Why a teacher arrest is a two-track case — criminal court and SBEC
Every Texas educator arrest creates parallel exposure — the criminal-court track and the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) track. They run on different timelines, apply different evidentiary standards, and produce different remedies. A favorable criminal outcome does not guarantee a favorable licensing outcome, and vice versa.
- Criminal-court track
- Begins at arrest. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Possible outcomes range from outright acquittal, pre-trial diversion, dismissal, deferred adjudication, conviction, or community supervision. The decision-makers are the trial judge, the prosecutor, and (at trial) the jury. The remedies are jail or prison, probation, fines, court costs, and restitution. The criminal record persists subject to non-disclosure or expunction post-disposition.
- SBEC / TEA administrative track
- Begins on mandatory reporting under Tex. Educ. Code § 21.006 — superintendents must notify SBEC of any educator arrest, indictment, or conviction for enumerated offenses. SBEC investigates under 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 249.14. Proof at any contested hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence — a lower standard than the criminal-court "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. Possible outcomes range from no action, written reprimand, inscribed reprimand, suspension, revocation, or permanent surrender. The decision-makers are the SBEC staff investigator, the SBEC board, and (on contested cases) the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
- Where the tracks diverge
- A criminal acquittal does not bar SBEC discipline — the lower civil burden of proof can sustain an administrative finding even where the criminal case ends in a not-guilty verdict. Conversely, a deferred-adjudication plea that resolves the criminal case favorably may still trigger automatic revocation under § 21.058 if the underlying offense is on the enumerated moral-turpitude or sex-offender-registration list. The strategic implication is that defense counsel must build the case from day one around both tracks — the criminal plea structure, the administrative-record content, and the eventual non-disclosure or expunction eligibility.
- Mandatory reporting timeline
- The reporting obligation under § 21.006 attaches immediately on arrest, not after disposition. A teacher arrested on a Friday night may be reported to SBEC by Monday morning. This is why the first 72 hours of an educator case — bond posture, scene preservation, mental-health-assessment documentation, witness identification, statements to school administrators — are dispositive for both tracks simultaneously. Statements made to the principal or HR are not protected by attorney-client privilege and are routinely subpoenaed by SBEC and used in the parallel administrative case.
The structural separation between the criminal-court track and the SBEC administrative track is the single most important concept in any Texas teacher criminal-defense case. Far too many educators retain general criminal-defense counsel without recognizing that a favorable criminal outcome is only half the battle — and that defense decisions made for criminal-court reasons (a quick plea to a reduced charge, for example) can foreclose the licensing-preservation options that would otherwise have been available. The two tracks must be coordinated from the first 48 hours.
In DFW practice, this two-track posture shapes everything. The decision to accept or reject a pre-trial diversion offer turns not only on the criminal-court calculus (likelihood of acquittal versus the dismissal certainty of diversion) but also on the administrative calculus (a diversion-track dismissal generally produces the cleanest § 21.006 record, while a plea to a reduced misdemeanor may still trigger SBEC review under § 21.041). The decision to plead to a deferred adjudication versus a straight probation depends on whether the offense is on the § 21.058 enumerated list — if it is, a deferred adjudication produces the same revocation outcome as a conviction, and the strategic value of accepting deferred terms collapses. The decision to seek a mental-health-court referral under Code Crim. Proc. art. 16.22 turns on whether the diagnosed condition can support an Americans with Disabilities Act / Section 504 framing in the parallel SBEC proceeding.
Improper relationship with a student under § 21.12 — the educator-specific felony
Texas Education Code § 21.12 makes it a 2nd-degree felony for a primary or secondary school employee to engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person enrolled at the same school. The offense requires no force, threat, or coercion — the educator-employee / student-enrolled relationship is the offense.
Section 21.12 is the only Texas criminal offense codified in the Education Code rather than the Penal Code, and its placement signals the legislative intent: this is a stand-alone offense aimed specifically at educators, designed to operate independently of the general sex-offense framework in Penal Code chapter 22. The elements are deceptively narrow on paper. The State must prove that the defendant (1) was an employee of a public or private primary or secondary school at the time of the conduct; (2) engaged in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse as those terms are defined in Penal Code § 21.01 and § 21.11; and (3) the other person was enrolled at a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee worked. Consent is not an element, and the absence of consent is not a defense — the statute predicates criminality on the institutional relationship, not on the presence of force or coercion.
The statutory penalty under Penal Code § 12.33 is a 2nd-degree felony — 2 to 20 years in TDCJ plus a fine up to $10,000. But the criminal penalty is rarely the dominant consequence. The downstream effects include lifetime registration as a sex offender under Code Crim. Proc. ch. 62, automatic and permanent SBEC certificate revocation under Tex. Educ. Code § 21.058(b)(2), federal Title IX consequences for the employing district (which often triggers parallel civil litigation), permanent disqualification from any future employment at a Texas school under Tex. Educ. Code § 22.085, and — for many practitioners — the dispositive collateral consequence of public registration that follows the educator for the rest of his or her life. The criminal-court component is one chapter of a story that continues for decades.
Defense strategy in § 21.12 cases must therefore be unusually rigorous on every available challenge. Was the defendant in fact an employee at the time of the conduct, or had the employment relationship lapsed or never formally attached? Was the other person enrolled at the specific school where the defendant worked, or at a different school in the same district? Did the conduct take place within the statutory definitions, or does it fall outside the enumerated acts? Each of these elements is a factual inquiry with documentary proof — payroll records, enrollment rosters, surveillance evidence, electronic communications — and each presents an avenue for challenging the State's case under the standard Article 39.14 discovery framework.
For Texas educators, the only acceptable disposition in a § 21.12 case is an outcome that does not result in conviction or deferred-adjudication finding — a dismissal, pre-trial diversion (where eligible), or acquittal. Any conviction or deferred-adjudication finding triggers § 21.058 revocation and sex-offender registration. This narrow posture means that the strategic horizon for § 21.12 defense is necessarily binary: develop the case for outright dismissal or trial acquittal, or — in cases where the evidence is overwhelming — pivot to plea negotiation aimed at reducing the charge to a non-enumerated offense outside § 21.058's scope, which is rarely achievable but is the only pathway short of complete acquittal that preserves any licensing or non-registration possibility.
Mandatory revocation under § 21.058 — the felony moral-turpitude trigger
Texas Education Code § 21.058 requires SBEC to revoke an educator certificate without discretion upon final conviction or, for certain offenses, deferred-adjudication community supervision for an enumerated felony involving moral turpitude or requiring sex-offender registration. The revocation cannot be appealed on mitigation grounds.
Section 21.058 is structured as a mandatory revocation statute — when the predicate condition is satisfied, SBEC has no discretion to weigh mitigation, rehabilitation, career service, or surrounding circumstances. The statute applies to (1) any felony for which the educator is required to register as a sex offender under Code Crim. Proc. ch. 62, (2) any felony enumerated in Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.054 (the "3g" aggravated-offense list, which includes murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, certain trafficking offenses, and others), and (3) any other felony involving moral turpitude. The third category — felony moral turpitude — is the catchall that captures most other educator criminal exposure, and it has been interpreted broadly by SBEC.
The mens-rea and conduct components of "moral turpitude" are defined by Texas common law rather than by the Education Code. Dueitt v. State Bar of Texas, 770 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ), and the line of Texas attorney-discipline cases interpret moral turpitude as conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. SBEC has applied that framework expansively — felony theft, felony fraud, felony assault on a family member, felony drug offenses involving distribution or trafficking, felony DWI (third or higher), and felony evading-arrest with vehicular use have all been characterized as moral-turpitude offenses in SBEC enforcement records. The list is not exhaustive, and educators must assume that any felony conviction will be subjected to a § 21.058 analysis.
The deferred-adjudication subsection — § 21.058(b)(2) — extends mandatory revocation to deferred-adjudication community supervision for offenses requiring sex-offender registration. For all other moral-turpitude felonies, deferred adjudication does not trigger § 21.058 mandatory revocation directly — but it does trigger the broader discretionary review under § 21.041 and may produce the same outcome through that pathway. The practical consequence is that deferred adjudication is a meaningful licensing-preservation tool only for non-sex-registration offenses, and even then it is not a guaranteed safe harbor.
Practitioners regularly confuse the § 21.058 mandatory framework with the § 21.041 discretionary framework. They are structurally different. Under § 21.041, SBEC may take action against an educator certificate based on a finding of unsatisfactory conduct, lack of "good moral character," or violation of the Educators' Code of Ethics in 19 Tex. Admin. Code ch. 247 — and SBEC is permitted to weigh mitigation, rehabilitation, length of service, character witnesses, and the surrounding circumstances. Under § 21.058, no such weighing occurs once the predicate offense is established. The first question in any educator criminal-defense case is therefore: is the charged offense on the § 21.058 enumerated list, and if so, can the defense produce an outcome that keeps the case off that list (dismissal, diversion, reduction to a misdemeanor or non-moral-turpitude felony)?
DWI, DWI with student passenger, and driving offenses
A Texas educator DWI under Penal Code § 49.04 (Class B misdemeanor first offense) sits in § 21.041 discretionary review. DWI with a child passenger under § 49.045 is a state-jail felony with automatic SBEC review. DWI with a student passenger triggers § 21.006 mandatory reporting on its own.
A first-offense DWI under Penal Code § 49.04 is a Class B misdemeanor — 72 hours to 180 days in jail plus a fine up to $2,000. By itself, a Class B misdemeanor DWI does not trigger § 21.058 mandatory revocation (it is not a felony moral-turpitude offense), but it is reportable to SBEC under § 21.006 and produces discretionary review under § 21.041. SBEC typically responds to a single first-offense DWI by a long-tenured educator with no other discipline record by issuing an inscribed reprimand, a short suspension, or a continuing-education condition — outcomes that preserve the certificate but leave a permanent SBEC-record entry that may affect future employment.
A DWI with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.15 or greater under Penal Code § 49.04(d) is enhanced to a Class A misdemeanor — up to one year in county jail plus a $4,000 fine. The administrative consequence remains discretionary § 21.041 review, but the higher offense severity tends to produce more substantial SBEC discipline. A second-offense DWI under § 49.09(a) is a Class A misdemeanor; a third-or-higher DWI under § 49.09(b) is a 3rd-degree felony — 2 to 10 years in TDCJ — and is treated as a moral-turpitude offense for § 21.058 purposes.
DWI with a child passenger under Penal Code § 49.045 is a separate, distinct offense — a state-jail felony, 180 days to 2 years in state jail plus a fine up to $10,000. The "child passenger" element requires that the vehicle was occupied by a person younger than 15 years old. For Texas educators, two scenarios produce especially acute exposure. First, where the passenger was the educator's own minor child — this is a state-jail felony but is not a sex-offense or capital offense for § 21.058 purposes. Second, where the passenger was a student of the educator's school — this triggers § 21.006 reporting on a separate ground (offense involving a student) and substantially elevates the SBEC investigative posture, even where the criminal-court outcome is a misdemeanor disposition.
Defense strategy in educator DWI cases focuses heavily on plea structure. The State will often offer to reduce a § 49.045 (DWI with child passenger) to a § 49.04 (basic DWI) where the child-passenger element is contestable — the passenger's age can be disputed if documentation is missing, the passenger's presence in the vehicle can be disputed if multiple stops occurred, and the prosecutorial willingness to reduce often depends on the defense's ability to demonstrate genuine factual issues with the child-passenger element. Where this reduction is achievable, the case moves from state-jail-felony § 21.058 mandatory-review territory to misdemeanor § 21.041 discretionary-review territory — a difference that often saves the educator's career. Defense work also focuses on Texas DWI implied-consent and ALR procedures, blood-draw chain of custody, instrument calibration records, and field-sobriety-test administration, all of which can produce suppression or reduction outcomes.
Drug offenses and controlled-substance exposure
Texas educator drug offenses span misdemeanor possession (Health & Safety Code § 481.121, marijuana under 2 oz) through 1st-degree felony manufacture/delivery. Even misdemeanor possession triggers Tex. Educ. Code § 21.006 mandatory reporting. Felony drug offenses involving distribution are treated as moral-turpitude for § 21.058 purposes.
Texas controlled-substance offenses are codified in the Health and Safety Code, primarily at chapters 481 (Controlled Substances Act) and 483 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The structure is penalty-group-based: Penalty Group 1 includes opioids and methamphetamine; Penalty Group 1-A includes LSD; Penalty Group 2 includes ecstasy and PCP; Penalty Group 3 includes prescription stimulants and benzodiazepines; Penalty Group 4 includes compounds containing limited quantities of controlled substances. Marijuana is treated separately under Health & Safety Code § 481.121 — possession of less than 2 oz is a Class B misdemeanor, less than 4 oz is a Class A misdemeanor, and quantities above 4 oz escalate through state-jail-felony and felony levels.
For Texas educators, any controlled-substance arrest — even for a misdemeanor possession — triggers § 21.006 mandatory reporting because the controlled-substance category is one of the enumerated reporting triggers. The SBEC discretionary review under § 21.041 follows. Outcomes for first-offense misdemeanor possession by long-tenured educators with no other discipline history range from no action, written reprimand, or inscribed reprimand to short suspensions; permanent revocation is uncommon for misdemeanor-only conduct absent aggravating circumstances (distribution evidence, possession on school property, possession in the presence of a student).
Felony drug offenses present substantially elevated risk. Manufacture, delivery, and possession-with-intent-to-deliver charges under Health & Safety Code §§ 481.112-.118 are felony offenses ranging from state-jail (Penalty Group 3/4 under 28 g) to 1st-degree (Penalty Group 1 over 400 g, life or 10-99 years). SBEC has consistently characterized felony distribution offenses as involving moral turpitude under the § 21.058 enumerated-felony catchall, triggering mandatory revocation. Possession-only felony offenses are more nuanced — Penalty Group 1 possession at 1-4 grams is a 3rd-degree felony (2-10 years), and SBEC has sometimes treated possession-only convictions outside the moral-turpitude category, particularly where the quantity is at the low end of the felony range and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate distribution.
Defense strategy in educator drug cases focuses on quantity, intent, and disposition pathways that preserve the certificate. Drug-court diversion programs in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties — each operating slightly differently — can produce dismissed cases with treatment compliance that, combined with no-plea or pre-plea diversion entry, leave the underlying arrest eligible for expunction under Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01. Mental-health-court referrals under Article 16.22 are also available where the drug use flows from documented underlying mental-health conditions. Where neither diversion track is available, the defense focuses on suppression motions targeting the underlying search-and-seizure issues — vehicle stops, pedestrian encounters, consent searches, search warrants — which can produce a dismissal that preserves the educator certificate entirely.
Theft, assault, and family-violence offenses
Theft from a school district under Penal Code § 31.03, assault on a student or coworker, and family-violence offenses involving a household member all produce distinct SBEC exposure. Family-violence Class A and above triggers § 21.006 mandatory reporting independent of the underlying severity.
Texas theft offenses are graded by value under Penal Code § 31.03: Class C misdemeanor (under $100), Class B misdemeanor ($100-$750), Class A misdemeanor ($750-$2,500), state-jail felony ($2,500-$30,000), 3rd-degree felony ($30,000-$150,000), 2nd-degree felony ($150,000-$300,000), 1st-degree felony (over $300,000). Theft from an employer — including theft of school-district property, embezzlement of school funds, or unauthorized use of district credit cards — is reportable to SBEC under § 21.006 (moral turpitude). Misdemeanor theft typically produces discretionary § 21.041 SBEC discipline; felony theft typically triggers § 21.058 mandatory revocation under the moral-turpitude catchall.
Assault under Penal Code § 22.01 spans Class C misdemeanor (offensive contact, no injury) through Class A misdemeanor (bodily injury) and into 3rd-degree felony for assault on family members with prior convictions, on public servants, or with strangulation. Assault by an educator on a student is reportable to SBEC under § 21.006 as an offense involving a student. Assault on a coworker or non-student is subject to discretionary § 21.041 review. Defense strategy in educator assault cases often focuses on self-defense or defense-of-others justifications under Penal Code §§ 9.31-9.33, mutual-combat framings, and de-escalation evidence — but also on the parallel SBEC posture, because even a self-defense-based criminal acquittal does not bar SBEC discipline under the lower civil burden of proof.
Family-violence offenses are subject to specific reporting mandates. Under § 21.006, a superintendent must report to SBEC any indictment, conviction, or community supervision for an offense involving family violence as defined by Family Code § 71.004. The reporting obligation attaches at Class A misdemeanor severity and above, which captures virtually any assault between household members. The SBEC response varies — a single first-offense family-violence Class A with mutual-combat indicators and timely completion of a 24-week Battering Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) often produces an inscribed reprimand and a brief suspension; recurring family-violence offenses or those with serious bodily injury or strangulation findings typically produce revocation. Defense work in family-violence educator cases includes the BIPP enrollment posture (which signals rehabilitation for both criminal-court and SBEC purposes), affidavit-of-non-prosecution coordination with the complainant where appropriate and ethical, and the structured argument on context that distinguishes a single domestic disturbance from a pattern of abusive conduct.
A specific overlap exists for educators with prior family-violence convictions seeking to renew firearm rights — federal Lautenberg-amendment consequences disqualify the educator from possessing firearms, which can independently affect employment in certain school-security or coaching capacities. The defense strategy must therefore address not only the criminal disposition and the SBEC track but also the firearms-rights track, particularly for educators who are also armed school staff or who coach school sports involving firearm-related activities.
Sex offenses, registration, and permanent revocation
Sex offenses requiring registration under Code Crim. Proc. ch. 62 trigger § 21.058 mandatory revocation regardless of disposition — and the deferred-adjudication exception extends to sex-offense deferred-adjudication terms. For Texas educators, any sex-offense exposure is a career-ending event unless the case can be defeated outright or resolved without registration or finding.
Texas sex-offense law is codified primarily at Penal Code chapter 21 (sexual offenses involving non-victim-specific conduct) and chapter 22 (assaultive offenses including sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and indecency with a child). The registration framework under Code Crim. Proc. ch. 62 applies broadly — reportable convictions include indecent exposure to a child (third or subsequent offense), indecency with a child by contact or exposure, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, prohibited sexual conduct, online solicitation of a minor, possession or promotion of child pornography, and continuous sexual abuse of a young child. Registration periods range from 10 years to life depending on the offense.
For Texas educators, the § 21.058 cross-reference to registration-triggering offenses produces the strictest possible licensing consequence — mandatory and permanent revocation, with no discretionary review and no rehabilitation pathway back to certification. The deferred-adjudication exception in § 21.058(b)(2) closes the most common back-door — a deferred-adjudication plea on a registration-triggering offense produces the same § 21.058 outcome as a conviction. The combined effect is that any sex-offense charge against an educator is a case that must be defeated outright at the criminal-court level or resolved without a finding of guilt, deferred-adjudication finding, or registration outcome.
Defense strategy in educator sex-offense cases is rigorous on every available challenge. Identification evidence (where the case turns on the complainant's identification), digital-forensics evidence (where the case involves online solicitation or child pornography), expert testimony on suggestibility and false-allegation dynamics in cases involving minor witnesses, and pretrial motion practice attacking probable cause, the warrant return, and the chain of custody — all of these are routine. The strategic horizon, as in § 21.12 cases, is necessarily binary: outright dismissal, pre-trial diversion (rarely available in registration-triggering cases), or trial acquittal. Where the State's case is strong enough that conviction is likely, the defense focuses on plea negotiations aimed at reducing the charge to a non-registration-triggering offense — for example, reducing an indecency-by-exposure charge to a disorderly-conduct or indecent-exposure misdemeanor without the child-victim element. Such reductions are rare but not unknown, and they are the only pathway to preserving any licensing or non-registration possibility.
Counsel working educator sex-offense cases coordinates closely with the school district's Title IX office and any parallel civil-litigation counsel. Title IX investigations under federal regulations operate on different timelines and evidentiary standards than the criminal-court or SBEC tracks, and they often produce written findings that are subsequently used in the criminal or administrative proceedings. The administrative-record posture must be managed from the outset to avoid statements or admissions in the Title IX proceeding that compromise the criminal defense. This is one of the strongest reasons to retain experienced criminal-defense counsel — and not general civil counsel — at the very first sign of an educator sex-offense investigation.
Building the defense around licensing preservation
Effective educator criminal defense is structured from day one around licensing preservation. The criminal disposition strategy, the SBEC administrative posture, and the eventual non-disclosure or expunction eligibility must all be coordinated — defense decisions made for one track alone routinely produce adverse outcomes on the other.
The starting point in any educator criminal-defense case is the disposition map — a charge-by-charge analysis of which dispositions trigger § 21.058 mandatory revocation, which trigger § 21.041 discretionary review, and which leave the certificate undisturbed. The map is built before any plea decision is made, because the criminal-court plea posture often determines the SBEC outcome. For § 21.058 enumerated offenses, the disposition map shows only two acceptable outcomes — dismissal or acquittal — and the case strategy is calibrated accordingly. For non-§ 21.058 offenses, the disposition map identifies the pathways that preserve the certificate through discretionary review and the disposition language that supports the strongest mitigation presentation to SBEC.
Pre-trial diversion is the optimal outcome for educator cases where it is available. A diversion-track disposition produces no plea, no finding of guilt, no deferred-adjudication entry, and no conviction — for SBEC purposes, the case can typically be characterized as a dismissed arrest. Eligibility for diversion varies by jurisdiction. Collin County's First Offender Program, Dallas County's Pre-Trial Diversion Program, Denton County's deferred-prosecution practices, and Tarrant County's First Offender / mental-health-court tracks each operate with separate eligibility standards, application procedures, and program requirements. The defense's job is to identify the available diversion programs in the jurisdiction of arrest, evaluate eligibility against the educator's circumstances, and pursue the program that produces the cleanest SBEC-record outcome.
Deferred adjudication is the second-best outcome where pre-trial diversion is unavailable. Under Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.101, a deferred-adjudication community-supervision term ends in dismissal upon successful completion, and the resulting record is eligible for non-disclosure under Tex. Gov't Code § 411.0725 after the statutory waiting period (immediate for some misdemeanors, five years for most offenses). Critical caveats: deferred adjudication for offenses enumerated in § 21.058(b)(2) triggers mandatory revocation despite the absence of a conviction, and certain offenses (DWI, family violence, offenses against children, intoxication offenses) are statutorily ineligible for non-disclosure under § 411.074. The defense must verify that the offered deferred-adjudication structure produces an actually-sealable record before recommending acceptance.
Mental-health-court diversion under Code Crim. Proc. art. 16.22 is the appropriate pathway where the educator's underlying conduct flows from documented mental-health conditions. The article requires the magistrate to order a mental-health assessment within 96 hours where credible information of mental illness or intellectual disability is presented, and authorizes referral to mental-health court, deferred prosecution, or treatment-based resolution. DFW mental-health courts in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties operate with somewhat different program structures, but all produce case dismissals upon program completion that leave the underlying arrest eligible for expunction under Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01. The defense's administrative-record presentation to SBEC then frames the case as a treatment success — a posture that often produces no SBEC action under the § 21.041 discretionary framework.
Expunction under Article 55.01 is the strongest available record relief. An expunction order removes the underlying arrest, charge, and disposition entirely — the educator can lawfully deny on most employment applications that the arrest occurred. Eligibility is narrow: dismissed cases with no court-ordered community supervision (other than for Class C misdemeanors), acquittals, no-bills, certain identity-theft scenarios, and certain juvenile records. Most deferred-adjudication and probation outcomes are ineligible for expunction and are limited to non-disclosure. Where expunction is available, the defense pursues it aggressively — the order produces the cleanest possible SBEC record and substantially supports any future certificate renewal or out-of-state reciprocity application.
The SBEC administrative-record presentation runs in parallel with the criminal-court strategy. From day one, counsel coordinates with the educator's administrative-defense team (if separate counsel is retained for SBEC) or directly manages both tracks. The administrative record includes the educator's response to the § 21.006 superintendent report, any character-witness affidavits, treatment-compliance documentation, employment-history evidence, and the eventual SOAH hearing presentation (if the case reaches that stage). Effective coordination ensures that the criminal-court plea language, the SBEC investigative submissions, and any Title IX findings all line up — and that the educator's eventual hearing presentation under 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 249.39 presents a unified, defensible narrative supported by the criminal-court record and the rehabilitation evidence developed in parallel.
