Critical Issues in Reporting Data under the PEIMS 425 Record
Note: The following explanations illustrate two types of common errors in the reporting of disciplinary data.
These explanations describe instances in which a district may appear to have violated state law due to a reporting error. There may be
instances in which the district has in fact acted improperly by, for instance, expelling a student for an impermissible reason. All disciplinary actions taken, whether proper or improper, should be reported accurately. The
guidance below is intended to assist you in accurate reporting.
I. State-Mandated
Consequences for Certain Conduct Violations
The Texas Education Code (TEC) requires that school districts impose specific types of consequences for certain types of misconduct.
More specifically, TEC Section 37.006 lists certain types of conduct for which a district must place a student in a disciplinary
alternative education program (DAEP). Similarly, TEC Section 37.007 lists certain types of conduct for which a district must expel a student. Compliance with these
requirements will be monitored through the disciplinary action and reason data submitted under the PEIMS 425 record. The following examples
illustrate the importance of correctly reporting actions taken in response to conduct violations under TEC Sections 37.006 and 37.007:
Example 1: After a properly convened formal hearing, it is determined that Johnny brought an illegal knife onto campus.
In accordance with the requirements of TEC Section 37.007 and district policy, Johnny is expelled for 45 days.
Rather than expelling Johnny to the street, however, the district places him in an off-campus DAEP for the term of his expulsion. (The
district is not located in a county required to have a Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program.) When reported in PEIMS, the district
properly codes Johnny’s conduct using Disciplinary Action Reason Code “12.” However, the district fails to report that Johnny was expelled and instead reports only that Johnny was
placed in an DAEP, using Disciplinary Action Code “07”. Consequently, it will appear in an audit of PEIMS data that the
district failed to comply with the statutory mandate requiring that a district expel a student who brings an illegal knife to school. In order
to correctly report its action, the district should have used Disciplinary Action Code “04” (“Expulsion with placement in an off-campus
DAEP”).
Example 2: After a properly convened conference, it is determined that Susan brought an alcoholic beverage to a school-related activity.
In accordance with the requirements of TEC Section 37.006(a) and district policy, Susan is
assigned to the DAEP. Because this was Susan’s first offense, district policy calls for assignment to the DAEP for three days.
Further, because TEC Section 37.005 allows a district to suspend a student for a maximum of three days for conduct requiring DAEP placement, Susan is also suspended for three days.
The district orders that the three-day suspension and DAEP assignment are to run concurrently. Thus, Susan never attends the DAEP because she was suspended during the period of the
DAEP assignment. When reported in PEIMS, the district properly codes Susan’s conduct using Disciplinary Action Reason Code “05.” However,
because Susan never attended the DAEP, the district only reports the suspension and does not report the DAEP placement.
Consequently, it will appear in An audit of PEIMS data that the district failed to comply with a statutory mandate. Instead, the
district should have reported two disciplinary actions for Susan’s conduct. It should have reported a suspension using Disciplinary Action
Code “05” and a DAEP placement using Disciplinary Action Code “07.”
II. Distinctions between Expulsions and DAEP Placements
It appears that some districts have been reporting simple placements in a DAEP as “expulsions with placement”
in an on-campus or off-campus DAEP. The codes for “expulsion with placement” (Disciplinary Action Codes “03” and “04”) should only be used when a student has been expelled and
then placed in a DAEP for the term of the expulsion. It also appears that some districts are reporting suspensions under TEC Section 37.005 as expulsions. District staff should bear in mind two distinguishing characteristics of proper expulsions:
1) A student may be expelled only if the student engaged in an offense listed in TEC Section 37.007.
2) A district may not expel a student unless the student has been afforded a formal hearing (not just a conference) as required by TEC Section 37.009(f).
Because expulsions are only permitted under very limited circumstances, a district that mistakenly reports a DAEP placement or suspension as an expulsion
may appear to have violated state law when its PEIMS data are audited.
Example 1:
After a properly convened conference, Greg is placed in an on-campus DAEP due to his persistent disruption of regular classes. His conduct is
properly reported using Disciplinary Action Reason Code 01 (“Disruptive Behavior”). The resulting DAEP placement, however, is incorrectly
reported using Disciplinary Action Code 03 (“Expulsion with placement in an on-campus alternative education program as a result of a formal expulsion hearing.”)
Because of this error, it will appear in a PEIMS audit that the district has expelled a student for an impermissible reason. A district
may not expel a student for disruption of regular classes (but may be expelled for serious or persistent misbehavior occurring in a DAEP). In
order to correctly report Greg’s DAEP placement, the district should have used Disciplinary Action Code “07” (“Placement in an on-campus or off-campus AEP as a result of a
conference, rather than a formal hearing as required for expulsion.”)
Example 2:
After properly convened conference, Jane is suspended for three days due to seriously disruptive behavior while on a field trip. Jane’s
conduct is properly reported using Disciplinary Action Reason Code “21” (“Violation of student code of conduct not included under TEC Sections 37.002, 37.006, or 37.007”).
The resulting suspension, however, is incorrectly reported using Disciplinary Action Code “01” (“Expulsion without placement in another educational setting as a result of a
formal expulsion hearing”). Again, it will appear in a PEIMS audit that the district has expelled a student for an impermissible reason.
Instead, the district should have reported the suspension using Disciplinary Action Code “ 05” (“Out-of-school Suspension”).