Tex. Codes » Education Code · TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION · SUBTITLE D. EDUCATORS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS · CHAPTER 21. EDUCATORS
Texas Codes

Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307 (2026)

Judicial Appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 21.307. JUDICIAL APPEALS. (a) Either party may appeal the commissioner's decision to:

(1) a district court in the county in which the district's central administrative offices are located; or

(2) if agreed by all parties, a district court in Travis County.

(b) An appeal under this section must be perfected not later than the 30th day after:

(1) the date the party or the party's representative receives notice of the commissioner's decision or the date on which the decision of the board of trustees is affirmed by operation of law if the commissioner fails to issue a decision within the required period; or

(2) if a request for rehearing is filed under Section 21.3041, the date on which the request is denied by order of the commissioner or by operation of law under Section 21.3041(c).

(c) The commissioner and each party to the appeal to the commissioner must be made a party to an appeal under this section.

(d) The perfection of an appeal under this section does not affect the enforcement of the commissioner's decision.

(e) The court shall, under the substantial evidence rule, review the evidence on the evidentiary record made at the local level and any evidence taken by the commissioner but may not take additional evidence.

(f) The court may not reverse the decision of the commissioner unless the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or unless the commissioner's conclusions of law are erroneous.

(g) The court may not reverse a decision of the commissioner based on a procedural irregularity or error by a hearing examiner, a board of trustees or board subcommittee, or the commissioner unless the court determines that the irregularity or error was likely to have led to an erroneous decision by the commissioner.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 201, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 902, Sec. 5, eff. June 20, 2003.

SUBCHAPTER H. APPRAISALS AND INCENTIVES


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Scott v. Presidio I.S.D., 266 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scott v. Presidio I.S.D., 266 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “" Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(a). The District argues that "all parties" is limited by subsection (a)'s preceding proviso that " either party may appeal .”
Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010). · cites it 3× “At issue in this case is whether Texas Education Code § 21.307 requires the Commissioner of Education’s consent before an appeal of his decision in a dispute between a teacher and a school district can proceed in a Travis County district court.”
Nairn v. Killeen Indep. Sch. Dist., 366 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Only when an appeal to the Commissioner of Education has been exhausted will a district court have jurisdiction to hear a school district employee’s breach of contract claim premised on contract nonrenewal or the grounds specified in Section 7.”
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000). · cites it 2× “Tex. Educ.Code § 21.307(a). A court can reverse the commissioner’s decision on a teacher’s contract if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the commissioner’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”
Goodie v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 57 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(f). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla; thus, the evidence may preponderate against the decision, yet still amount to substantial evidence.”
TEXAS EDUC. v. Donna Indep. Sch. Dist., 221 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “In this appeal, we must decide whether Texas Education Code section 21.307 requires a party to both file and serve a petition within a particular time period in order to "perfect" an appeal from a decision by the Commissioner.”
Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013). “2010) (narrowly construing "parties” who must agree to venue in Travis County for an administrative appeal to exclude commission, under Tex. Educ.Code § 21.307(a)(2), which must be made a party on that appeal under another subsection).”
Nelson v. Weatherwax, 59 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “The district court reversed the commissioner’s decision and entered a judgment for Weatherwax, ordering that she be reinstated and paid back pay. The commissioner and FWISD now appeal the district court’s judgment to this court.”
Tave v. Alanis, 109 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App. 2003). “Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(f) (Vernon 1996); Goodie, 57 S.”
Stratton v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 8 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(g). The Board, the Commissioner, and the district court all found that good cause existed not to renew Stratton’s contract.”
Peaster Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glodfelty, 63 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2001). “A court can reverse the commissioner’s decision regarding a teacher’s contract if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the commissioner’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”
Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Griego, 170 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App. 2005). “Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307. By statute, professionals 2 are required to report suspected acts of child abuse or neglect.”
Show all 64 citing cases →
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(a) — 15 cases
Scott v. Presidio I.S.D., 266 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App. 2008). “" Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(a). The District argues that "all parties" is limited by subsection (a)'s preceding proviso that " either party may appeal .”
Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010). “At issue in this case is whether Texas Education Code § 21.307 requires the Commissioner of Education’s consent before an appeal of his decision in a dispute between a teacher and a school district can proceed in a Travis County district court.”
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000). “Tex. Educ.Code § 21.307(a). A court can reverse the commissioner’s decision on a teacher’s contract if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the commissioner’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”
Nairn v. Killeen Indep. Sch. Dist., 366 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App. 2012). “Only when an appeal to the Commissioner of Education has been exhausted will a district court have jurisdiction to hear a school district employee’s breach of contract claim premised on contract nonrenewal or the grounds specified in Section 7.”
Matthews v. Scott, 268 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App. 2008).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(a)(1) — 3 cases
Lindsay ex rel. Lindsay v. South San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 983 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. App. 1998).
Lindsay v. So. San Antonio Ind. Sch. Dist., 983 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. App. 1998).
Sheldon Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Brandon Romero & Mike Morath, Texas Comm'r of Educ. (Tex. App. 2022).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(a)(2) — 3 cases
Scott v. Presidio I.S.D., 266 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App. 2008). “" Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(a). The District argues that "all parties" is limited by subsection (a)'s preceding proviso that " either party may appeal .”
Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013). “2010) (narrowly construing "parties” who must agree to venue in Travis County for an administrative appeal to exclude commission, under Tex. Educ.Code § 21.307(a)(2), which must be made a party on that appeal under another subsection).”
Six Bros. Concrete Pumping, LLC v. Texas Workforce Comm'n & Martin Tomczak (Tex. App. 2023).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(b) — 4 cases
Nairn v. Killeen Indep. Sch. Dist., 366 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App. 2012). “Only when an appeal to the Commissioner of Education has been exhausted will a district court have jurisdiction to hear a school district employee’s breach of contract claim premised on contract nonrenewal or the grounds specified in Section 7.”
Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dwight Wagner (Tex. App. 2025).
Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dwight Wagner (Tex. App. 2025).
Phyllis Nairn v. Killeen I.S.D. (Tex. App. 2012).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(b)(1) — 1 case
Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dwight Wagner (Tex. App. 2025).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(c) — 5 cases
Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010). “At issue in this case is whether Texas Education Code § 21.307 requires the Commissioner of Education’s consent before an appeal of his decision in a dispute between a teacher and a school district can proceed in a Travis County district court.”
Nairn v. Killeen Indep. Sch. Dist., 366 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App. 2012). “Only when an appeal to the Commissioner of Education has been exhausted will a district court have jurisdiction to hear a school district employee’s breach of contract claim premised on contract nonrenewal or the grounds specified in Section 7.”
Aleman v. Edcouch Elsa Indep. Sch. Dist., 982 F. Supp. 2d 729 (S.D. Tex. 2013).
Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dwight Wagner (Tex. App. 2025).
Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dwight Wagner (Tex. App. 2025).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(e) — 4 cases
Whitaker v. Moses, 40 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App. 2001).
Aleman v. Edcouch Elsa Indep. Sch. Dist., 982 F. Supp. 2d 729 (S.D. Tex. 2013).
North East Indep. Sch. Dist. & Texas Comm'r of Educ. v. Dehann Riou (Tex. App. 2018).
Los Fresnos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. & Michael L. Williams, Comm'r of Educ. v. Jorge Vazquez (Tex. App. 2015).
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(f) — 23 cases
Goodie v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 57 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(f). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla; thus, the evidence may preponderate against the decision, yet still amount to substantial evidence.”
Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000). “Tex. Educ.Code § 21.307(a). A court can reverse the commissioner’s decision on a teacher’s contract if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the commissioner’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”
Tave v. Alanis, 109 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App. 2003). “Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(f) (Vernon 1996); Goodie, 57 S.”
Peaster Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glodfelty, 63 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2001). “A court can reverse the commissioner’s decision regarding a teacher’s contract if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the commissioner’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”
Nelson v. Weatherwax, 59 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App. 2001). “The district court reversed the commissioner’s decision and entered a judgment for Weatherwax, ordering that she be reinstated and paid back pay. The commissioner and FWISD now appeal the district court’s judgment to this court.”
— Tex. Educ. Code § 21.307(g) — 3 cases
Stratton v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 8 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.307(g). The Board, the Commissioner, and the district court all found that good cause existed not to renew Stratton’s contract.”
Georgia Clark v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. (Tex. App. 2023).
Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. & Michael L. Williams, Comm'r of Educ. v. Adrian Peters (Tex. App. 2015).
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.