Placement in a DAEP was initially considered mandatory for conduct punishable under Zero Tolerance policies.
A report by the Hogg Foundation (2006) indicated that for the 2005-2006 school year in the state of Texas, 70% of DAEP placements were at the discretion of the home school (one of the few states that publicly reports such data).
In the case of school discipline, the more severe punishment would be placement in a DAEP.
In 1984, the Texas legislature amended the Texas Education Code to require each school district to develop a DAEP for students found guilty of serious or persistent misbehavior.
The Texas Educational Code requires each school district to provide a DAEP for the purpose of removing dangerous students from their classrooms without interrupting their education.
The intent of the Texas DAEP legislation is evident in the kinds of conduct for which students must be placed in a DAEP.
Researchers in the field of social justice found a correlation between DAEP placement and prison which they described as the school-to-prison pipeline (Wald & Losen, 2003).
Typically DAEP students struggle with one or several of the following concerns: low academic achievement, learning disabilities, attention deficit with hyperactivity, communication disorders, sensory impairment, and/or chronic truancy (Foley & Pang, 2006).
The opportunity to receive funding for service projects was announced to all students at one DAEP in a large school district in the southwest by the grant facilitators, teachers, and administrators.
Surprisingly, reusing and relocating are both almost entirely new to DAEP
99) One of the primary criticisms that Texas Appleseed listed in an April 2010 report was that students were being expelled from DAEPs for nebulous reasons.
Texas, a state where the legislative language requires administrators to consider intent, is an example of mandatory legislation that looks universally effective on paper but still allows zero tolerance attitudes to be present through removal to DAEPs and ticketing procedures.