Home ::
TCTA offered comments on proposed Texas Education Agency rules setting out standards for the operation of school district disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEPs).
These standards were required due to the passage of House Bill 426 during the 80th Texas Legislature. House Bill 426 required school districts with DAEPs to adopt specific minimum standards to ensure a quality education for students enrolled in such programs.
The proposed minimum standards for the operation of DAEPs include provisions relating to student-to-teacher ratios; student health and safety; reporting of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of students; training for teachers in behavior management and safety procedures; and planning for a student's transition from a DAEP to a regular campus.
TCTA’s comments included requests for clarification on several provisions as well as suggestions to add language clarifying that it is incumbent upon the school district to provide opportunities for any of the required staff training set out in the standards. Read TCTA’s comments below:
To Whom It May Concern:
The Texas Classroom Teachers Association, representing 50,000 classroom teachers and instructional personnel statewide, has the following input regarding Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 103, Health and Safety, Subchapter CC, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Safe Schools, §103.1201, Standards for the Operation of School District Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs.
TCTA is concerned about a contradiction in §103.1201(f). It first states that the DAEP shall provide a program that leads to graduation in “each student’s currently enrolled foundation curriculum,” then later states in §103.1201(f)(1) that the graduation plan may not be altered. This would lead one to believe all curriculum (including extracurricular studies) must be provided in a DAEP setting. TCTA believes this would put an undue hardship on DAEPs, while ensuring that foundation school curriculum is offered would not do so.
TCTA is also concerned about the statement in §103.1201(h) which states that “Each DAEP is responsible for the safety and supervision of the students assigned to the program.” This type of statement is not found elsewhere in the Texas Administrative Code and we fear potential ramifications to statutory immunity provided in §22.051 of the Texas Education Code.
In §103.1201(h)(2) and (i) we would like to see statements such as those found in §89.1053 of the Texas Administrative Code, “Procedures for Use of Restraint and Time-Out,” that make it clear that it is incumbent upon the school district to provide staff with opportunities for training. Specifically, language such as, “Training for school employees, volunteers, or independent contractors shall be provided,” “must receive training in,” “must be provided as part of a program,” and “shall receive instruction in.” This type of language would ensure that the onus is on the school district to provide opportunities for staff to participate in training.
We are also concerned about the language in Section 103.1201(j). The term “admission procedures” is not clear and may imply that a student can be admitted or denied admission based on this language, while Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code requires such removal.
Finally, we would suggest clarification on the term “collaborative groups” in (k)(1). We are unsure what this term means and who would be required to participate.
Thank you for this opportunity for express our views, and we appreciate your consideration of our perspective.
Texas Classroom Teachers Association
Web posted: 08/27/08
