Texas advisory committee begins drafting uniform job description for school marshals

A Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCO) advisory committee met Jan. 28 in Austin to begin drafting a statewide job description for school marshals intended for use by psychologists, employers and training providers.

The committee — made up of law enforcement leaders, school officials and TCO staff — opened by identifying wide variation across Texas in how school marshals are used, trained and managed. Greg Stevens, executive director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, said the panel’s “first thing we want to start with is we do need a definitive job description, a, you know, what is it that is expected of this role.” Stevens said the work will inform a job description that marshals’ evaluating psychologists can use in fitness-for-duty determinations.

Why it matters: committee members said a single, generic job description will help standardize psychological evaluations, clarify what duties marshals may reasonably be expected to perform and give school districts a template to adapt locally. Colin Grissom, deputy chief over credentialing, education services and field services at TCO, said psychologists have sometimes refused to evaluate marshals because they lack a clear job description to use as a benchmark.

Key points discussed - Statutory scope and limits: The committee reviewed statutory limits on marshal authority, noting marshals acquire the “authority of a peace officer” only while “the bad thing is happening,” a narrow window typically tied to threats of serious bodily injury or death. Members repeatedly emphasized that school marshals are not full-time peace officers and that their authority to search, investigate or transport prisoners is limited by statute and case law. Colin Grissom and others pointed to Penal Code chapter 9 (use of force laws) and provisions of the Education Code that define marshal authority as sources that evaluators and districts should understand. - Training and certification: Committee members confirmed the baseline state training is an 80-hour initial course (including handgun proficiency and Alert Level 1 response), a psychological exam every two years, and 16 hours of recurring biennial training that includes firearms requalification, legal updates and active‑shooter response drills. Jim McGregor, training coordinator at the Tarrant County College Law Enforcement Academy, described his academy’s role as an approved training provider and noted variability in who attends trainings (full‑time marshals vs. staff with additional duties). - Psychological evaluation and reporting: TCO staff described recent changes requiring psychologists to notify the commission when they determine an applicant is not fit for duty. The committee discussed providing evaluators with a job description that specifies the knowledge, skills and abilities marshals may reasonably be expected to demonstrate so examiners have consistent material on which to base assessments. - Day-to-day role vs. crisis role: Members debated whether job language should require marshals to be full‑time security professionals or allow for dual-role marshals (for example, teachers or administrators who are also marshals). Several members urged that the draft distinguish between a marshal who is expected to “go find a threat and put a stop to it” (a responder role taught in Alert training) and a staff member who is expected to secure and protect their immediate students until help arrives. - Evidence, searches and detention: Prosecutors’ concerns surfaced about marshals conducting searches that could jeopardize criminal prosecutions. Committee members agreed marshals should be trained to secure a scene and preserve evidence but that many marshals are not trained in custodial processing or evidence collection. Members also discussed local administrative search authority exercised by districts as a mitigation strategy. - Gaps in training and equipment: The group noted that unlike peace officers, marshals commonly do not receive intermediate weapons training (baton, taser, OC spray), formal arrest/control tactics or routine physical exams; these gaps affect what marshals realistically can be expected to perform.

Direction and next steps TCO staff will merge the material discussed, align it with the format of existing generic state job descriptions (peace officer, jailer, telecommunicator) and circulate a draft. Members agreed to reconvene the committee to review the merged draft; the group set a follow-up meeting for Feb. 25, 2025, with the presiding officer present at TCO’s Austin offices and remote participation available. Colin Grissom and TCO staff will provide statutory citations and the current training curriculum to the committee for reference.

Meeting context and scope: Participants emphasized the product should be a generic, statewide job description that local districts can adapt (e.g., specifying “shall” versus “may” for duties at the local level). The committee repeatedly noted the draft cannot expand or diminish statutory authority — that is a legislative function — but should describe expectations, minimum competencies and evaluation criteria that psychologists and employers can use.

Ending: Committee members said the job description is intended to aid evaluators, support consistent renewal requirements and help school districts decide whether a marshal program fits local needs. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that carried.