66 campus administrators may not want to acknowledge. Implications of the Quantitative Results The current study examined DAEP placement patterns through the analysis of sociodemographic and referral data. The gender composition of the District’s DAEP placement aligns with previous research findings: male students make up the vast majority of placements (Booker & Mitchell, 2011; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2018). When it comes to DAEP placement and recidivism, existing research also corroborates the results of the current study: male students and minority students are more likely to be placed at a DAEP, and they are more likely to return for a repeated placement within the same year (Booker & Mitchell, 2011). The findings of the current study also align with previous studies that note the impact of poverty on discipline exposure since the majority of students assigned to the District DAEP are classified as economically disadvantaged (Ladd, 2012; Maxwell, 2012). Another aspect of the current study that is consistent with a range of literature on the discipline gap is that Black students are disproportionately placed at the high school DAEP. Studies indicate that Black students are typically overrepresented in discipline practices from office referrals to DAEP placements (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Rocque, 2010). Research also suggests that Black students tend to be subjected to harsher disciplinary consequences (Rumberger & Losen, 2017). Whitford et al. (2016) purport that there are inconsistencies in the research about whether Hispanic/Latino students are disciplined at a disproportionate rate. Brown and Di Tillio (2013) assert that Hispanic/Latino students are disciplined at a proportionate rate. In Texas, Hispanic/Latino students comprised over half of the DAEP placements for 20182019 (Texas Education Agency, 2019). The current study confirms both narratives. For example, when the DAEP placement rates of Hispanic/Latino students were compared to the risk rates of White students, the results varied by campus. Even though Hispanic/Latino students account for nearly 30% of DAEP placements, Hispanic/Latina student representation is equivalent to the representation of White female students. Conversely, studies regarding discipline for Black female students tell a different story. Contemporary research findings assert that discipline rates for Black female students are drastically climbing (Skiba et al., 2014; Whitford et al., 2016). In fact, research has uncovered a trend that Black girls are disciplined at alarming rates that surpass all non-Black girls, as well as Hispanic/Latino boys and White boys (Annamma et al., 2019; Slate et al., 2016). Although Black female students represent the majority of female placements at the DAEP, it is unclear if there has been a sharp increase of Black female placements within the District. Nearly 30% of the District’s first-time DAEP placements were discretionary while statewide discipline summaries indicate that there are more discretionary placements than mandatory. In several of the interviews, home campus administrators seemed to condemn or reject the idea of resorting to DAEP placements for discretionary reasons. It is possible that there is a culture within the District that frowns upon the use of discretionary placements. On the other hand, the use of discretionary reasons to justify repeated placements more closely aligns with the state average, accounting for half of the total recidivist placements. Even more disconcerting is the use of discretionary reasons to assign first and second placements for 21% of the recidivist population. This data is alarming because it can be argued that these placements represent an abuse of power at minimum; upon further investigation, such placements may be considered unwarranted. Implications of the Qualitative Results Although it is limited, the existing research investigating repeated placement suggests that the failure of the DAEP to improve student behavior causes recidivism (Cobb, 2008; Dunworth, 2018; Phillips, 2011). This finding is inconsistent with the results of the current study, but it aligns in the sense that several participating administrators pointed a finger outward to identify recidivism risk factors that were beyond their sphere of influence. For example, when participants cited a lack of parental support/attention, it releases the responsibility from the campus leaders. In fact, in the realm of education, this is a common explanation when students underperform academically or when they Tyler Yarbrough, EdD
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx