A Report on Safe Schools Programs Page: 9 of 45
45 p.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Eligibility R
for JJAE
" The student m
expelled by th
a "mandatory
" The school dis
an offense rep
incident.
" A law enforce
have made a
the case to aParticipation in JJAEPs was lower than anticipated, in part,
requirement because some school officials did not expel students as
P Funding required. The Commission spent only 43 percent of its $10
ust have been million JJAEP appropriation for fiscal year 1998 because
e school district for student participation in the program was low. (See Appendix 3
" offense. for JJAEP funding levels.)
trict must have filed
ort on the alleged The Safe Schools Act requires expulsion of students who
commit certain on-campus offenses such as aggravated assault,
ment entity must arson, or possession of a firearm. Placement in JJAEPs depends
formal referral of heavily on school officials taking appropriate action, including
court. expelling the student and filing an offense report with law
enforcement. While the Commission's contract with juvenile
boards requires filing an offense report and referring the case to a court, the Act does
not have these requirements. However, these are reasonable actions in response to
serious misconduct. (The text box at left provides the eligibility requirements the
Commission has in its contracts with juvenile boards.)
Our analysis of TEA's preliminary Safe Schools data on the 22 counties required to
have JJAEPs identified more than 850 incidents of expellable behavior on campus.
However, school officials placed these students in a setting other than the JJAEP. The
offenses included 255 incidents with illegal knives, 218 with weapons (these may
include weapons such as explosives, machine guns, or brass knuckles), 196 incidents
of aggravated assault, and 74 incidents with firearms.
School officials may not adhere to requirements to expel students. For example,
a school board of a large, urban school district adopted a defacto policy against
expelling students. As a result, students who committed aggravated assault on
campus or brought illegal weapons to school were placed in a DAEP rather than
expelled to the JJAEP.
Although the Commission and the county juvenile probation department were aware
that the school district was not complying with the Education Code, they lacked the
statutory authority to make the district comply. TEA, on the other hand, did not take
action against the district.
Even when school officials expel students as required, they sometimes do not do so
for the standard length of time specified in law. Federal and state laws require that
students who bring a firearm to school be expelled for a year, but allow school
officials to shorten the expulsion period. TEA data for the 1997-1998 school year
shows that students were assigned less than 365 days and attended even fewer days.
(See Table 1 for average days assigned and attended for firearm violations.) One
reason for the difference may be that the expulsion period went beyond the school
year, and the Safe Schools data was only for the 1997-1998 school year.
A REPORT ON
SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAMS AUGUST 1999PAGE 6
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Texas. Office of the State Auditor. A Report on Safe Schools Programs, report, August 1999; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth517651/m1/9/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.