According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 8 is projected to have a net negative fiscal impact of approximately $55.9 million to the General Revenue Fund over the 2026–2027 biennium, with ongoing costs in subsequent years. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) will incur significant expenses related to the development, administration, and transition to the new instructionally supportive assessment program, which is set to replace STAAR by the 2027-2028 school year. These costs are partially offset by projected savings from discontinuing STAAR after the transition is complete.

Specifically, TEA estimates the development of the new assessment program will cost $13.2 million in fiscal year 2026 and $34.0 million in fiscal year 2027. Administration of the program is estimated to cost an additional $0.6 million and $1.3 million, respectively, in those two years. While the eventual transition is expected to result in annual savings, $5 million in 2026 and 2027, increasing to $21.1 million in 2028, these savings will not be sufficient to offset the upfront development and implementation costs in the early years.

Other notable fiscal implications include $2.2 million annually for teacher item-review committees, $0.3 million for a higher education-led study on assessment design, and $5 million per year for a newly established grant program to assist districts in developing local accountability systems. TEA anticipates hiring nine additional full-time staff members at an annual cost of $1.1 million. Modest technology infrastructure upgrades are estimated at $200,000.

While the state-level costs are detailed, the local government impact is less predictable. School districts and charter schools will be required to adapt testing practices, collect and report new forms of data, and make assessment results accessible to parents, potentially resulting in significant changes with undetermined costs. Additionally, districts subject to TEA interventions may incur monthly conservator costs ranging from $2,500 to $8,000.

HB 8 aims to replace the STAAR testing system with an "instructionally supportive assessment program" and modernize Texas’s public school accountability framework. While the bill reflects a growing recognition of the need to shift away from high-stakes, summative testing toward more formative and responsive models, the mechanisms and structural choices made in HB 8 substantially conflict with core principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local control. These concerns are serious enough that Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 8 unless amended as described.

The bill represents a fundamental reordering of power in Texas education policy by transferring significant rulemaking and oversight authority from the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the unelected Commissioner of Education. This shift away from public accountability undermines the constitutional structure of education governance and risks concentrating too much discretion in a centralized bureaucracy. TEA is not only tasked with designing the new assessment model but is also granted expansive powers to enforce interventions, approve local assessment tools, and manage funding, functions traditionally overseen or balanced by local districts and the SBOE.

Furthermore, while HB 8 claims to make testing more "instructionally supportive," it effectively replaces one high-stakes model with another that is more frequent, less flexible, and arguably more intrusive. Students would now be required to take assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year, significantly increasing the volume of mandatory state testing. There is no opt-out provision for parents, no clear local discretion over test administration windows, and limited accommodation for campus-level flexibility. This rigidity curtails both individual liberty and local responsibility, putting classroom-level instruction at the service of state-level testing requirements rather than vice versa.

From a fiscal standpoint, the bill imposes a substantial cost to the state, estimated at nearly $56 million over the initial biennium, with ongoing operational expenses in the tens of millions annually. These include devthe elopment and administration of new assessments, a teacher review process, a grant program, and additional state staff. Though proponents argue that future savings will come from phasing out STAAR, the bill provides no guarantees or spending caps to ensure fiscal restraint. It also fails to demonstrate how these costs will lead to measurable academic improvements or reduced burdens on teachers and schools.

In addition, the bill restricts the ability of local education agencies (LEAs) to challenge TEA decisions, while also limiting how school districts can use funds in legal proceedings involving the agency. These constraints on procedural fairness raise further concerns about due process, government accountability, and the weakening of meaningful checks on executive power.

HB 8 does take some positive steps, such as requiring teacher input on test item development, improving parent access to results, and allowing the use of alternative assessments. However, those improvements do not outweigh the structural overreach and increased regulatory complexity embedded in the bill. The problems are not cosmetic; they go to the heart of educational governance, family rights, and the role of the state in defining instructional practice.

Until such reforms are adopted, HB 8 should not be supported. It replaces one inflexible and centralized model with another, undercuts constitutional checks and balances, and imposes new costs and mandates without sufficient accountability.

• Restore primary rulemaking authority to the SBOE
• Reduce or make optional the frequency of required assessments
• Include a clear opt-out mechanism for families
• Add statutory guardrails limiting TEA’s enforcement and intervention authority
• Set clear limits on fiscal appropriations and long-term administrative expansion

• House Committee on Public Education: 8Y/1N (6 Absent)
• Senate Committee on Finance: 12Y/2N (1 Absent)