduling preference to urgent referrals. T S S

. A -

.

• Encourage informal consultations. T , ff, ,

.

• Inform and listen to parents when early warning signs are observed. P

.

• Move to intervene promptly after referrals. I , S S

, , fi, .

• Maintain confidentiality and parents’ rights to privacy. F

.

• Circumvent the referral process in cases of imminent warning signs of destructive

behavior. S . P fi

S S

’ . 298

Component 3: Develop a response process, an early intervention plan, and decideon appropriate research-based strategies for addressing problem behaviors.

T -, ,

. I ’

, ’ ,

,

, .

T U.S. D E “ ,”

,

’ . O

, -- fi

. E .

T ,

, , .




Best Practice Model

N . A ff

fl ff ff ,

.299

S -

:

• Mentoring. M - ,

’ , .300 A

ff , B B/B S

.301 A 18- BB/BS

,

, , , .302

• First Step to Success. T

fi .303 I

: , -

CLASS, HB.304 T

, , ff .305 A

ff

’ .306

• Positive Adolescent Choices raining (PAC) – PAC

,

A A

.307 T -

.308

• Anger Management Programs. T

fl.309

• Peer Mediation Programs. T - -

fl

.310 S fl .

T

299 Id. 17-29.

300 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,Mentoring – A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy (1997).

301 Id. 302 Safe Responsive Schools, Mentoring, available at ../~.


304 Id.

305 Id.

306 Id.

307 Id.

308 Id.

309 Safe Responsive Schools, Anger Management,available at ../~.

310 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Safeguarding our Children, supra 230.







Best Practice Model

fi, ffi , . L

-,

.

Third Tier: Intensive Interventions for Troubled Students

T 10 , .311 T

, , ’

.312 S

, ,

.313 A,

“ fi ” . 314 T

:

Component 1: Initiate planning and delivery of wraparound services—utilizing

school district mental health and special education professionals, where appropriate,

along with a range of community services to address a student’s severe emotionaland behavior problems and to provide family support.

T C S ,

, .315 T

.316

S

.317

A

fi

.

Eff - , ,

, . T

.

T S S

.

311 Id. 31.

312 Id.

313 Id.

314 Id.


316 Id.

317 Id.



Best Practice Model

Component 2: Creating and/or referring to alternative education programs and

schools is recommended for students with serious behavioral support needs.

U.S. D E (DOE) that effective alternative programs are not custodial and should collaborate with regular schools to facilitate reintegration. I , D A E P (DAEP)

. T DOE fi ff :

• I - ;

• C I E P;

• P — /

— ;

• P ;

• A ;

• ;

• C (.. , ,

, );

• C ff ;

• Eff,

’ .

Court-Involved Student DisciplineS

’ . F :

• reatment Foster Care – W -- ,

, - . I

’ : , ,

, . ff

.

• School-Based Probation Offi cers –S- ffi

.318

T -- .319

A ,

, - ffi .320

318 Safe Responsive Schools, School-Based Probation Officers,available at ../~

319 Id.

320 Id.





Best Practice Model

• een Courts – ff

, ff.321 M

—, ff

.322 T .323

Promising Practices

Reducing Referrals in Austin Schools324

S A —40 , 14 , fi ,

D A E P— P

B S (PBS) 2007.

I - — -

U.S. D E.

P B S fi — .

A A

DAEP decreased its referral rate to one of the lowest in the district PBS,

J N, P B C A ISD.

D 2004-05 , ,

“ ” A

P B S.

A PBS — “

”— .

ff , , .

I . F

,

, SP, ff . A - ff

.

A ff

.

T A PBS

2010.

Amarillo ISD Targeting Behavior Change325

A ISD P B S (PBS) PBS

.

321 Safe Responsive Schools, een Courts, available at ../~

322 Id .

323 Id .

324 I A ISD .

325 I A ISD ffi .





Best Practice Model

W E ’ fi

“ ” . PBS A

.

A fi, - P B S

— .

F ,

’ . A’ PBS —T T R’: R Y,

R O, R Y S—

.

O “B C” “T R’” ’

. ff

,

.

T A ’ PBS

-- (OSS). T : - (ISS).

Flour Bluff ISD Teaches Students

Behavior Expectations326

F , F Bff ISD P B S (PBS)

. , PBS F

Bff .

C ’ ffi .

F Bff’ PBS

.

R - “”

.

F Bff

.

A

P B S.

W

,

PBS 2007-08 .

326 I F Bff ISD ffi N 2005 “Te Hive Keeper ,” ’ .



Best Practice Model

Restorative Justice: Repairing Harm and

Building Community

R fi

—

.327 R ,

fl, -ff , .328 T , ,

,

.329

T .330 A

P M S K, P, P E B

,

“W , ’ …. W’

…. J [] ’ ,

’ .”331 R

, “ ”

.332

CONCLUSION

W -

, “”— ,

, - P B S—

well-designed three-tiered program that supports school-wide positive discipline while offering ever-increasing systems of support tailored to meet the needs of at-risk students with

identified behavior problems.

327 C C, Schools find Restorative Justice More Effective than Expulsion, School Board News

(N’ S B A., A, VA), M 17, 2005, ://.//__.RACKID=&VID=55&CID=682&DID=35966; Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 90.

328 Center for Restorative Justice Peacemaking, Restorative Justice Practices and Principles inSchools (2005) available at ://..///13522/R_J__S.; see also C, supra 327.

329 Am. Psychol. Ass’n, supra 70, 92; ee also N R, Applying the Framework: Positive Youth Development and Restorative Practices (2006),available at ://..//06_.


331 C, supra 327, 4 .


http://nsba.org/site/doc_sbn_issue.asp?TRAC%20KID=&VID=55&CID=682&DID=35966;


http://rjp.umn.edu/img/assets/13522/Restorative_Justice_in_Schools.pdf

http://fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/beth06_riestenberg.pdf

http://fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/beth06_riestenberg.pdf

http://rjp.umn.edu/img/assets/13522/Restorative_Justice_in_Schools.pdf









C O N C L U S I O N & P O L I C Y P R O P O S A L S :

S D P A “C” S B

T , fi exas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline: Dropout toIncarceration, :

❖H D A

E P (DAEP) —

.

❖W — ff—

’ .

❖A A — H — fi

DAEP

.

❖ Special education students are significantly overrepresented in discretionary referrals for

.

❖ L -K, , 1 DAEP

6 bring a gunto school .

❖T E A ,

.

B ,

/ , C

C, A

, ,

:



Conclusion& Policy Proposals

Amend the exas Education Code to :

• Provide state oversight of DAEPs. R E A (EA)

D A E P

(DAEP). I 2007, EA ’ fi

DAEP, .

• Factor “intent” into discipline decisions. R ’“” , - ff. C,

may

DAEP, .

• Place a cap on suspensions. P

- -- (ISS OSS) .

• Notify districts with disproportionate disciplinary referrals. R

E A (EA)

’ ISS, OSS, DAEP

. T EA .

• Compliance with federal laws. Require EA to monitor DAEPs to ensure compliance

E S L

.

• Improve DAEP academic standards and course offerings. R EA

ff— explore the use of technology ff DAEP .

• Early parent notification requirements. Require schools to alert parents immediately

. C fi .

• Rights and responsibilities. R E A

“B R R” ’

C C.

I , S funding for expanded school-based mental

health services

.

T E A discretionary grant program

-

.

Policy recommendations at the school district and campus level include:

• Research-based discipline strategies. D, ,

- research-based strategies

.



Conclusion& Policy Proposals

• Positive behavior support. E

-fi, , - ,

ff, , . R positively reward .

• eacher/staff training. P ff

,

.

• Formalized plans to monitor at-risk students. A , -

-

.

• ransition planning. S , ,

.

• Parent involvement. E

— ,

ff ’

DAEP , - .

• Improve administrative oversight of ISS academics. E

ISS on track in regular classes .

D

— , , -

ff. T -

ff

— - — .





A P P E N D I X





Q U A N I A I V E M E H O D S

A O S D D

D E A’ (EA) P

E I M S (PEIMS) . T

EA. A

U P R C.

TEA Data Set #1: Enrollment

T fi , EA 2006,

: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04,

2004-05. L

. NOE: EA “.” C ,

.

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

1,221 1,224 1,227 1,229

E :

• E (W, B/A A, H, O);

• G;

• S ;• E ;

• L E Pfi .

I , EA .



appendix

Quantitative Methods

A 2005-06 N C

E S’ C C D (: ://..///).

TEA Data Set #2: Disciplinary Data

EA O 2006

:

Type of Disciplinary Data Level

Years(Number of schooldistricts in sample)

Characteristics of Students Referred

Referral to In-SchoolSuspension (ISS)

School District 2001-02 (998)2002-03 (1,002)2003-04 (1,030)2004-05 (1,041)2005-06 (1,044)

• Reason for referral to suspension• Special Education status• Race/Ethnicity• Gender

Referral to Disciplinary Alternative EducationProgram (DAEP)

School District 2001-02 (879)2002-03 (887)2003-04 (882)2004-05 (889)2005-06 (888)

• Reason for referral to DAEP• Special Education status• Race/Ethnicity• Grade• Gender

Referral to JuvenileJustice AlternativeEducation Program(JJAEP)

School District 2001-02 (211)2002-03 (201)2003-04 (204)2004-05 (225)2005-06 (235)

• Reason for referral to JJAEP• Special Education status• Race/Ethnicity• Grade

Referral for Expulsion School District 2001-02 (543)2002-03 (519)2003-04 (544)2004-05 (565)2005-06 (532)

• Reason for referral for Expulsion• Special Education status• Race/Ethnicity• Gender

F A ,

“ ” , E, fi

/ /

.

Group A: Mandatory Expulsion

11 Used, exhibited, or possessed a firearm. - TEC §§37.007(a)(1)(A) and 37.007(e) and/or brought a firearm to school – TEC §37.007(e)

12 Used, exhibited, or possessed an illegal knife - TEC §37.007(a)(1)(B) (Knife blade longer than5.5 inches.)

13 Used, exhibited, or possessed a club - TEC §37.007(a)(1)(C)

14 Used, exhibited, or possessed a prohibited weapon under Penal Code §46.05 – TEC§37.007(a)(1)(D)

16 Arson - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(B)

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat



appendix


17 Murder, capital murder, or criminal attempt to commit murder or capital murder – TEC§37.007(a)(2)(C)

18 Indecency with a child - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(D)

19 Aggravated kidnapping - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(E)

29 Aggravated assault under Penal Code §22.02 against a school district employee or volunteer - TEC §37.007(d)

30 Aggravated assault under Penal Code §22.02 against someone other than a school districtemployee or volunteer - TEC §37.007 (a)(2)(A)

31 Sexual assault under Penal Code §22.011 or aggravated sexual assault under Penal Code§22.021 against a school district employee or volunteer - TEC §37.007(d)

32 Sexual assault under Penal Code §22.011 or aggravated sexual assault under PenalCode §22.021 against someone other than a school district employee or volunteer - TEC§37.007(a)(2)(A)

36 Felony controlled substance violation - TEC §37.007(a)(3)

37 Felony alcohol violation - TEC §37.007(a)(3)

46 Aggravated robbery - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(F)

47 Manslaughter - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(G)

48 Criminally negligent homicide - TEC §37.007(a)(2)(H)

Group B: Mandatory DAEP Referral

02 Conduct punishable as a felony - TEC §37.006(a)(1)

04 Possessed, sold, used, or was under the influence of marijuana or other controlled substance– TEC §§37.006(a)(3), 37.007(b), and 37.007(a)(3)

05 Possessed, sold, used, or was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage - TEC§§37.006(a)(4), 37.007(b), and 37.007(a)(3)

06 Abuse of a volatile chemical – TEC §37.006(a)(2)(E)

07 Public lewdness or indecent exposure - TEC §37.006(a)(6)

08 Retaliation against school employee - TEC §37.006(b) and 37.007(d) Note: This can be anoffense which requires mandatory expulsion if retaliation is coupled with TEC 37.007 (a) and(d) offense.

09 Based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at a school-sponsored or school-related activity for felony offenses in Title 5, Penal Code - TEC §37.006(c)and TEC §37.007(b)(4)

26 Terroristic threat – TEC §37.006(a)(2)

27 Assault under Penal Code §22.01(a)(1) against a school district employee or volunteer - TEC§37.007(b)(3)

28 Assault under Penal Code §22.01(a)(1) against someone other than a school district employeeor volunteer - TEC §37.006(a)(2)

35 False alarm/false report - TEC §§37.006(a)(1) and 37.007(b)

23 Emergency placement/expulsion - TEC §37.019. Note: This reason can be cited for either aDAEP placement or an expulsion. The underlying offense, however, is an offense that requires aDAEP placement.



appendix


Group C: Discretionary Disciplinary Referrals (Student

Code of Conduct Violations and Permanent Removals

from Class by a Teacher)

Code Translation

01 Permanent removal by a teacher from class (Teacher has removed the student from classroomand denied the student the right to return. TEC §37.003 has been invoked.) – TEC §37.002(b)

20 Serious or persistent misconduct violating the student Code of Conduct while placed in adisciplinary alternative education program - TEC §37.007(c)

21 Violation of student Code of Conduct not included under TEC §§37.002, 37.006 or 37.007(does not include student Code of Conduct violations covered in Groups D and E below)

Group D: Discretionary Disciplinary Referrals (Truancy & Tobacco)

33 Possessed, purchased, used, or accepted a cigarette or tobacco product as defined in theHealth and Safety Code, Section 3.01, Chapter 161.252

42 Truancy (failure to attend school) – Parent contributing to truancy – TEC §25.093(a)

43 Truancy (failure to attend school) – Student with at least three unexcused absences - TEC§25.094

44 Truancy (failure to attend school) – Student with 10 unexcused absences - TEC §25.094

45 Truancy (failure to attend school) – Student failure to enroll in school - TEC §25.085

Group E: Other Discretionary Disciplinary Referral Reasons

10 Based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at aschool-sponsored or school-related activity for felony offenses not in Title 5, Penal Code - TEC§37.006(d) and TEC §37.007(b)(4)

22 Criminal mischief - TEC §37.007(f)

34 School-related gang violence - Action by three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who associate inthe commission of criminal activities under Penal Code §71.01

41 Fighting/Mutual Combat - Excludes all offenses under Penal Code §22.01

49 Engages in deadly conduct

50 Used, exhibited, or possessed a non-illegal knife as defined by student Code of Conduct andas allowed under TEC 37.007. (Knife blade equal to or less than 5.5 inches.)

://....//D_D_P/D_D_

P.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Disciplinary_Data_%20Products.html






appendix


TEA Data Set #3: Disciplinary Data

T F 2007

O--S S (OSS) .

Type of Disciplinary Data Level

Years(Number of schooldistricts in sample)

Characteristics of Students Referred

Referral to Out- of-School Suspension(OSS)

School District 2001-02 (978)2002-03 (1,002)2003-04 (1,012)2004-05 (1,020)2005-06 (1,017)

• Reason for referral to OSS• Special Education status• Race/Ethnicity• Gender

Cross-tabs and the Masking of Data

T E A

“-.” T , ,

. F , O--S S : (1) (See Groups A-E above ), ( ), / (A A,

H, W, O), ( ). T

OSS D :

5 (R R G) 2 (S E) 4 (R/E) 2 (G) = 80

B fi,

fi . F

, H, - ,

OSS D ff.

I fi

, “”

F E R P A (FERPA).

Dealing with Masked Data: Using “Low Estimates”

F , .

F , 4—

. F ,

1— . M fi ; ,

, .

G “” , it is probable that our data underestimates the gravity of disproportional disciplinary actions within exas school districts.



appendix


Detailed Description of Data Use

B fi E

A . T

.

exas School Discipline Policies: Impacting the School-to-Prison Pipeline

V A ..

fi: S D & M R, C Off,

2001-06.

T

fi 2001 2006. T

DAEP

EA.

o generate the chart “Statewide DAEP Referral Rate by Grade Level, 2005-06” low estimates

DAEP . L

each grade were then aggregated to generate a statewide estimate for total DAEP referrals by , -K . T

. F ,

. T DAEP

— DAEP .

Overrepresentation of Minority and Special Education Students in Disciplinary Referrals

V A ..

fi:

• O M S E S D

R ISS, 2001-06

• O M S E S D

R OSS, 2001-06

• O M S E S D

R DAEP, 2001-06

• S E & O D R R, 2001-06

• D H P D R M S

E S ISS, 2001-06

• D H P D R M S

E S OSS, 2001-06

• D H P D R M S

E S DAEP, 2001-06







appendix


I exas School Discipline Policies , fl

DAEP

(ISS OSS)—See Group C referral reasons above . W

H A A

, A -

ISS, OSS, DAEP. However, no exas school district disproportionately

represented white students in disciplinary referrals. T A N A .

fi

DAEP, C S

S. U C S S

. F

,

(.., ’ fl

.) W C S S,

ff expect

( ) actual number of referrals . W

ff ,

, C S S a more rigorous test

. B

, C S S

:

SEP ONE: D .

N P/N

= P P

SEP WO: G “”

“G C” .

P P

L E R P

= L E E N G C R

AND

P P H E R

P = H E E N G C

R



appendix


SEP HREE: G C S S

[N A R (L E)

– N E G C R (L E) ]

÷ E C R (L E)

= C S S

AND

[N O G C R (H E)

– N E G C R (H E) ]

÷ E G C R (H E)

= C S S

SEP HREE: D G

C . (W , ffi

.)

SEP FOUR: S “ ff” C S S( );

C S S .

T C S S ,

. A ff .

A

fi ( .01 )—

not .

O C S S 2005-06

- A A H ISS, OSS, DAEP.

Over-representation of Special Education Student in Disciplinary Referrals

T C S S

. S .

Disciplinary Referrals: Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten & 1st Grade Students

V A ..

fi: D D D R P-K, K, &

1 G S, 2001-06.

F , DAEP -,

, 1 2001 2006. W

fi-

.





appendix


Variation in Disciplinary Referral Rates across exas

V A ..

fi:

• O ISS R R S D, 2001-06

• O OSS R R S D, 2001-06

• O DAEP R R S D, 2001-06

, ’ DAEP

(R R G A-E )

. L

DAEP

. T

.

A : DAEP

. T .

T

.

T -- (OSS) -

(OSS).







A H I S O R Y :

Z & S D

U 1947, S —

’ fi . T

“ ” ,

.1 P W W II, S’

.2

C, G-A S C 50 L

.3 T

fi “” ,

fi, S’

.4

T C’ fi .5 S

G-A C, .

I -1960, ,

. A , -

, D

M H M R 1965. T 1965

/ .6

1 M K, Education Reforms from Gilmer-Aiken to oday , in exas Public SchoolsSesquicentennial Handbook ( E A 2004).

2 House Res. Org., Digest – th Legislative Session 5 (1983); Gilmer-Aiken Comm., Final Report,50 L. R.S. (1947).

3 M K, supra 1; Gilmer Aiken Comm., supra 2, 3.

4 M K, supra 1; Gilmer-Aiken Comm., supra 2.

5 Gilmer-Aiken Comm., supra 2.

6 See C C M H & M R C, I., About the Council ,available at ://../__..

http://www.txcouncil.com/about_the_council.aspx

http://www.txcouncil.com/about_the_council.aspx



appendix

A History

A -

,

focused on intervention and prevention at the school level. For example, in 1967, the Interim

C J C :

estimony and data gathered for the committee indicated that, while

delinquency as such might not appear until fairly late in adolescence,indications that a child might become delinquent could appear early inlife. Some sociologists believe that it can be predicted on the basis of infant behavior. Many witnesses felt that those predelinquent children needed guidance early in life. Few schools have the personnel or funds available todo the kind of diagnosis and counseling that may be required, but we believe that the resources they now have could be better utilized and extended.

What counseling that is done in the elementary grades is usually done by the teacher. Tere is a real need for a highly skilled person who can offer support when the knowledge and skills of the classroom teacher, if such are available,have been exhausted. Tis person, in addition to handling the especially diffi cult problem children, would help develop inservice training programs to improve the counseling knowledge and skills of the classroom teacher, the elementary counselor, the high school counselor, and the visiting teacher.

Te committee encountered many instances, especially in high schools, where counselors did very little, if any, counseling and what counseling they did was largely of a vocational nature. Teir time too often was burdened with chores such as text-book inventory, handling football tickets, or record-keeping.

Te committee, therefore, recommends the creation of a new position withinthe minimum foundation program of counselor-consultant...His responsibilities

would include the development of improved programs of diagnosis and evaluation of children, counseling, home visitation, and institution of inservice training programs for visiting teachers, classroom teachers, and elementary and secondary school counselors...Te counselor-consultant or one of his staff would also be responsible for liaison with the local juvenile authorities for court related children.7

T I C J C E A

(EA) , fi

ff . 8 I

.9

T I C EA

7 Interim Comm. on Juv. Crime, Juvenile Crime in exas A Report to the th Legislature, 4-5 (1967).

8 Id. 6.

9 Id .



appendix

A History

S “ , .”10 T C

“ .”11 A

- ,

— EA.

Creation of the Texas Education CodeI 1969, S E C.12

S I C, “Discipline; Law and Order ,”

“

.”13 T C ffi

“

, , , ,

...

.”14 T

,

.15 I

, “ .”16 T C .

T E C 10 ,

likely because, as the exas House of Representatives Committee on Public Education found

I R 65 L S, “

procedures...are best handled at the local level.”17 However, as in the mid-1960s,

. I 1971, C S

P P Y . T C

“ , ,

.”18 T C GC S A.19 A ,

“ ”

.20 B

, C

“ .”21

10 Id. 7.

11 Id. 9.

12 . HB 534, 61

L., R.S. (1969).13 Id .

14 Id .

15 Id .

16 Id .

17 x. House of Rep. Comm. on Pub. Educ., Interim Report 5 (1976).

18 Comm. to Study the Psychiatric Probs. of Youth, Report 2 (1971)

19 Id. 4-5.

20 Id. 4.

21 Id. 5.



appendix

A History

T ’ ff

.22 T

- .23

I 1979, E C

“ ff .”24 T

, “

[] ’ ff .”25 U ,

, .26

Attorney General’s Model Code of Student Conduct

I 1980, A G M W

C C. A , ffi

“V S C C.”27 A ,

E C

.28 T E C . U

, , ,

, , fl .29 T E C “ ”— .30

T C C :

• Te district’s objective is to educate students. Discipline shall be administered only whennecessary to protect students, school employees, or property, or to maintain essential order and discipline.

• Disciplinary action should not be “punitive” per se, but should be designed to correct the misconduct of the individual student and to promote compliance of all students withdistrict rules and regulations.

• Students shall be treated fairly and equitably. Discipline shall be based on a careful assessment of the circumstances of each case, i.e., the seriousness of the offense, the student’s age, the frequency of misconduct, the student’s attitude, and the potential effect of the misconduct upon the school environment.

• Discipline shall never be administered so as to ridicule a student, nor be imposed maliciously. 31

22 Study Comm. on Drug Abuse Educ., Interim Report (1976); Select Comm. onDrug and Alcohol Abuse, Interim Report 16 (1978).

23 Study Comm. on Drug Abuse Educ., supra 22, 4.

24 ex. Educ. Code § 21.301 (W S. 1979).

25 Id. § 21.301.

26 Id .; Goss v. Lopez , 419 U.S. 565 (1975), U.S. S C .

27 Att’y Gen. Mark White, he Attorney General’s Proposed Voluntary StudentCode of Conduct (1980).

28 Id. 4-5.

29 Id . 7.

30 Id. 8.

31 Id . 10.



appendix

A History

T , “D

. D

ff .”32 O , C C , “S

,

.”33

Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education

I 1979, S B E

.34 I , G C

G’ A C E. I

C, G fi “ ”

.35 I ,

“F R S B.”36 T :

C C .

I “S P,” :

Some school districts operate successful instructional and related support programs specifically designed to address the needs of disruptive and potentially disruptive students. In-building suspension programs in whichdisruptive students attend classes (in a classroom or facility separate fromother students) are usually effective and receive support from parents and teachers. Systematic intervention programs (in which students with potential behavioral and academic problems are identified and specially supported)and alternative learning centers have significantly reduced the number of instances requiring discipline in some schools. Te initiative for implementing such programs rests with the district.37

T C :

1. implement alternative learning programs which provide instructional and related support to disruptive or potentially disruptive students. Te focus of such programs should be on early identification and prevention.

2. adopt, consistent with State Board of Education accreditation standards,comprehensive policies regarding student behavior which provide:

• a code of student conduct (student participation in development promotes peer enforcement);

• a method for communicating school district rules and procedures to parents,students, and employees; and

32 Id . 11.

33 Id . 12.

34 House Res. Org., supra 2, 6.

35 . G. E. O N. WPC-6 (J 7, 1979).

36 Governor’s Advisory Comm. on Educ., Report and Recommendations 8 (1980).

37 Id .



appendix

A History

• a procedure for maintaining written documentation that each parent and/or guardian and each student has read, understands, and has signed the district’s code of student conduct and compulsory attendance provisions .38

T ’

C C.39

Select Committee on Public Education (SCOPE)

I 1981, fi 67 L, L

S C P E (SCOPE) “

.” T

SCOPE ,40

fi “ .”41 T

“ .”42

T “-

,”43 SCOPE ff

.44

D 1979-80 , 2,043; , 1,890

.45 O ,

21 .46 T

G’ A C, ,

— 67 L’

6,000 .47

B SCOPE , 11 . 48 T

10

. T ,

“(1)

; (2) ; (3) ; (4)

; (5) -

.”49 T

“[]

38 Id . 8.

39 Id . 9.

40 House Res. Org., supra 2.41 Select Comm. on Public Educ., Alternative Instructional Arrangements (1981).

42 Id . 18-20.

43 Id . 18.

44 Id .

45 Id .

46 Id .

47 Id.

48 Id .

49 Id . 19.



appendix

A History

.”50 W , 10

5,310 97 “.”51

T - (ISS), 90

5,000 ISS .52

E ’ ISS 50

; 73 10 .53

F, SCOPE C C.54 T

A G’ , S

B E.

I , C :

In alternative instructional arrangements dealing with disruptive students,the success rate of returning these students to the normal classroom environment rather than out-of-school suspension (OSS) appears to be significant. Clearly,there are a number of factors affecting this success rate—the root of the

problem behavior, parental involvement, support services available, and the student’s attitude about himself.

Care should be taken in identifying and evaluating disruptive students since the primary goal of the school should be the normal progression of the student in a healthy environment…It is in certain cases where support services are required in addition to those found in the regular classroom, however, that some type of alternative instructional arrangement appears to become feasible.55

I , SCOPE , ,

fi . T fi

’ ,

.56 N

—,

S

“ , …fi[]

.”57

T 1983 L fi

E C SCOPE .

C fi.58

50 Id .51 Id .

52 Id . 20.

53 Id .

54 Id .

55 Id . 22.

56 Select Comm. on Public Educ., Executive Summary and Reportof the Edit and Review Committee 23 (1982).

57 Id .

58 House Res. Org., supra 2.



appendix

A History

The Perot Committee

A 1983 L S,

. T G W’

1983 , S G L

.59 C, S C

P E (SCOPE) , H. R P, fl, C.60 A , -

N C E E

“ A Nation at Risk: Te Educational Imperative for Educational Reform.”61 T

U.S. , “

.”62

T ’ SCOPE fi,

C “ []

.”63 C, fi

. T C C C ,

.64 T C

- .65 I

, SCOPE

:

C. Upon enrollment in a guidance center/alternative program, the district, parent and student shall develop a “contractual agreement” that specifies responsibilities of both parent and student to include:

1. student behavioral and learning objectives;

2. parent required attendance at specified meetings/conferences for teacher review of student progress;

3. parent written acknowledgement of understanding and accepting outlined responsibilities to attend conferences and to meet other objectives as defined by the district to aid student remediation;

4. district superintendent authority to seek a district court order requiring parental compliance with the contractual agreement, enforced with court power of contempt.66

59 Id. 7.

60 Id .

61 M K, supra 1, 65; House Res. Org., supra 2, 7.

62 M K, supra 1, 65.

63 Select Comm. on Public Educ., Recommendations 3 (1984).

64 Id . 19.

65 Id . 23.

66 Id . 23.



appendix

A History

T SCOPE “D M P.” I

, C :

A. Te (Central Education) Agency shall review and approve a variety of discipline management programs to be implemented by school districts.School districts shall adopt an Agency approved discipline management

program by 1986. An approved discipline management program shall include but not be limited to:

1. Commitment, cooperation, and involvement of school district administrators, teachers, parents, and students in the programdevelopment.

2. Development of a Student Code of Conduct that is clearly defined and enforced. Tis Code shall establish district expectations and provide for the specific consequences for violation. Tis Code shall at least contain the provisions established under the Attorney General’s Code of Conduct in1980.

3. Designation of the person(s) in each school with specific training for discipline management implementation and program assessment, and for the specific identification and referral of students for alternative school/ community guidance centers.

4. Encouragement of the Regional Education Service Center for assistance in the development of appropriate discipline management and inservice training for the district.

5. Parental responsibility as an integral part of the discipline management program, and specifically outlined roles and responsibilities for parent,student, and administration such that school districts shall require:

a. the presence of a parent or guardian to enroll a student each year;

b. a minimum of two parent/teacher conferences during the school year;

c. parent training workshops for home reinforcement of student study skills and specific curriculum objectives;

d. written acknowledgement by the parents that they understand and accept all of the above.

B. Te Agency shall assist school districts in the development of discipline

management programs by recommending specific training programs available at institutions of higher education such as the Southwest exas Discipline raining Institute.

C. Te Agency shall monitor the enforcement of an approved discipline management program through the accreditation process. Te Agency shall make specific recommendations for improvement in a district’s discipline management program and establish procedure for follow up.



appendix

A History

D. Te teacher performance evaluation process required for career ladder implementation shall include specific measures for evaluating discipline management procedures used by the classroom teacher.

E. School districts shall verify to the Agency by year 1986 that every teacher in the district has received specific training in the approved

discipline program. Tis training shall occur either through inservice or other special instructional arrangement by the district. School districts shall use inservice programs to reinforce teacher training in discipline management.67

T fl

. T E C

P C’ fl ,

. T

-- (OSS) ,

“ .” T

E C:

SUBCHAPER R. DISCIPLINE MANAGEMEN PROGRAMS

Sec. 21.701. ADOPION AND APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS. Eachschool district shall adopt and implement a discipline management program.Before implementation, the proposed program must be submitted to the Central Education Agency, which shall review and approve or reject the program.

Sec. 21.702. CONEN OF APPROVED PROGRAMS. o be approved,a discipline management program must:

(1) encourage the commitment, cooperation, and involvement of school district administrators, teachers, parents, and students in the development of the program;

(2) encourage the use of the regional education service center to assist in developing the program and providing training to teachers and administrators;

(3) require the designation of a person in each school with special training in discipline management to implement and assess the program in that school and to identify and refer appropriate students to school-community guidance programs;

(4) require the development of a student Code of Conduct that clearly describes the district’s expectations with respect to student conduct,including provisions similar to the Attorney General’s Proposed Voluntary Student Code of Conduct of 1980, and specifies the consequences of violating the code;

67 Id . 24-26.



appendix

A History

(5) specifically outline the responsibilities of teachers, administrators, parents,and students in the discipline management program; and

(6) make parental involvement an integral part of the discipline management program, requiring:

(A) at least two parent-teacher conferences during each school year;

(B) parent training workshops for home reinforcement of study skills and specific curriculum objectives; and

(C) a written statement by each parent that the parent understands and consents to the responsibilities outlined in the program.68

T “

.”69 I

.70

T P C

. T C

:

Sec. 21.301 REMOVAL OF INCORRIGIBLE PUPILS; ALERNAIVE EDUCAION PROGRAM. (a) Te board of trustees of a school district or the board’s designate, on finding a pupil guilty of incorrigible conduct,may remove the pupil to an alternative education program. Te board or its designate may not suspend or expel the pupil except as provided by Section 21.3011 of this code.

(b) o find a pupil guilty of incorrigible conduct, the board of trustees or the board’s designate, at a hearing that provides procedural due process,must find:

(1) that the pupil’s continued presence in the regular classroom program or at the home campus presents a clear, present, and continuing danger of physical harm to the pupil or to other individuals; or

(2) that:

(A) the pupil has engaged in serious or persistent misbehavior that threatens to impair the educational effi ciency of the school;

(B) the misbehavior violates specific, published standards of conduct for the school district; and

(C) all reasonable alternatives to the pupil’s regular classroom program,including a variety of discipline management techniques, have been exhausted.

68 . HB 72, 69 L., R.S. (1985).

69 Id .

70 Id .



appendix

A History

(c) Te pupil’s parent or representative is entitled to notice of and to participate in a disciplinary proceeding under this section.

(d) Except as provided by this subsection, the term of a removal under this section may not exceed the end of the semester during which the conduct that directly led to the removal occurred. If the conduct occurred during

the final six-week reporting period of a semester, the term of the removal may exceed the end of that semester but may not exceed the end of the next semester.

(e) Te board of trustees or its designate shall make reasonable efforts to provide for the continuing education of a pupil removed under this section, including providing for the pupil to be in:

(1) a supervised educational setting, such as:

(A) in-school suspension;

(B) reassignment of classes;

(C) transfer to a different school campus;

(D) transfer to a school-community guidance center; and

(E) assignment to a community-based alternative school; or

(2) an unsupervised educational setting, including home-based instruction.

(f ) a pupil who is removed for being truant or tardy may not be placed in anunsupervised educational setting.

(g) A teacher may remove a pupil from class in order to maintain effective discipline in the classroom. Te principal shall respond by employing

disciplinary alternatives consistent with local policy.71

T

“[]

’ .”72

E

S B E .73

F, :

Sec. 21.3011. EXPULSION OF INCORRIGIBLE PUPIL. (a) A pupil who has assaulted a teacher or other individual on school property may be

removed immediately from class and expelled without resort to an alternative education program under Section 21.301 of this code if, in the opinion of the board of trustees or the board’s designate, the pupil’s continued presence in the class presents a clear, present, and continuing danger of physical harm to the pupil or to other individuals on school property.

71 Id .

72 Id .

73 Id .



appendix

A History

(b) If the board of trustees or the board’s designate determines that a pupil,after having been placed in an alternative education program under Section 21.301 of this code, has continued to be guilty of incorrigible conduct to the extent that keeping the pupil in the program or the schools would seriously impair the ability of the program or the schools to provide education to other students and that no further reasonable

efforts to provide for the continuing education of the pupil can be made,the board or its designate by written order may expel the pupil from the school system. Te board or its designate shall set a term for the expulsion,which may not extend beyond the current term of the school year except as provided by Section 21.301(d) of this code.

(c) A decision to expel a pupil under this section may be appealed to the board of trustees.

(d) Te board or its designate shall deliver a copy of the order expelling the pupil to the pupil and pupil’s parent or guardian. Te board or its designate shall also deliver a copy of the order to the authorized offi cer of the juvenile court in the county in which the pupil resides. Te offi cer shall determine whether a petition should be:

(1) filed alleging that the pupil is in need of supervision; or

(2) referred to an appropriate state agency.

(e) Each school district shall provide each teacher and administrator witha copy of Section 21.301 of this code and this section and a copy of any local policies related to those sections.74

I 1986, 69 L,

C

.75 I

ff, fi, ,

ff .76 H,

,

.77

D E C,

- . I ,

, .

U C, ff fi “”

. H, : 1984 1986 E C,

ffi fi .

74 Id .

75 House Res. Org., Special Legislative Report, Wrap-Up of the Special Sessions (1986); ex.Educ. Code Ann. § 21.301(V 1987).

76 ex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.3011 (V 1987).

77 Id .



appendix

A History

I “ ”

,

“ff” ,

ff. T

-- 1990’, fi

S .

Zero Tolerance Policy and School Discipline

I ,

-1990’. T “

” 1980’.

I ,

“ ”

. “Z ”

-- .78 T fi

’ , ,

U S .79

T “ ” , , E S

W J. B 1986 C

.80 B , “W .”81 C

B , D-F

S C A

,

.82 --

C.

T ff G F S Z A C C A 1990. T G F S Z A

fi 1,000 . T “D F S

Z” ,

D A R E (D.A.R.E.)

. P G H. B

,

I am…disturbed by provisions…that unnecessarily constrain the discretionof State and local governments. Examples are found in…itle XV’s “drug- free school zones” program…Most egregiously, [the Gun Free School Zones

Act] inappropriately overrides legitimate State firearms laws with a new and unnecessary Federal law. Te policies reflected in these provisions could

78 K K, Zero olerance: Is Mandatory Punishment in Schools Unfair?, CQ Researcher, V. 10,N. 9, 185 (2000); Am. Psychol. Ass’n., Are Zero olerance Policies Effective in the Schools?

An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations ().

79 K, supra 78, 188.

80 Id . 194.

81 Id.

82 Id .



appendix

A History

legitimately be adopted by the States, but they should not be imposed on the States by the Congress.83

T U S S C P B. I 1995, C

fi C G F

S Z A.84 I C’ fi, C

G F S A 1994, .85

T G F S A G 2000: E A A. I

— S E B

.86 G 2000 S S

A .87 T A

fi ff G 7 A:

(7) Safe, Disciplined, and Alcohol-and-Drug-Free Schools –

(A) By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

(B) Te objectives for this goal are that –

(i) every school will implement a firm and fair policy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and alcohol;

(ii) parents, businesses, governmental and community organizations will work together to ensure the rights of students to study in a safe and secure environment that is free of drugs and crime, and that schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe haven for all children;

(iii) every local educational agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are free of violence and the unauthorized presence of weapons;

(iv) every local educational agency will develop a sequential,comprehensive kindergarten through twelfth grade drug and alcohol prevention program;

(v) drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive health education;

(vi) community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support; and

(vii) every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment.88

83 S P G B U S S. 3266, 26 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1944(D 3, 1990).

84 United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

85 K, supra 78, 195.

86 Id. 197.

87 G 2000: E A A, H.R. 184, 103 C. (1994).

88 Id.



appendix

A History

T A ’ ,

G W. B ’ “ ”

’ .

Texas Roots—Zero Tolerance Discipline

T S B E (SBOE) “ ” 1992,89fl

’

. T , SBOE R S S

V P.90 I 1993, SBOE J P C

.91 A 1993, F “ ”

, ,

.92 G A R

J 1994,

.93 H, “ ”

G W. B G N 1994.

D , G W. B

ff, “ ” .94 A

, S S A 74 L— fi

— :

Another major priority must be the education of our children. Educationis to our state what national defense is to the federal government. If we donot do the job well, we risk our entire future. During my campaign, I met many dedicated and talented teachers, administrators, and school board members. exas has the best education professionals in the country. We donot need to change the people. We must change the system.

We face two major issues: how to fund our schools and how to govern them...exas must...have safe classrooms. We must adopt one policy for those who terrorize teachers or disrupt classrooms – zero tolerance.

School districts must be encouraged, not mandated, to start “ough Love Academies.” Tese alternative schools would be staffed by a different type of teacher, perhaps retired Marine drill sergeants, who understand that discipline and love go hand in hand.

89 exas Education Agency, Safe exas Schools: Policy Initiatives and Programs (1994).

90 Id. 11.

91 Id .

92 Id. 18.

93 Id .

94 See O I, George W. Bush on Education, available at ://..//G_W__B_E.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Education.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Education.htm



appendix

A History

If we are going to save a generation of young people, our children must know they will face bad consequences for bad behavior. Sadly, too many youths are not getting that message. oo many juveniles do not respect the law.

Our new juvenile justice system must say to our children: We love you, but we are going to hold you accountable for your actions.

o send that message, exas must immediately confront the critical shortage of juvenile detention beds. We must be smart and creative by converting existing space to house violent juveniles.

We must also build community-based boot camps and detention centers.I envision a juvenile detention system that requires juvenile offenders to perform community service as part of their sentences.

I commend Senator Harris and Representative Goodman for their efforts to rewrite the juvenile code. exans must lower to 14 the age at whichthe most violent juveniles can be tried as adults. We should expand the determinate sentencing statute. And our law enforcement and educationoffi cials must have the ability to share juvenile information and records across jurisdictional boundaries.

Discipline, strong values, and strict rules go hand in hand with our love for our children. And make no mistake, these reforms are designed to save children. I believe they can be saved.95

I , F R 74 L, J S C

R C E A :

Tere should be zero tolerance for unruly, disruptive, or threatening students,and teachers should have the authority to remove these students from the classroom. School districts should establish a plan to implement this zerotolerance policy, including placing these students in an alternative educationsetting as an option to suspension or expulsion. Students found guilty of specified criminal offenses should not be returned to the public school systemuntil successful completion of the sentence imposed by the court. Finally, the legislature should allocate suffi cient funds to fully implement these policies.96

T ,

. T , “[] …

. T

, ,

, ’ .”97 I ,

G B’ ,

.

95 S.J. ., 74 L., R.S. 235-40 (1995)(S S A H G W. B).

96 Joint Select Comm. to Review the Central Educ. Agency,Final Report to the th Legislature, (1994).

97 Id. 17.



appendix

A History

T fi “ ” “

” , “

fi …

,

.”98

D 74

L S, —S B 1— E C. T “”

,

N C L B A.

T S S A, C 37

E C, . I

“” D A E P

(DAEP) J J A E P (JJAEP),

“” . I,

S, , E

C “ ” “

.”99

C 37 . I F R 75

L, S E C “

ffi .”100

T C 37, . I ,

C 37

10 . A

1995 , DAEP ,

.101

T ’

. I 1995 L R P P E, S

B E (SBOE) O 7, “S

.”102 A

, SBOE , “P

.”103 I 1999, A G J

C S V P F. T F R

98 Id . 20.

99 Senate Educ. Comm., Final Report to the th

Legislature, 9 (1996).100 Id. 8 .

101 See Intercultural Development Research Association, DAEPs in exas – What is Known; Whatis Needed (1999); Center for Public Policy Priorities, Violence and Weapons in exas Schools(1999); Am. Bar Ass’n, Report on the Legal Needs of Harris County Children (2004); HoggFoundation for Mental Health, School Discipline and Children with Serious EmotionalDisturbance (2004); exas Public Policy Foundation, Disciplinary Alternative EducationPrograms: What Is and What Should Be (2005); exas Public Policy Foundation, Schooling aNew Class of Criminals? Better Disciplinary Alternatives for exas Students (2006).

102 State Board of Education, Long-range Plan for Public Education 1996-2000 (1995).

103 Id . 37.



appendix

A History

F 2000

, , , .104

P

. A F

C 37 F’

“ , , ”—

“-.”105 T A P

E 1996, 2006.106

S , , ,

. D 2007 , 60

. O 60, :

• HB 8 –

P C ff ;107

• HB 121 – ;

• HB 278 – C 37

C C M C C ;108

• HB 426 – EA DAEP;109

• HB 2532 –

V ;110

• SB 6 – ff

JJAEP DAEP; .111

T C 37 , C 37

C 37

1995.112 T .

104 Attorney General’s School Violence Prevention ask Force, Final Report (2000).105 exas Federation of eachers, A Primer on the exas Safe Schools Law (2006),

available at ...

106 Association of exas Professional Educators, Report on the APE Discipline Survey (2006).

107 . H.B. 8, 80 L., R.S. (2007).

108 . H.B. 278, 80 L., R.S. (2007).

109 . H.B. 426, 80 L., R.S. (2007).

110 . H.B. 2532, 80 L., R.S. (2007).

111 . S.B. 6, 80 L., R.S. (2007).

112 H C. E., B A, . CSHB 2835, 80 L. S., R.S. (2007).

http://www.tx.aft.org/

http://www.tx.aft.org/





L E G I S L A I V E A N A L Y S I S :

E C, C 37, D; L & O

C 37 E C 1995, fi

. C 37

ff

. A ,

’

C C. T C 37,

1995, .

Student Code of Conduct

S 37.001() C C .1 T C C

ffi .2 W

, C C :

• ,

, ;

•

;

• ;

• ,

, :

◆ -;

◆ ;

1 ex. Educ. Code § 37.001().

2 Id .



appendix

Legislative Analysis

◆ ’ ;

◆ ’

’ ;

•

.3

I ’

Code of Conduct that results in suspension, removal to a DAEP, or expulsion.4 Te student

C C

, ,

intervening in student discipline problems.5 Tese methods must comply with the Admission,

R D (ARD) .6

T A S B M S C C.7

M , , .8

Removal from the Classroom

U S 37.002, ’ ffi “

ff .”9 T

C C.10

I , permanently remove

.11 A :

• ’

ff

’ ;

• , ,

’ ff

’ .12

A 37.002()

, - (ISS), DAEP.13 T

3 Id .

4 Id .

5 Id .

6 Id .

7 exas Association of School Boards, Model Code of Conduct,available at ://../////.

8 See Kerrville Independent School District, Student Code of Conduct; enaha IndependentSchool District, Student Code of Conduct; Mineral Wells Independent School District,Student Code of Conduct.

9 ex. Educ. Code § 37.002()(2006).

10 Id .

11 Id . § 37.002().

12 Id .

13 Id .

http://www.tasb.org/services/policy/publications/discipline/mscoc.aspx

http://www.tasb.org/services/policy/publications/discipline/mscoc.aspx



appendix


’ ’

( ) .14

I DAEP

( ), S 37.002()

. I

, ’ ’ .15

U S 37.003, -

ff.16 T

’

.17 T

.18

Suspension

S 37.005

C C.19 A .20 O--

(OSS) - (ISS)

, C 37

OSS. M

ISS.

Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs

U S 37.008, DAEP :

• I ’ ;

• I ff ;

• S DAEP

;

• F E, , , , -;

• P ’ ;

• P .21

A DAEP

.22

14 Id. § 37.002().

15 ex. Educ. Code § 37.002().

16 Id . § 37.003 (2006).

17 Id .

18 Id .

19 Id. § 37.005 (2006).

20 Id .

21 Id . § 37.008()(2006).

22 Id . § 37.007().



appendix


T DAEP fi

.23 Off- DAEP

E C.24 T

C

37. T 80 L 2007 DAEP -

( ’ , DAEP

).25 T EA “” DAEP, /

, ,

.26 H, EA

; , EA 2009

.27

S 10 ff ( )

DAEP .28 U ,

DAEP

fi .29

C 37 ff

may DAEP ( “ ”),

ff must DAEP (“

”).30 E DAEP;

J J A E P (JJAEP) ,

,

.

Mandatory Removal to DAEP

T E C ’

DAEP

, P C.31 A

300

- - :

• E ;

• E ;

• S, , , , fl

, , ;

23 Id .

24 Id. § 37.008().

25 HB 426, 80 L. S., R.S. (2007).

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id . §§ 37.006(); 37.007() (2006).

29 Id . 37.006()(1).

30 Id §§ 37.001; 37.006.

31 Id. § 37.006()(2006).



appendix


• S, , , , ,

fl ;

• E ff

;

• E ff

;

• E ff

.32

U S 37.006(),

, fi ,

OR

defined as a felony under itle 5 ( ,

ff).

I ff- , may

DAEP, . 33 A ,

DAEP ,

, .34

Discretionary Removal to DAEP

S 37.001 “

D A

E P (DAEP).”35 T “” :

• P “-” ;

• P BB ;

• P , , , ;

• P ;

• F ffl ;

• T , ff, ;

• I ;

• S ;

• I ;

32 Id .

33 Id . § 37.006().

34 Id . § 37.006().

35 Id . § 37.001(2).



appendix


• P ;

• P, , ;

• P ;

• P - ff ;

• M ff ffi

;

• I , , fl ;

• N- ;

• B, , ;

• S;

• D ff;

• H;

• O ff C C.36

U S 37.006(),

DAEP ff

- - :

• T

fi ff other than fi

5 P C ( , ff); 37

• T

.38

T “ ”

ff ff .39 E fi

,

DAEP “

.”40 T ,

’ C E.41

36 exas Association of School Boards, Chapter Offenses and Consequences (2006).

37 ex. Educ. Code § 37.006()(2006)( 5 P C, C A T P, , , ffi , ff, ff. ex. Penal Code, itle V (2006)).

38 Id .

39 Id . § 37.006().

40 Id . § 37.006().

41 Id . § 37.006()-().



appendix


A may

DAEP :

• T ’ ;

• T ;

• W ;

• W

.42

Expulsion

S 37.007 J

J A E P (JJAEP). I JJAEP

, .

A DAEP , ff

, ff.

Mandatory Expulsion

U S 37.007(),

ff -

- ff :

• U, , fi, , ,

fi P C. A , fi ,

.

• E , fi P C,

ff :

◆ A ,

◆ A

◆ M/

◆ I

◆ A

◆ A

◆ M◆ C

A must , , ,

, ,

300 , ff .43 M ff

42 Id . § 37.0081().

43 Id . § 37.007()(3).



appendix


fi P C; , “,

, ” fi.44

S 37.007() F G-

F S A. U , must

fi .45 T fi fi , ,

, , , .46

Discretionary Expulsion

U S 37.007(), may be expelled

ff ,

300 - -

:

• S, , , , fl

, , ;

• S, , , , , fl ;

• E ff

;

• A ;

• E ff

;

• E ff

P C.47

A may also be expelled 300 :

• E ;

• P fi, fi G-F S A, ;

• A , .48

A may “

’ C C” DAEP.49

44 See arkington ISD v. Ellis , 2206 WL 2289837 4.

45 ex. Educ. Code § 37.007().

46 S S A, 18 USC § 921.

47 ex. Educ. Code § 37.007()(2006).

48 Id .

49 Id . § 37.007().



appendix


Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP)

S JJAEP, DAEP,

JJAEP . T,

. S 37.011()

125,000

JJAEP, J P C.50

T 125,000 JJAEP, .51 S 37.011()

125,000 JJAEP

fi

S 37.007 3 F C

( ).52

C JJAEP DAEP E

C. B E, , ,

, -.53 T

’ ,

, .54 JJAEP , 180 .55 F , JJAEP

’ .56

Removal of a Student to a DAEP

S 37.009 DAEP.57

B DAEP,

.58 P , ’

fi .59 A ,

, , . 60 T

.61

T C

C.62 T DAEP , ,

50 Id . § 37.0011().

51 Id .

52 Id . § 37.011().

53 Id . § 37.011().

54 Id .55 Id . § 37.011().

56 Id . § 37.011().

57 Id . § 37.009.

58 Id .

59 Id .

60 Id . ( Goss v. Lopez , 419 U.S. 565 (1975) ).

61 Id .

62 Id .



appendix


: (1)

; (2) .63

A DAEP

: (1) ’

’

; (2) ’ C

C.64 T

.65

A 120 .66 A ,

, ’ ’

.67

H,

DAEP.68 T

.69

Expulsion of a Student

S 37.009

. B , “

ff

’

, , .”70 A ,

,

.71

I - ff ’

, ’ .72 I

’ ,

.73 T de novo

’ ffi .74

63 Id .

64 Id . § 37.009().

65 Id . § 37.0051().66 Id . § 37.009().

67 Id .

68 Id .

69 Id . § 37.008().

70 Id . § 37.009().

71 Id .

72 Id .

73 Id .

74 Id .



appendix


A :

• T ;

• E .75

I ’ C C,

.76

A ’ .77

Emergency Placement or Expulsion

T ’

DAEP :

• R ’ , ,

’ ff

, ’ , - ; 78

• R

.79

T DAEP

.80 A

E C

DAEP 81 T

“ ,” 10

’ .82

Discipline of Special Education Students

U I D E A (IDEA) 2004,

.83 A , ,

DAEP 10 unless it is determined

75 Id . § 37.009().

76 Id .77 Id .

78 Id . § 37.019.

79 Id . § 37.019.

80 Id .

81 Id .

82 Id .

83 L W, Te Special Education Due Process Hearing – Discipline and Behavioral Issues Under the New IDEA ,in State Bar of exas, CLE Materials for Special Education Issues and the Juvenile JusticeSystem (J 2006).



appendix


that the misconduct was not related to the student’s disability .84 A

10

.85

T ’ :

• T ,

’ ;

• T ’

’ I E P (IEP).86

D ’

“ .”87 T ,

, ’ IEP 10

’ .88 T

, ,

, , .89

I

’ ,

.90 I , ’ IEP

. I

,

fi.91 T , ,

. I ,

45

’ .92

A ’

.93

I ’

,

84 Id. 2. A “IEP” I E P, ff .

85 K J. L, An Overview of Disciplining Students with Disabilities under IDEA 2, in State Bar ofexas, CLE Materials for Special Education Issues and the Juvenile Justice System ( J 2007).

T ISS , ISS. Id. 3.

86 Id. 5.

87 Id . 3.

88 Id. 6-7.

89 Id .

90 Id. 7.

91 Id. 7-8.

92 Id. 9.

93 Id. 12.



appendix


.94 H,

,

fi

.95 IDEA

10 .96

IDEA .97 T A C

.98 I ffi ’

.99 T

.100

C 37 E C

. S 37.003 ’

’ IDEA.101

I , S 37.004

. U ,

“ , , (ARD).”102 T

.103 T fi

“

.”104 I

fi .105

C 37 fi, , ,

.106 S 37.0021

:

• A , ,

fi , , .

• A

( fi

fi , ,

50 ).

94 Id .

95 Id . 8.

96 Id .

97 Id. 9-10.98 ex. Admin. Code § 89.1165 (2006).

99 L W, supra 83, 11.

100 Id. 12.

101 ex. Educ. Code § 37.003.

102 Id . § 37.004. T “ARD” .

103 Id .

104 Id .

105 Id .

106 Id . § 37.0021.



appendix


T C E -

, ,

. T

,

.

• T C E

.

• T ’ , fi

-

, fi

.

• T ffi

, , .107

Resources for Students

C 37

, . T :

• C- C L Offi . E

ffi - . T ffi

’ ,

.108

• S-C G C. S -

, ff

. T ff , ,

ffi , ffi , ,

ff ’ .109

• C P. S

.110

T E A

.

Case Law Interpreting Chapter 37M

fi

,

107 Id . § 37.0021.

108 Id . § 37.014.

109 Id . § 37.051.

110 Id . § 37.052.



appendix


.111 E

. I Nevares v. San Marcos I.S.D., F C U.S. C A DAEP

C 37 E C

ffi

.112 A C, N

D A E P (DAEP), ,

.113 I Nevares ,

DAEP C

37.114 T C 37, ’ DAEP

fi .115

M , Ponce v. Socorro I.S.D., D C

fi

DAEP ff .116 T

fi.117 T D C

Ponce Nevares , ff

’

.118

J , arkington I.S.D. v. Ellis, ’

’ ,

’ .119 D ,

’ “ ”

.120 T

fl ’ E C’ .121

W Ponce arkington

. W

’ , Ponce arkington

.

111 See Nevares v. San Marcos ISD,1997 U.S. A. LEXIS 14955 (5 C.); Aledo I.S.D. v. Reese , 987 S.W.2953 (1999); Hankins v. P.H., 1 S.W.3 352 (1999); Friona I.S.D. v. King , 15 S.W.3 653 (2000); Stafford

Municipal School District v. L.P., 64 S.W.3 559 (2001); Flour Bluff I.S.D. v. R.S., 2006 . A. LEXIS3031 (2006); see also A’ G. J C, O N. JC-0504 (M15, 2002)(fi “” E C §37.123, “ ”).

112 Nevares , 1997 U.S. A. LEXIS 14955 6; see also Stafford Municipal School District , 64 S.W.3 563.113 Nevares , 1997 U.S. A. LEXIS 14955 4.

114 Aledo I.S.D, 987 S.W. 3 957; Hankins, 1 S.W.3 354; Flour Bluff I.S.D., 2006 . A. LEXIS 9.

115 Id .

116 Ponce v. Socorro I.S.D, 432 F. S. 2 682, 684 (2006).

117 Id .

118 Id. 691.

119 arkington I.S.D. v. Ellis , 200 S.W.3 794, 802 (2006).

120 Id. 802.

121 Id.



A S T Y...T

fi. A ff

Scott Fletcher Elizabeth Pannill Vinson &

Elkins LLP S--P .

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, P.C.P, K

Denton, Navarro, Rocha & Bernal, PC

D, L

H, R

H, G

P, A

P, E

Escamilla & Poneck, Inc.

A, JC, J

D, B

E, PH, J

H, J

J, W P, D

ExxonMobil

A, J

A, S

B, W C.

C, D

D, Jff

D, C F

M, G

M, D

M, E.

M, P O.

Pé , J M.

R, K

R, S

S, L V.

S, C

W, M C.

W, R

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

B, P

C, M

J, C

J, D

M, C

W, C

W, L



Mayer Brown LLP

B C

S P

L H

M

O V

.H. W

V Z

Vinson & Elkins LLP

A, W

B, C

B, L

B, J

B, B D, M

D, B

Dff,

F, B

F, S

F, M

F, J Sffi

G, D

G, C

H, D

J, B

J, B

J, K, E

M, M

ME, L

M, M

M, W

N, M

P,

P, E

P, C

R, P

S, E

S, M

Sff, GT, L

W, S

W, C

W, A

W, C

Wff, C

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

C M. L

Patton Boggs LLPB, J

F, S

G, J

H, J

L, L

M, R

Pfl, E

Rff, S

R, J

S, J

, P





J. C D, Chair Emeritus G, D, H & M,* Austin

R. J G, Chair G & B, LL P,* Austin

R L, Chair Elect M & L LL P,* Houston

J C, Secretary-reasurer C L F, P.C.,* Austin

M L, Immediate Past Chair G W S LLP,* Dallas

S J. C Dallas

M CV & E LL P,* Dallas

D P. Dff B B L.L.P.,* Houston

A D. E A E L F,* Austin

E F. F A G S H & F LLP,* Austin

D GD G & A,* Houston

R GG & B L.L.P.,* Houston

S GD & LB LL P,* Houston

C P HS O C, Houston

G HffT & K LLP,* Dallas

J J L F,* Austin

S K W, D.C.

C K M B LLP,* Houston

L KF & J L.L.P.,* Houston

E M L L B & L LL P,* Dallas

B () MM, B M, L.L.P.,* Brownsville

MC T U S L,* Austin

C PB & G LLP,* Houston

D SG, S & W, L.L.P.,* Houston

D C. H & B, LL P,* Dallas

A V FG , LL P,* Houston

M WS G L.L.P.,* Houston

L WSan Antonio

* affi liations listed for identification only

E X A S A P P L E S E E D B O A R D O F D I R E C O R S



W W W . E X A S A P P L E S E E D . N E





Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rick-thoma
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Texas’ School to Prison Pipeline: The Impact of School Discipline and Zero Tolerance, Texas...

Documents