What is non-criminal misconduct under 19 TAC § 247.2?
Non-criminal teacher misconduct in Texas means conduct that violates the Educator's Code of Ethics under 19 TAC § 247.2 but does not constitute a chargeable criminal offense. Sanctions are administrative — reprimand, suspension, or revocation — not incarceration or fines.
- Code of Ethics scope — three Principles
- The Educator's Code of Ethics at 19 TAC § 247.2 organizes ethical obligations into three Principles. Principle I (Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance) governs the educator's conduct in professional life — Standards 1.1 through 1.10 cover professional integrity, school resources, confidentiality of student information, application of laws, and similar duties. Principle II (Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues) governs conduct toward other educators — Standards 2.1 through 2.7 cover dignity, factual statements, undue influence, and harassment. Principle III (Ethical Conduct Toward Students) governs the educator-student relationship — Standards 3.1 through 3.9 cover misrepresentation, harm, recklessness, communication, relationship boundaries, harassment, grading, exploitation, and electronic communication.
- No mens rea requirement
- Unlike criminal statutes, the Code of Ethics imposes a strict-compliance standard. The educator's intent is not an element of the violation — TEA need not prove the educator intended to violate the Code or even knew the conduct was prohibited. A negligent breach of confidentiality under Standard 1.6, an inadvertent inappropriate communication under Standard 3.4, or a careless social-media post under Standard 3.9 can each support SBEC discipline regardless of the educator's state of mind. This is one of the most significant procedural differences from a criminal prosecution and shapes every defense strategy.
- Sanction range under 19 TAC § 249.15
- The available sanctions under 19 TAC § 249.15 form a graduated ladder: inscribed reprimand (publicly visible on the certification record but not restrictive); suspension (time-limited removal of authority to teach); revocation (permanent termination of certification, though most revocations permit reapplication after a stated period); and permanent revocation (lifetime bar from Texas teaching). The appropriate sanction is determined by the factors in 19 TAC § 249.17 — seriousness of the violation, history of prior discipline, presence of aggravating or mitigating factors, and the educator's present fitness for the profession. The same nominal violation can produce wildly different sanctions depending on case-specific factors.
- Investigation and hearing structure
- TEA's Educator Investigations Division receives complaints (from school districts, parents, students, or any source), investigates, and presents cases to the SBEC. If the educator and TEA cannot reach an agreed disposition, the case proceeds to a contested-case hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) under 19 TAC § 249.36 — an ALJ hears evidence, evaluates witnesses, and issues a proposal for decision. SBEC then adopts, modifies, or rejects the proposal and issues a final order. Final orders are appealable under Tex. Gov't Code § 2001.171 to Travis County district court on the substantial-evidence standard. This three-tier structure (investigation → SOAH hearing → SBEC final order → judicial review) is the procedural map every defense must work within.
The distinguishing feature of non-criminal teacher misconduct discipline is the simultaneous availability of all administrative sanctions without any of the procedural protections of a criminal prosecution. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial, no Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to respond to investigators, no reasonable-doubt burden of proof. The proof standard at SOAH is a preponderance of the evidence — and even that lower standard is applied by an administrative law judge rather than a jury. The educator does have due-process rights — notice, hearing, the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, the right to counsel — but those rights operate within an administrative framework specifically designed to enable efficient agency adjudication.
Non-criminal misconduct categories include a broad range of conduct that would not support a criminal prosecution but plainly violates the Code of Ethics: a social-media post that reveals confidential student information (Standard 1.6); a grading change made to favor a particular student or to retaliate against another (Standard 3.7); a Snapchat or Instagram DM exchange with a student that crossed professional boundaries but did not involve sexual content (Standard 3.4); a STAAR testing irregularity that did not rise to deliberate fraud but did compromise test integrity (Tex. Educ. Code § 39.0301); a personal-vehicle transportation of a student to an off-campus location even without sexual or improper purpose (Standard 3.5). Each of these can be career-ending in the SBEC discipline framework even if no criminal charge is ever filed.
Code of Ethics standards most commonly invoked
A small subset of Code of Ethics standards generates the majority of non-criminal SBEC discipline cases — Standard 1.1 professional integrity, 1.4 misuse of school resources, 1.6 confidentiality, 2.1 dignity, 3.4 inappropriate communication, 3.5 inappropriate boundaries, 3.7 grading manipulation, and 3.9 electronic communication.
Standard 1.1 (Professional Ethical Conduct) is the catch-all integrity standard — it requires that the educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the district, charter school, educational institution, educator preparation program, or the State Board for Educator Certification. Standard 1.1 captures resume fraud, credential falsification, misrepresentation in district reports, and similar deceptive conduct. Cases under Standard 1.1 frequently involve falsified educational records, fictitious work experience, or undisclosed prior disciplinary history with another state's licensing body. The standard's reach is broad and the SBEC sanction for Standard 1.1 violations is typically severe — revocation is common because the entire educator-licensing system depends on truthful self-reporting.
Standard 1.4 (Application of Laws) and the related provisions on school resources prohibit the educator from using institutional or coercive privileges for personal advantage and from misusing school property. Cases under Standard 1.4 routinely include personal use of district credit cards or vehicles, taking district-owned supplies home for personal use, using school computers for personal business unrelated to teaching, and similar property-based violations. Standard 1.6 (Confidentiality of Student Information) is the FERPA-aligned standard prohibiting disclosure of confidential information concerning students, colleagues, or school district matters. Social-media posts about specific students — even posts intended as praise — frequently trigger Standard 1.6 cases because they identify students or reveal otherwise-confidential academic or behavioral information.
Standards 2.1 through 2.7 govern conduct toward professional colleagues. Standard 2.1 (Dignity) prohibits demeaning, harassing, or discriminatory conduct toward colleagues and is the standard invoked in workplace-harassment cases that do not rise to criminal conduct but do violate the dignity expectation. Standard 2.4 (Inappropriate Communication) prohibits engagement in physical mistreatment, intimidation, or harassment of colleagues. Cases under Principle II are less common than under Principle III but are increasing as schools and districts file more workplace complaints involving educator-on-educator conduct.
Standards 3.1 through 3.9 — the student-conduct principles — generate the largest single category of non-criminal SBEC discipline cases. Standard 3.4 prohibits inappropriate communication with a student through any channel; Standard 3.5 prohibits inappropriate boundaries in the student-educator relationship; Standard 3.7 prohibits the use of an educator's position for personal advantage in matters affecting student academic standing; Standard 3.9 prohibits electronic communication that is in furtherance of unprofessional or unlawful purposes. The standards overlap deliberately — a single fact pattern often supports allegations under multiple standards (a personal-platform Snapchat exchange that revealed grades, for example, might trigger Standards 3.4, 3.9, 1.6, and potentially 3.7). Multi-standard allegations complicate the defense because settlement on one standard may not resolve the others.
Standard 3.4 (Inappropriate Communication with Students) deserves separate emphasis because of its prominence in the 2020s. The standard captures social-media DMs through Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, and any platform other than the district's approved communication system. Texas school districts now universally require all educator-student communication to occur through approved channels — typically a learning management system like Schoology or Canvas, or a district-provided email account. Communication that bypasses the approved channel is presumptively inappropriate even where the content was entirely benign. SBEC routinely revokes or suspends certifications on Standard 3.4 violations involving substantive private communication with a student through a personal platform even where no romantic or sexual conduct was alleged. The Code's premise is that the channel itself is the violation — not the content alone.
STAAR testing-protocol violations under Tex. Educ. Code § 39.0301
STAAR and other state-mandated assessment irregularities — coaching on specific test items, disclosure of secure content, altering student responses, or compromising administration integrity — are among the most-sanctioned categories of Texas educator misconduct, prosecuted under Tex. Educ. Code § 39.0301 and 19 TAC § 249.17.
Texas Education Code § 39.0301 prohibits compromising the security and confidentiality of state assessments. The TEA Student Assessment Division administers and enforces test-security protocols through annual test administration manuals, the Test Security Supplement, and the District Coordinator and Campus Coordinator manuals. Violations include disclosing the contents of secure test items before, during, or after administration; coaching students on specific items; altering or assisting in the alteration of student responses; failing to maintain test materials in secure storage; permitting unauthorized persons access to materials; and discussing specific items with students, parents, or other educators.
Testing-protocol violations are investigated through a parallel process — the Student Assessment Division reviews the alleged irregularity, may direct invalidation of test scores or retesting, and refers cases to the Educator Investigations Division for certification-side discipline. The educator may face both invalidation of a particular administration (with operational consequences for the school) and individual SBEC discipline (with personal consequences for the educator). SBEC sanctions for testing-integrity violations under 19 TAC § 249.17(b)(13) routinely include certification revocation — the testing-integrity category is one of the few where revocation is the presumptive sanction rather than the high end of the range.
The defense in a testing-protocol case typically centers on three questions: (1) did the alleged conduct actually occur as described, (2) if so, did it constitute a "protocol violation" within the meaning of the test administration manual and § 39.0301, and (3) if so, what mitigating factors counsel a lesser sanction. Many cases originate from anonymous complaints, statistical anomalies in answer-document patterns, or after-the-fact student or parent reports. The investigation typically depends on hearsay statements, second-hand reports, and documentary evidence rather than direct observation. The defense work involves obtaining the underlying test materials (under protective order, given the confidentiality requirements), examining the chain of custody, and developing alternative explanations for any irregularity — student error, software glitch, scoring-machine misread, or innocuous coaching that did not cross the protocol line.
Statistical anomalies require expert response. TEA increasingly uses erasure-pattern analysis and other psychometric tools to identify suspicious answer-document patterns. A class with a disproportionate number of wrong-to-right erasures, or a class whose performance on specific items diverges from broader patterns, may trigger investigation. The defense response can include retaining a psychometrician to challenge the statistical methodology, identifying classroom-management or instructional factors that explain the pattern innocently, and documenting the educator's adherence to security protocols. Pure statistical evidence without corroborating direct evidence is often insufficient to support a SBEC sanction at SOAH — but the educator who does not retain expert support in time may end up settling on terms that an effective challenge would have avoided.
Grading manipulation and academic integrity allegations
Grading manipulation under 19 TAC § 247.2 Standard 3.7, falsification of attendance records, and credentialing fraud under Standard 1.1 are the academic-integrity categories that most frequently trigger SBEC discipline outside the testing-protocol context.
Standard 3.7 of the Code of Ethics prohibits the educator from using an educator's position for personal advantage in matters affecting student academic standing. Cases under Standard 3.7 routinely include changing a grade in exchange for sexual favors (often paralleling criminal prosecution), changing a grade in exchange for personal financial benefit, changing a grade as part of an inappropriate relationship pattern, and changing a grade to favor a relative or a student with whom the educator has an undisclosed personal connection. Standard 3.7 cases that do not rise to criminal conduct frequently still produce revocation because the violation strikes at the heart of academic integrity.
Attendance fraud is a less-discussed but recurring category. Teachers and school administrators who falsify attendance records — either to inflate state funding (which is enrollment-driven) or to mask truancy patterns — face both SBEC discipline and potential criminal liability under Texas Penal Code § 37.10 (tampering with a governmental record). Standard 1.1 captures the SBEC side of these cases. Falsification cases often originate from district internal audits, anonymous tipster complaints, or parent reports following discovery that a child marked absent was in fact present (or vice versa). Documentary evidence drives these cases; the defense rarely succeeds on factual rebuttal alone but may succeed on intent, mitigation, or procedural challenges to the investigation.
Credentialing fraud under Standard 1.1 captures resume falsification, undisclosed prior disciplinary history with another state's licensing body, fictitious degrees, fabricated employment history, and similar misrepresentation in the application or renewal process. These cases routinely originate from background-check matches, social-media inconsistencies, or anonymous complaints. The SBEC sanction for credentialing fraud is typically severe — revocation is the presumptive outcome — because the integrity of the licensing system requires truthful disclosure. The defense work in credentialing-fraud cases focuses on the timing of disclosure obligations, the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation, and any procedural defects in the underlying investigation that established the falsification.
Plagiarism and academic misconduct in the educator's own continuing-education or graduate work — distinct from student grading manipulation — can also support Standard 1.1 discipline. Educators required to complete continuing professional education to maintain certification, or educators pursuing advanced degrees that affect their certification status, can face SBEC discipline if academic dishonesty is documented. These cases are rare but high-impact because they typically establish a pattern of dishonesty that complicates any other-allegation defense.
Classroom-management and physical-restraint complaints
Allegations of inappropriate classroom management — yelling, public humiliation, physical contact that did not rise to assault — and physical-restraint complaints under Tex. Educ. Code § 37.0021 are common non-criminal complaints that produce SBEC investigation even when no criminal charge is filed.
Texas Education Code § 37.0021 governs the use of physical restraint and time-out in Texas public schools. The statute and its implementing regulations under 19 TAC ch. 89 establish detailed protocols — when restraint is permissible (essentially only when necessary to prevent imminent serious harm), what techniques are permitted (no prone restraint, no mechanical restraints, no chemical restraints, no aversive techniques), and what documentation and notification requirements apply after any restraint event. Educator-applied restraint that violates the statutory framework, even where no injury results, can support SBEC discipline under Standard 3.2 (recklessness in handling of students) or Standard 3.3 (intentional harm). Cases under this category routinely originate from parent complaints, video evidence (cell-phone recordings, hallway-camera footage), or other-educator witness reports.
Public humiliation, harsh discipline, and verbal misconduct in the classroom generate complaints that produce Standard 3.2 or 3.3 cases. Cases include yelling at students in a manner that the investigation deems demeaning, public disclosure of a student's grades or behavioral history in front of other students, calling students names, mocking a student's appearance or background, and similar conduct. The line between firm classroom management (permissible) and demeaning conduct (a Standard violation) is fact-specific and depends on tone, language, witness corroboration, and context. Many such cases resolve at the reprimand level — but the educator who does not respond promptly and effectively to the initial complaint risks escalation.
Physical contact that does not rise to criminal assault but creates a complaint can still produce SBEC discipline. Touching a student's shoulder to redirect attention, removing a student from a classroom by physical guidance, separating two students in a fight — each is potentially defensible but each can also support a Standard 3.2 or 3.3 case if the investigation deems the contact excessive. Parent complaints about physical contact are common and require careful response. Video evidence (where it exists from school security cameras) is often dispositive — and the educator who can quickly obtain district-held video before it is overwritten in the routine retention cycle has a major investigative advantage.
Defense strategy in classroom-management cases focuses on context, training documentation, and witness corroboration. Texas requires educator training on restraint techniques and de-escalation; documentation of the educator's completed training is foundational mitigation. Witness corroboration from other students, paraprofessionals, or aides who were present supports the defense narrative. Cell-phone video from students often cuts both ways — the same clip can support the State's version or the defense version depending on what occurred immediately before and after the recorded segment. Obtaining all available video evidence and reviewing it before responding to investigators is foundational.
Investigation, hearings, and the SOAH process
Texas educator misconduct cases proceed through TEA's Educator Investigations Division, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, and (on appeal) Travis County district court. Each stage has procedural rules, evidentiary requirements, and strategic considerations that shape the defense.
The investigation typically begins with a complaint — from a school district, a parent, a student, or any source. TEA Educator Investigations Division assigns an investigator who reviews the initial materials, may interview the complainant and other witnesses, and sends the educator a written notice of investigation. The notice typically describes the allegations in general terms (often more general than the educator would like), identifies the standards alleged to have been violated, and requests a written response within a stated deadline. The educator's first response is the most important strategic decision in the case — anything the educator writes can be used against him or her later, and there is no Fifth Amendment protection in the administrative context. Most defense lawyers recommend that the educator provide no written response without counsel review.
Following investigation, TEA evaluates the case and decides whether to pursue formal discipline. If TEA proceeds, it offers the educator an agreed sanction — a negotiated outcome that the educator and TEA both sign and that SBEC approves. Most cases settle at this stage because the alternative (a contested-case hearing at SOAH) is expensive and time-consuming and produces uncertainty for both sides. Negotiated sanctions are filed publicly on the SBEC discipline database; the educator should expect that any settlement will be visible to future employers searching the educator's certification record.
If the educator declines the proposed agreed sanction, the case proceeds to a contested-case hearing at SOAH under 19 TAC § 249.36 and Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2001. An ALJ presides, both sides present evidence under modified Texas Rules of Evidence, witnesses testify under oath, and the parties may submit post-hearing briefs and proposed findings. The ALJ issues a Proposal for Decision that SBEC then reviews — SBEC may adopt the proposal, modify it (subject to limited grounds for changing the ALJ's factual findings), or reject it in whole or in part. The final order is the operative document and is what is filed in the public discipline database.
Judicial review under Tex. Gov't Code § 2001.171 is available in Travis County district court. The standard of review is substantial evidence — the court reviews the administrative record and determines whether substantial evidence supports the final order; the court does not re-weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the agency's. Constitutional challenges, statutory-interpretation challenges, and procedural-due-process challenges are also available on judicial review. The success rate for educators in district-court appeals is low because of the deferential standard of review — most defense work focuses on the agency stages, not on judicial appeal.
Strategic considerations across the stages include: (1) timing of substantive engagement — engaging counsel before the first written response, not after; (2) discovery utilization — TEA must produce its file under 19 TAC § 249.36 and the educator's defense often turns on documents in the agency's possession that the educator would not otherwise see; (3) witness development — many cases settle when the defense identifies and prepares supportive witnesses (other educators, administrators, parents) whose testimony undermines the State's narrative; (4) sanction calibration — even where some sanction is inevitable, the defense often produces materially lighter terms (a reprimand rather than a suspension, a short suspension rather than a long one, a probated suspension rather than an active one) through effective negotiation.
First Amendment defenses and off-duty conduct
Texas educators retain First Amendment protections for off-duty speech and conduct, but the protections are narrow. The Pickering-Connick-Garcetti framework governs analysis of whether speech is protected; the school district's interest in operational efficiency is weighed against the educator's expressive interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court's public-employee speech doctrine — derived from Pickering v. Bd. of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) — supplies the framework for analyzing whether a Texas educator may be disciplined for off-duty speech or social-media expression. Step one (Garcetti): did the speech occur pursuant to the educator's official duties? If yes, no First Amendment protection applies — internal workplace communications, classroom statements, and similar duty-related expression are unprotected. If the speech was made as a citizen rather than as an employee, the analysis proceeds.
Step two (Connick): did the speech address a matter of public concern? Speech on matters of public concern — political issues, public-policy debates, criticism of government, social commentary — receives heightened protection. Speech on purely private matters — personal grievances, workplace complaints unrelated to public issues, gossip — receives no First Amendment protection regardless of the channel. Many social-media posts blend public-concern content with private complaint; the courts dissect the post to identify the protected and unprotected portions and analyze the discipline accordingly.
Step three (Pickering): does the school district's interest in efficient operation of the educational environment outweigh the educator's expressive interest? The balancing turns on factors including disruption to operations, impact on working relationships, impact on the educator's ability to perform duties, public perception of the school district, and the educator's position within the district. Social-media posts that name students, that target identifiable colleagues, that disrupt classroom operations, or that significantly impair public trust in the school typically tip the balance toward the employer. Posts that address broad public issues without identifying students or colleagues, that do not disrupt operations, and that do not target the school district itself typically tip the balance toward the educator.
Off-duty conduct outside the speech context can also be disciplined, but the framework is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has not extended robust First Amendment protection to non-expressive off-duty conduct. SBEC may discipline an educator for off-duty arrests (even where no conviction follows, the underlying conduct may be the basis for discipline under Standard 1.7), off-duty association with persons engaged in criminal conduct, off-duty conduct that becomes publicly known and impacts the school district's reputation, and similar non-expressive activity. The defense focuses on factual rebuttal, mitigation, and procedural challenges rather than on First Amendment doctrine. The Texas First Amendment protections in the public-employee context closely track federal doctrine; there is no significant divergence that would offer additional state-law protection.
Religious expression and political activity present special considerations. The Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment Free Exercise doctrine protect religious expression — but only where the educator can show a substantial burden on the exercise of religion and where the school district's interest does not justify the burden. Political activity on personal time is generally protected as long as it does not impair the educator's duty to maintain a non-partisan educational environment and does not violate specific statutory limitations on political activity by government employees. These cases require careful fact development — generic First Amendment arguments rarely prevail; specific applications of doctrine to particular facts can succeed.
Social-media and electronic communication allegations
Social-media and personal-platform communication allegations dominate the modern SBEC docket. Standards 3.4 and 3.9 of 19 TAC § 247.2, combined with Tex. Educ. Code § 22.0843 (criminal solicitation of romantic relationships), define the boundary between protected off-duty expression and disciplinable contact with students.
The 2020s shift in social-media use has dramatically increased the volume of SBEC cases involving educator-student communication. Personal Snapchat, Instagram DM, TikTok messaging, WhatsApp, and similar platforms create a record that is simultaneously private (not visible to district administrators in real time) and persistent (preserved by the platforms even when users delete their copies). When a parent, student, or third party reports an exchange to the district, the district forwards the report to TEA, and the Educator Investigations Division opens a case. The educator's defense begins immediately — the very first response to any district inquiry shapes the rest of the case.
Standard 3.4 violations cover both the channel and the content. The channel violation — using any platform other than the district-approved system — is the bedrock of most current cases. Even content that would be entirely appropriate within the approved channel can support a Standard 3.4 case if it occurred on a non-approved platform. This is a counterintuitive standard for many educators and is the source of significant unintentional violations. A teacher who responds to a student's Instagram message about a homework question commits a Standard 3.4 violation regardless of the content, because the platform itself is the violation. SBEC has held this line consistently in its sanction practice.
Content violations layer on top of channel violations. Even on an approved channel, communication that crosses into the personal, romantic, sexual, or inappropriately confiding domain supports discipline. The line between mentor-style support and inappropriate emotional intimacy is one of the most contested boundaries in current SBEC practice. Where the communication veered into personal subjects unrelated to school, where the educator confided personal matters to the student, where the timing patterns suggest social rather than instructional purposes, the case becomes harder to defend on a content basis even where the channel was nominally appropriate.
First Amendment defenses apply where the communication occurred in the educator's capacity as a citizen rather than as an employee — but the framework is narrow. The Pickering-Connick-Garcetti trilogy requires that protected speech address a matter of public concern, that the educator spoke as a citizen rather than pursuant to official duties, and that the government employer's interest in efficient operations is outweighed by the educator's expressive interest. Social-media posts about politics, religion, or matters of public concern made outside of school may be protected; communications directly to students about non-public matters are unlikely to be protected. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and the Fifth Circuit's subsequent applications shape the analysis for Texas educators.
FERPA-related social-media posts about students — even posts intended as praise or encouragement — can violate Standard 1.6 (Confidentiality of Student Information) and create FERPA exposure for the school district. A teacher who posts a picture of a class with student faces visible, identifies a specific student by name in a celebratory post about a test score, or shares behavioral or academic information about an identifiable student violates Standard 1.6 even where the post was entirely positive. These cases routinely settle at the reprimand or short-suspension level if no other allegations are present, but they create a public record that follows the educator into future employment.