Sec. 21.256. CONDUCT OF HEARING. (a) A hearing under this subchapter must be private unless the teacher requests in writing that the hearing be public, except that a hearing examiner may close a hearing if necessary to maintain decorum.
(b) The hearing is not subject to Chapter 2001, Government Code.
(c) At the hearing, a teacher has the right to:
(1) be represented by a representative of the teacher's choice;
(2) hear the evidence on which the charges are based;
(3) cross-examine each adverse witness; and
(4) present evidence.
(d) The Texas Rules of Evidence apply at the hearing. A certified shorthand reporter shall record the hearing.
(e) The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as a trial without a jury in a district court of this state. The hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be presumed to be based only on admissible evidence.
(f) To protect the privacy of a witness who is a child, the hearing examiner may:
(1) close the hearing to receive the testimony of the witness; or
(2) order that the testimony or a statement of the witness be presented using the procedures prescribed by Article 38.071, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(g) An evaluation or appraisal of the teacher is presumed to be admissible at the hearing.
(h) At the hearing, the school district has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 728 (H.B. 2018), Sec. 5.003, eff. September 1, 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000).
· cites it 3× “While the administrative scheme we review today is different from that of the APA, and specifically not subject to the APA, Tex. Educ.Code § 21.256(b), a school board is entitled to adopt, reject, or change a hearing examiner’s conclusions of law, and make the ultimate decision…”
El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Anna Luisa Kell, 465 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App. 2015).
“Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 21.256(e). The Texas Rules of Evidence apply, and the hearing examiner may only render a decision based on admissible evidence.”
Eubank v. Lockhart Indep. Sch. Dist., 229 F. Supp. 3d 552 (W.D. Tex. 2017).
“Plaintiff had complained to Sotelo because she felt crossing guard duties negatively impacted how others would perceive her as a professional.”
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(b) — 2 cases
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000).
“While the administrative scheme we review today is different from that of the APA, and specifically not subject to the APA, Tex. Educ.Code § 21.256(b), a school board is entitled to adopt, reject, or change a hearing examiner’s conclusions of law, and make the ultimate decision…”
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(c)(3) — 1 case
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(d) — 3 cases
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(e) — 4 cases
El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Anna Luisa Kell, 465 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App. 2015).
“Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 21.256(e). The Texas Rules of Evidence apply, and the hearing examiner may only render a decision based on admissible evidence.”
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(f) — 1 case
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.256(h) — 2 cases
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000).
“While the administrative scheme we review today is different from that of the APA, and specifically not subject to the APA, Tex. Educ.Code § 21.256(b), a school board is entitled to adopt, reject, or change a hearing examiner’s conclusions of law, and make the ultimate decision…”
Eubank v. Lockhart Indep. Sch. Dist., 229 F. Supp. 3d 552 (W.D. Tex. 2017).
“Plaintiff had complained to Sotelo because she felt crossing guard duties negatively impacted how others would perceive her as a professional.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.