HISD Fails To Address Discipline Concerns

Is discipline at your school out of control? In December HFT brought into consultation several concerns to the administrations attention regarding student discipline.The responses we received indicated that the administration simply does not understand the magnitude of this problem. We are not making this up. Teachers and support staff are fearful for their safety and for the safety of the students. We cannot continue to allow the type of student behavior described last month to continue. When will HISD make it clear that they will not accept disrespect, cussing, skipping, and bullying in the schools? The numbers referred for discipline barely scratch the surface. Below is from the minutes of the December Professional Consultation meeting:

HFT Items

A.   Campus Discipline

We are getting repeated and very disturbing reports from schools regarding student discipline. We will bring one of them (very long) into the meeting. To sum up the complaints:

1. Teachers are receiving no support regarding student discipline. Students regularly get away with actions including disrespect, cussing, skipping, and bullying. Students are sent to the office only to be returned. There is no fear on the part of students of any consequences.

Response: As of December 6, 158 students from the middle school level had been referred for discipline.  Ninety students (59%) were referred under discretionary placement.  The other 68 students (41%) were referred for either mandatory or local mandatory placements.  Out of the 90 referred discretionary placements, the Middle School Office only denied two; those were instances where the schools did not demonstrate that they had followed district guidelines, as they did not allow for the student’s due process. In both instances, the discipline infraction was a Level I offense that should be handled on campus.   

Additionally, HFT referenced the incident at Deady MS in which the SSO became involved because the assistant principal did not follow the guidelines. In this instance, twelve referrals were sent to the Middle School Office and all twelve students committed the same offense. The incidents were cut and pasted and in some cases the names were not changed.  The principal of the school was not notified of the discipline and the referrals were sent without her reviewing the process. The SSO had to intervene to coach the new assistant principal through the proper documentation process.  Four of the twelve referrals resulted in discretionary placements and the other eight were Level I classroom management issues that should be handled by the teacher.  

2. Students often are not sent to ISS.

Response:  Students are placed in ISS depending on the infraction.  Again, Deady MS was in question and the campus and the district are addressing those issues.  Luis Gavito, Armando Alaniz, and Tony D'Angelo conducted a campus walk to determine needs and make recommendations regarding discipline programs.  The principal is being mentored and a campus wide discipline program is being implemented.  

3. There is a huge backlog (so reported) in getting students removed to disciplinary alternative schools. Some principals have informed faculty members that they are forbidden from sending students to disciplinary alternatives by their SIO.

Response:  Please see above. There was one instance in which the SSO became involved and that was due to the school not following the guidelines.  The SSO did not forbid any referrals but coached the administration through the proper process for documenting student behaviors and ensuring that the due process for students was followed.  The referrals, twelve, had been cut and pasted and the referrals all indicated the same offense, at the same time, and on the same day by the different students. In some cases, the names had not been changed. The process typically involves a three-day suspension of students while the documentation is gathered and in some cases while a manifest determination is held for students with disabilities.  The process is not held up, but is a result of how accurately the schools have documented discipline in our systems.  Failure to follow the process by the campuses holds up the process, not the school offices.  

4. Why are SIOs part of the DAEP referral process?

Response: The SIO's are not part of the process. Again, one SSO was involved in coaching and ensuring that the law was followed and due process was followed by a school, Deady MS. 

5. What is the purpose of the “sentencing guidelines”? The name alone defeats the entire behavioral and academic purpose of a DAEP.

Response: The name “sentencing guidelines” does not exist.  The purpose of the Secondary Schools Offenses and Maximum Consequences Guidelines are to ensure that all campuses are disciplining students in a consistent manner.  The district was recently cited by the Texas Appleseed Study as a district with an over-representation of African American males and students with disabilities disciplinary cases.  In reviewing the DAEP referral process with principals this past summer, the guidelines were developed to ensure consistency in the disciplinary process.  Students across the district were being sent to a DAEP for a wide variety of offenses and for lengths of time that were inconsistent with the process.  Currently, students of color, particularly African American males, are overrepresented in the DAEP setting.  The attempt is to coordinate and coach the school leaders through the referral process, provide guidance in properly documenting discipline, and ensure that due process is followed.   

6. These reports are too widespread to be a coincidence. Why has the district chosen to stop complying with Chapter 37 of the Education Code?

Response:  The Board approved HISD Code of Student Conduct: Your Rights and Responsibilities is aligned with the requirements of the Texas Education Code Chapter 37.  Campuses have to follow one new step in submitting “discretionary” referrals, which now require approval from the school offices. However, these referrals do not involve offenses that may create “safety-risks” on campuses. As part of the procedures, campuses have to show that all campus-level interventions and supports have been exhausted before making the decision to remove a student to a DAEP for general misbehavior.