Texas DAEPs: Exposing Systemic Inequities and Educational Injustice

For nearly thirty years, the Texas Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) have operated as a parallel system within the state’s public education landscape. Intended as a short-term intervention for students with behavioral issues, these programs have increasingly come under scrutiny for perpetuating racial disparities, disproportionately impacting Black students, and raising serious questions about equity and educational opportunity. 

This article explores the longstanding concerns surrounding Texas DAEPs, examining the historical context, the data that fuels the debate, and the impact on the lives of young Black learners.

The Genesis of DAEPs and Their Intended Purpose

The Texas Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP) was established in 1995 as part of the Texas Safe Schools Act.

The concept of DAEPs was initially established in the mid-1990s to provide a structured and disciplined environment for students who had violated state criminal codes. The goal was to remove disruptive students from regular classrooms, allowing them to continue their education while maintaining a safe learning environment for others. While proponents of DAEPs argue that these programs are necessary to ensure order and accountability, critics have argued that they have evolved into a punitive system that disproportionately targets and marginalizes minority students.

Texas’s version was already off track as early as 1999. That year, the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) conducted its initial study of the then three-year-old Texas DAEPs; a study they would update in 2009. Whereas the intended purpose of DAEPs was to offer a temporary alternative, where students would receive academic instruction and behavioral support meant to enable them to return to their regular classrooms, that was not the reality in Texas. 

Texas legislators had allowed several somewhat vague discretionary removals under which schools could reassign students to DAEPs for behaviors as “disruptive” as chewing gum in class. Thus, DAEPs quickly became a dumping ground for an ever-expanding definition of disruptive behaviors. No longer does the code fit on a simple chart, as it did in 1999; the latest version is 11 pages long. 

Gone was the expectation to adhere to the framework of providing behavioral support for such students. In fact, the number of Black and brown children spending extended periods in DAEPs, experiencing limited educational opportunities, and facing stigmatization only grew. Since the implementation of DAEPs in 1996, this diversion from the original intent has only exacerbated concerns about the equity and effectiveness of these programs.

Disproportionate Representation: The Data Tells a Story

Over the past three decades, numerous reports and studies have highlighted the stark disparities in DAEP placements, with Black students consistently overrepresented. Statistical analyses reveal a troubling pattern: Black students in Texas are significantly more likely to be sent to DAEPs than their White peers, even for similar or less serious infractions. Data compiled by Texas Education Agency since 2007 reveal that this discrepancy cannot be explained solely by differences in behavior, leading many to conclude that racial bias plays a significant role in these placements.

The data highlights the disparity clearly. The significant overrepresentation of Black students in DAEP placements has been a persistent issue, fueling concerns that these programs are not being applied equitably. These patterns, revealed across various data sets and studies, underscore the need for a deeper examination of the factors contributing to these disparities and their potential consequences.

Subjectivity and Bias: The Role of Discretionary Discipline in DAEP Placements

One of the key factors contributing to the disproportionate placement of Black students in DAEPs is the subjective nature of many disciplinary decisions. School policies often include broad categories of offenses that leave room for interpretation, such as “disruptive behavior” or “insubordination.” This discretion, while seemingly necessary, can inadvertently introduce racial bias, leading to Black students being disciplined more harshly for the same or similar actions as their White peers. 

In their 2009 report, IDRA predicted that the state would be sued for these disparities. By 2024, the prediction came to pass when Bonham ISD was sued by no fewer than four civil rights organizations for discriminating against two Black students in the district. In one remarkable example, a special education student was referred to truancy court for missing days of school due to mandated court appearances. Only to end up jailed and then threatened with additional jail if he failed to get a positive report from the DAEP each week.

Research has shown that implicit bias can affect how educators perceive and respond to student behavior. This bias can lead to Black students being viewed as more aggressive or threatening, even when their behavior is no different from that of their White counterparts. Exacerbating these biases is the fluidity of whiteness in Texas, as most Latino students also self-identify as white, an option not afforded to Black students.

The subjective nature of disciplinary decisions, combined with the potential for implicit bias, creates a system where racial disparities can easily persist and even be reinforced. In Texas, this systematic bias created a situation where discretionary DAEP removals outnumbered mandatory removals until the 2022-2023 school year.

The Impact on Students: Educational and Social Consequences

The placement of students in DAEPs can have profound and lasting consequences on their educational trajectories and social development. Students in these programs often experience limited access to rigorous coursework, advanced classes, and extracurricular activities. They may also face stigma and isolation, which can further impact their academic motivation and self-esteem.

Moreover, the extended removal from the regular classroom setting can lead to significant learning loss and disengagement from school. Many students who spend time in DAEPs struggle to catch up academically when they return to regular classes. This academic disruption, coupled with the social and emotional challenges of being labeled and isolated, can contribute to higher dropout rates and lower educational attainment among Black students.

Calls for Reform: Addressing Systemic Inequities

The persistent disparities in DAEP placements have led to increasing calls for reform. Advocates and community leaders are pushing for changes to school disciplinary policies, increased training on implicit bias, and greater accountability for ensuring equitable treatment of all students. Some of the proposed reforms include limiting the use of exclusionary discipline, investing in restorative justice practices, and increasing the availability of support services within schools.

However, Texas has also boxed the state into a corner with the Legislature’s quest to eliminate DEI in all public education institutions. In short, it is difficult to surmise how the state can implement solutions for racial disparities when it seems committed to ignoring race. 

For example, House Bill 6, touted as “expanding” discipline options, now allows schools to teach students assigned to alternative education remotely, despite having identified remote learning as having contributed to a “learning loss” during its implementation during the COVID pandemic.   

A Continuing Struggle for Equity

Addressing the systemic inequities within DAEPs requires a comprehensive approach that involves examining policies, providing training, and monitoring data to ensure accountability. Creating a fair and just disciplinary system requires a concerted effort to address both overt and implicit biases and to ensure that all students have equal access to educational opportunities. 

Sadly, it would appear that Black students still have a long way to go for equity.