Texas Codes

Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257 (2026)

Recommendation Of Hearing Examiner

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 21.257. RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING EXAMINER. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (f), not later than the 60th day after the date on which the commissioner receives a teacher's written request for a hearing, the hearing examiner shall complete the hearing and make a written recommendation that:

(1) includes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(2) may include a proposal for granting relief.

(a-1) A determination by the hearing examiner regarding good cause for the suspension of a teacher without pay or the termination of a probationary, continuing, or term contract is a conclusion of law and may be adopted, rejected, or changed by the board of trustees or board subcommittee as provided by Section 21.259(b).

(b) The proposed relief under Subsection (a)(2) may include reinstatement, back pay, or employment benefits but may not include attorney's fees or other costs associated with the hearing or appeals from the hearing.

(c) The parties may agree in writing to extend by not more than 45 days the right to a recommendation by the date prescribed by Subsection (a). A hearing under this section may not be held on a Saturday, Sunday, or a state or federal holiday, unless all parties agree.

(d) The hearing examiner shall send a copy of the recommendation to each party, the president of the board of trustees, and the commissioner.

(e) A hearing examiner who fails to timely issue a written recommendation or decision may not be assigned by the commissioner to conduct additional hearings for a period not to exceed one year.

(f) The hearing examiner may dismiss a hearing before completing the hearing or making a written recommendation if:

(1) the teacher requests the dismissal;

(2) the school district withdraws the proposed decision that is the basis of the hearing; or

(3) the teacher and school district request the dismissal after reaching a settlement regarding the proposed decision that is the basis of the hearing.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 201, Sec. 14, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 902, Sec. 3, eff. June 20, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., Ch. 8 (S.B. 8), Sec. 13, eff. September 28, 2011.

Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1065 (H.B. 2), Sec. 3.06, eff. June 20, 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000). “See Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257. If a school board chooses the hearing-examiner process, the board’s role is then more like that of the commissioner’s when the board conducts the hearing under section 21.”

Coggin v. Longview Indep. Sch. Dist., 289 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.253 (emphasis added).”

Goodie v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 57 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “[1] I have no quarrel with the majority's conclusion that under the facts of this case the board was not free to substitute its findings for those of the hearing examiner.”

Miller v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 51 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Educ. Code Ann. § 21.257(a) (Vernon 1996).”

Coggin v. Longview Indep. Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2002). “See Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.251(a)(1). Once the Commissioner refused to appoint a hearing examiner, the LISD had no authority to order the Commissioner to change his mind or to appoint a certified hearing examiner on its own.”

Whitney v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 545 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App. 2017). “TEX.EDUC.CODE ANN. §§ 21.257 - 21.259. Because EPISD had not received notice that Whitney had sought a hearing, it informed her on August 18, 2010, that the EPISD Board would meet on August 24, 2010, to consider terminating her contract immediately.”

Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 994 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. App. 1999). “Following a hearing the examiner issued a written recommendation under Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.257 (Vernon 1996), including his findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Coggin v. Longview Indep Sch, 337 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2003). “See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 21.257. Because the actions of the LISD did not in any way cause the denial of Coggin’s right to a hearing, the LISD cannot properly be said to have caused the deprivation of Coggin’s right to procedural due process.”

Edinburg Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. & Mike Morath, Comm'r of Educ. for the State of Texas v. Cristina L. Esparza (Tex. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “259(b)(1) A central issue to this appeal is whether the board was authorized to reject and modify the IHE’s determination that Esparza’s effectiveness was not affected by the dissemination of her nude photo, a determination the IHE labeled as a “credibility finding,” without…”

Sheldon Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Brandon Romero & Mike Morath, Texas Comm'r of Educ. (Tex. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “Unfortunately, despite the obvious unfairness of this conclusion, its placing the school administration in the untenable position of continuing to pay a teacher while awaiting (in this case) the inevitable outcome of a determination after an IHE hearing that there is good cause…”

Sylvia Ortiz v. Comm'r of Educ. & Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “15 Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257(a)(2)(a-1) .....”

— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257(a) — 1 case

Miller v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 51 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Educ. Code Ann. § 21.257(a) (Vernon 1996).”

— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257(a)(2) — 1 case

Sylvia Ortiz v. Comm'r of Educ. & Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. (Tex. App. 2015). “15 Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257(a)(2)(a-1) .....”

— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257(b) — 1 case

Sheldon Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Brandon Romero & Mike Morath, Texas Comm'r of Educ. (Tex. App. 2022). “Unfortunately, despite the obvious unfairness of this conclusion, its placing the school administration in the untenable position of continuing to pay a teacher while awaiting (in this case) the inevitable outcome of a determination after an IHE hearing that there is good cause…”

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.