Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
In a high-profile vote marked by passionate debate, the Texas House of Representatives has passed House Bill 6 (HB 6), a sweeping overhaul of the state’s school discipline policies. Framed as a necessary response to escalating classroom disruptions—and dubbed the “Teacher Bill of Rights”—the legislation advanced with broad bipartisan support. It passed by a vote of 124 to 20, with only one Republican lawmaker voting against it.
While lawmakers largely agreed on the need to ensure safe and orderly classrooms, deep divisions emerged over how the bill addresses student rights, due process, and the growing authority of school administrators.
Inside House Bill 6: What the Texas School Discipline Overhaul Includes
HB 6 makes substantial changes to the Texas Education Code, impacting both traditional public schools and open-enrollment charter schools. Supporters say the bill gives teachers the tools needed to regain control in classrooms, especially in light of post-pandemic behavioral challenges. Opponents, including Texas Policy Research, argue the bill grants too much unchecked authority to unelected administrators, weakens oversight, and introduces exclusionary practices, particularly through the use of virtual Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (virtual DAEPs).
The bill limits out-of-school suspensions to no more than three days and caps in-school suspensions at ten days. For students in pre-kindergarten through second grade, suspensions are only permitted for behavior involving drugs, violence, or repeated severe disruption, as determined jointly by teachers and administrators. Teachers must document disruptive behavior and attempt positive interventions before escalating to formal discipline.
Charter schools operating child-care programs would now be allowed to exclude students with certain criminal convictions, aligning their authority more closely with traditional early education providers. While presented as a safety measure, this shift raises equity concerns, especially for publicly funded but privately managed institutions.
A major and controversial provision of HB 6 authorizes school districts to place expelled students into virtual DAEPs. These students are still counted for funding purposes under the average daily attendance (ADA) formula, raising concerns about financial incentives to isolate students virtually rather than address behavioral issues in person.
Perhaps most concerning from a civil liberties perspective is the bill’s expansion of judicial removal authority. If a school’s internal “threat assessment team” deems a student, particularly one with a disability, a risk, the district may petition a court to remove the student for up to 60 instructional days. These placements can be renewed and occur without parental consent or review by an ARD (Admission, Review, and Dismissal) committee, raising serious due process concerns.
House Floor Debate Exposes Philosophical Divide on Student Discipline
The House floor debate on HB 6 showcased stark ideological differences over how Texas should handle student discipline. The bill’s author, State Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), presented the legislation as a response to increasing disruptions in classrooms.
“The bill expands teachers’ ability to maintain order, to safeguard students’ safety, and to uphold academic integrity in the classroom,” Leach said, emphasizing troubling behavior in early grade levels.
State Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston) led the opposition, questioning the wisdom of suspending or excluding very young students.
“We’re talking about five-, six-, and seven-year-olds,” Wu argued, warning that fear-based policies could harm vulnerable children. He introduced amendments to reduce in-school suspensions, most of which were rejected.
Still, not all Democrats opposed the bill. State Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) supported it out of concern for safety in classrooms.
“We need to do something to make sure our schools are safe, our classrooms are safe, and our teachers are safe,” he said.
State Rep. John Bryant (D-Dallas) echoed that sentiment, urging restoration of public confidence in school safety.
Why Texas Policy Research Recommends a NO Vote Unless Amended
Texas Policy Research recommended that lawmakers vote NO on HB 6 unless liberty-preserving amendments were adopted. The concerns do not stem from a disagreement over the need for safe classrooms, but rather from how the bill centralizes authority and weakens essential protections for parents and students.
Chief among these concerns is the judicial removal provision, which allows districts to remove students, especially those with disabilities, without parental notice or involvement. Unelected school officials would be empowered to initiate court proceedings without oversight, bypassing procedural safeguards that typically protect vulnerable students.
Additionally, the bill gives superintendents broad authority to remove students based on a “reasonable belief” that off-campus misconduct has occurred, even if no criminal charges are filed. This subjective standard raises the risk of inequitable application and undermines due process.
The authorization of virtual DAEPs compounds these issues. Students placed in these programs often receive limited instruction or engagement, yet districts retain full ADA funding. This creates a dangerous incentive to offload students into low-accountability environments with minimal oversight.
Fiscal Impact: Local Burdens, State Incentives
According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 6 does not create a significant fiscal impact at the state level. However, school districts could face increased costs if they adopt virtual alternative education programs. These expenses may include upgrading digital infrastructure, implementing new platforms, training teachers, and modifying discipline policies.
Meanwhile, allowing students in virtual DAEPs to be counted for ADA funding may unintentionally encourage their overuse. Without required reporting or performance metrics, this creates financial incentives that could prioritize administrative convenience over student outcomes.
Amendments That Improved HB 6—and What Remains Unaddressed
Texas Policy Research recommended a “No; Amend” stance on HB 6. Several key amendments were adopted on the House floor, improving the bill in notable ways:
- Restored due process for special education students by reinstating ARD committee review before any change in placement.
- Improved parental transparency by requiring notice when a threat assessment is completed or when a district seeks a court order for removal.
- Required parental consent for a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) before extending judicial removal for students in special education.
- Mandated public reporting of disciplinary data, disaggregated by race, grade level, and type of punishment.
- Introduced training requirements for teachers in virtual DAEP settings to ensure a baseline of instructional quality.
- Encouraged parental involvement in behavioral planning, with the potential to reduce disciplinary placement duration for cooperative parents.
However, several major concerns remain unresolved:
- Parental consent is not required before placing a student in a virtual DAEP, despite the lack of guaranteed support or oversight in such programs.
- No independent review is required before judicial removal based on a school’s internal threat assessment.
- Superintendents still hold unilateral power to remove students based on “reasonable belief” of off-campus conduct, without adjudication.
- ADA funding lacks guardrails, allowing districts to collect full funds for students in virtual placements, even if engagement or academic progress is minimal.
Conclusion: School Discipline Shouldn’t Come at the Cost of Liberty
There’s no question that Texas classrooms face real behavioral challenges. Parents, teachers, and students all deserve safe and productive learning environments. But House Bill 6 threatens to solve these challenges by shifting power away from families and concentrating it in the hands of government officials, with limited oversight.
By reducing transparency, bypassing parental involvement, and incentivizing exclusionary virtual programs, the bill compromises the very principles that should guide Texas education policy. Until the Senate adopts stronger protections for due process, student rights, and parental authority, lawmakers should vote NO on HB 6 unless it is substantially amended to align with those foundational liberties.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
