What an MSC Is
Section summaryA Mediated Settlement Conference is a structured, mediator-led negotiation. A neutral third party facilitates discussion between TEA staff and the respondent educator with the goal of reaching an agreed resolution.
The MSC framework borrows from civil-litigation mediation practice and adapts it to administrative discipline. A neutral mediator — typically an attorney with administrative-law experience — meets with both sides, learns the positions, and facilitates discussion of possible resolutions.
Unlike a court-ordered mediation in civil litigation, an MSC at SBEC is voluntary. Both TEA staff and the respondent must agree to mediate. Either side can decline; declining an MSC carries no admission and does not weight the case at SOAH.
MSC vs ISC
Section summaryThe Informal Settlement Conference is a direct TEA-respondent negotiation. The Mediated Settlement Conference uses a neutral mediator. The two serve overlapping but distinct strategic purposes.
The contrast in two sentences: in an ISC, TEA staff and respondent counsel negotiate directly. In an MSC, a neutral mediator runs the discussion and conducts caucuses with each side.
Strategic considerations:
- Posture difference. The mediator can carry messages and explore possibilities in a way that direct negotiation cannot. Floor and ceiling can be tested without commitment.
- Cost. The mediator's fee is typically split between the parties. ISC has no third-party cost.
- Confidentiality. Mediation privilege under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 154 applies to MSC communications.
- When to choose each. Cases with a wide gap between TEA's proposed sanction and the respondent's view of acceptable resolution often benefit from mediation. Cases with a narrow gap can usually close in an ISC.
When MSC Makes Sense
Section summaryMSC tends to be most useful in cases with significant factual or sanction disputes, in cases with parallel criminal exposure that complicates direct negotiation, and in cases where TEA's opening position is far from the respondent's view of an acceptable outcome.
MSC is not the right tool for every case. The procedure adds time and cost and only helps where a mediator's involvement materially improves the chance of resolution.
Situations where MSC commonly adds value:
- Cases with significant factual disputes that benefit from neutral framing.
- Cases where TEA's initial proposed sanction is materially higher than the respondent considers warranted.
- Cases with parallel criminal exposure where confidentiality protections of mediation are valuable.
- Cases involving mitigation evidence that benefits from structured presentation outside an adversarial posture.
Situations where ISC is typically sufficient: cases with narrow factual dispute, cases where the sanction range is well-defined and the gap is small, cases where the respondent has decided to accept a standard agreed order.
Procedure and Mediator Selection
Section summaryMSC procedure begins with joint request for mediation, mediator selection, exchange of position statements, and a half-day or full-day mediation session. Caucus format is typical.
Procedural steps:
- Either side requests an MSC and the other side agrees.
- The parties select a mediator (often from a list of approved administrative-law mediators).
- Position statements are exchanged before the session.
- The session typically runs a half-day to a full day; longer sessions for complex matters.
- The mediator usually opens with a joint session, then breaks into caucus with each side, shuttling proposals.
- If agreement is reached, the mediator memorializes the key terms; counsel drafts the agreed order for SBEC presentation.
Confidentiality and Privilege
Section summaryMediation communications are protected under the mediation privilege at Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §154.073. Statements made during the MSC cannot be used as evidence if the matter does not resolve.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §154.073 establishes the mediation-communications privilege. Communications relating to the subject matter of the dispute, made during or in connection with the mediation, are confidential, are not subject to disclosure, and may not be used as evidence against a participant.
This confidentiality is one of the principal strategic reasons to choose MSC over ISC where parallel criminal exposure exists. Statements that could be inflammatory in a criminal case may be discussable inside an MSC where the privilege attaches; the same statements in an ISC do not have that statutory cover.
Agreed Order Structure
Section summaryAn agreed order memorializes the sanction, any required conditions (training, supervision, monitoring), the educator's acknowledgment, and a recital that no further proceedings will issue on the same conduct.
The typical agreed order contains:
- Identification of the educator and certificate at issue.
- A recital of the alleged conduct and the Code of Ethics provisions implicated.
- The agreed sanction (reprimand, suspension for a defined period, surrender, or revocation).
- Any required conditions: completed training, supervised teaching, periodic reporting, or other behavioral conditions.
- An acknowledgment of the educator's understanding and the voluntary nature of the agreement.
- A recital that the order resolves the matter on the stated conduct.
The agreed order is presented to SBEC for adoption. SBEC almost always adopts the order as negotiated; rejections are rare but possible if the Board considers the sanction inadequate.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Teacher License Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →The SBEC mediated settlement conference framework
The SBEC offers a mediated settlement conference framework as part of the disposition process for many disciplinary cases. The mediated settlement conference (MSC) provides a structured opportunity for the parties to negotiate disposition with the assistance of a neutral mediator. The MSC framework can produce favorable outcomes for both the SBEC and the educator by addressing the specific concerns of each side in a structured negotiation environment.
The MSC process begins with referral from the SBEC after the investigation phase has concluded and before contested SOAH proceedings begin. Both parties must agree to participate in the MSC, and either party can decline if the MSC framework is not appropriate for the specific case. The MSC is conducted by a trained mediator who may be a SOAH administrative law judge or another qualified mediator.
The MSC procedural framework includes pre-conference exchange of position statements, the conference itself with both parties present, separate caucuses between the mediator and each party, and the development of any agreement reached during the process. The framework is designed to facilitate confidential exchange of information and positions that can produce mutually acceptable dispositions.
The educator preparation and the strategic considerations
The educator preparation for the MSC includes comprehensive review of the case facts, evaluation of the realistic litigation outcomes, identification of acceptable disposition options, and development of position statements that present the educator perspective effectively. The preparation should be thorough because the MSC presents a substantial opportunity to shape the eventual disposition.
The strategic considerations include the comparative attractiveness of MSC participation versus contested SOAH proceedings. The MSC provides predictability and avoids the costs and risks of contested proceedings. The MSC also allows the parties to craft creative dispositions that may not be available through formal SOAH proceedings. The MSC requires substantial preparation but typically produces faster resolution than contested proceedings.
The educator priorities should be clarified before the MSC. An educator whose priority is preserving certification may pursue different MSC strategies than an educator whose priority is closing the proceeding quickly. The defense should help the educator identify the realistic priorities and should structure the MSC presentation to address those priorities effectively.
The mediation dynamics and the negotiation framework
The mediation dynamics involve substantial negotiation skill and patience. The mediator typically meets with both parties together initially to discuss the case and then conducts separate caucuses to explore each party position and to develop potential disposition options. The caucuses allow confidential exchange of information that can produce understanding without committing to positions.
The negotiation framework typically progresses through several rounds of exchange between the parties. Initial offers establish the negotiating range. Subsequent offers may include modified terms or alternative structures. The negotiation can address both substantive disposition terms and procedural elements including the timing of effective dates, the public nature of the agreement, and the specific factual recitations.
The defense advocacy during the negotiation should be both substantive and strategic. Substantive advocacy presents the educator perspective on the underlying facts, the appropriate sanctions, and the proposed disposition terms. Strategic advocacy addresses the negotiation dynamics including the timing of offers, the framing of positions, and the use of mediator assistance to bridge gaps between the parties. The combination of substantive and strategic advocacy can substantially affect the negotiation outcome.
The MSC outcomes and the agreement implementation
The MSC can produce several types of outcomes. A successful MSC produces a settlement agreement that resolves the case without contested proceedings. The agreement specifies the disposition terms including any sanctions, conditions, or other elements. The agreement becomes binding once approved by the SBEC and produces final resolution of the matter.
An unsuccessful MSC produces no agreement, and the case proceeds to contested SOAH proceedings. The MSC discussions are typically confidential and cannot be used in subsequent proceedings, which protects both parties from disclosure of negotiating positions. The case then proceeds through the standard SOAH framework with the parties prepared for contested litigation.
The agreement implementation after a successful MSC involves SBEC approval, execution by the educator, and integration of the agreement terms into the SBEC records. The educator must comply with all conditions specified in the agreement, and failure to comply can produce additional proceedings. The defense should counsel the educator carefully about the compliance requirements and should provide ongoing support for compliance during any extended monitoring or conditional periods. The comprehensive support helps ensure that the agreement produces the intended outcomes without subsequent complications that could affect the educator long-term status.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the MSC mandatory?
Who pays for the mediator?
Are MSC statements admissible if the case proceeds to SOAH?
How long does the MSC process take?
Can I bring an attorney to the MSC?
Read the full Texas Teacher License Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Teacher License Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, SBEC Mediated Settlement Conference — Procedure, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/sbec-mediated-settlement-conference/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). SBEC Mediated Settlement Conference — Procedure. L&L Law Group.