According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 9 is projected to have a significant cost to the state’s General Revenue, with an estimated negative impact of $55.9 million over the 2026–2027 biennium. The bill does not appropriate funds directly but provides the legal basis for future appropriations necessary to implement its provisions, particularly in transitioning from the STAAR assessment to the new instructionally supportive assessment program by the 2027–2028 school year.

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) estimates that development and administration of the new assessment system will cost approximately $13.8 million in FY2026, ramping up to over $35 million in FY2027. Although long-term savings are anticipated—up to $21.1 million annually in later years due to reduced reliance on the STAAR system—early implementation costs are front-loaded. Additional recurring costs include $2.2 million annually for a statewide teacher-led item review process and $5 million annually to support a local accountability grant program. Nine full-time employees (FTEs) would be needed to implement these changes at an estimated annual cost of $1.1 million.

The bill also requires TEA to conduct research studies in collaboration with higher education institutions and to modify reporting and accountability procedures. These provisions add one-time and recurring costs, including technology upgrades (estimated at $200,000) and minor studies on assessment validity and College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) metrics (around $300,000 each). The Texas Workforce Commission, Higher Education Coordinating Board, and Office of Court Administration are expected to absorb any related responsibilities within existing resources.

At the local level, school districts and charter schools will bear additional responsibilities and costs, including updating assessment infrastructure, providing data to TEA, and informing parents and teachers about results. While the fiscal impact on Local Education Agencies (LEAs) is expected to be substantial in some cases, it is currently unquantified. Additionally, LEAs subjected to interventions or sanctions may face conservator-related expenses ranging from $2,500 to $8,000 per month.

SB 9 proposes a significant and ambitious reform to Texas’s public school assessment and accountability system by replacing the STAAR exam with an “instructionally supportive assessment” model. This shift acknowledges widespread concerns about high-stakes standardized testing and aims to better align assessments with instructional goals. However, while the intent to eliminate STAAR is commendable, the implementation framework presented in SB 9 raises several substantial concerns that conflict with core Liberty Principles, most notably, Limited Government, Individual Liberty, and Local Control.

The most pressing concern is the centralization of authority in the Texas Education Agency (TEA). SB 9 transfers rulemaking power from the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) to the unelected Commissioner of Education and grants TEA unilateral authority to impose interventions and sanctions on campuses, even during periods when accountability ratings are subject to litigation or injunction. This level of unchecked executive power undermines the constitutional principle of separation of powers and restricts the ability of local school boards and communities to influence educational decisions in their districts. It represents a significant expansion of bureaucratic control at the expense of local autonomy and democratic oversight.

Further, while SB 9 eliminates STAAR, it replaces it with a triannual testing model, requiring state-mandated assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. Although these are labeled “instructionally supportive,” the increased testing frequency may lead to greater disruption of instructional time, potentially creating more stress for students and educators. Importantly, the bill provides no opt-out mechanisms for families, nor does it give local districts meaningful control over how or when to administer these assessments. This risks replacing one inflexible system with another that is more complex, more frequent, and equally burdensome.

The bill also has notable fiscal implications. While not as costly as HB 4 from the regular session, SB 9 still carries an estimated $55.9 million cost through the 2026–27 biennium, with ongoing annual costs for the new assessment system, item reviews, educator committees, and TEA staff expansion. These expenditures are significant, especially in the absence of strong performance metrics, cost-saving offsets, or statutory caps on implementation spending. Without clear evidence that the new system will deliver better academic outcomes or reduced bureaucratic overhead, taxpayers may be asked to fund a system that simply shifts the burden rather than alleviating it.

Additionally, the bill introduces new constraints on local school districts’ ability to challenge TEA determinations and restricts the use of public funds for litigation against the state, further weakening checks and balances. In doing so, SB 9 limits meaningful avenues for due process and shields TEA from accountability to local stakeholders, who are often best positioned to evaluate the impact of state policy on their communities.

While the goals of SB 9, to eliminate STAAR, improve instructional alignment, and empower educators with timely data, are valuable, the methods chosen undermine those same goals by entrenching centralized authority and creating a new layer of state-imposed testing requirements. The bill could be made acceptable through meaningful amendments: restoring authority to SBOE, limiting TEA’s enforcement powers, reducing testing frequency, and expanding local discretion and parental rights. Until such reforms are made, SB 9 represents a step backward in terms of educational liberty, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional governance.

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 9 unless amended as described above to better align it with the principles of limited government, local control, and individual freedom.

• Individual Liberty: The bill replaces a single annual test with a triannual assessment model (beginning, middle, and end of year) mandated by the state. While these assessments are intended to be “instructionally supportive,” the new structure still subjects all public school students to multiple state-mandated evaluations, regardless of individual or parental preference. There are no opt-out provisions in the bill for families who may object to the assessments or believe their child’s education would be better served through alternative evaluation methods. In effect, the bill increases the frequency of compulsory testing, reducing parental agency and student flexibility—both of which are essential to protecting individual liberty in education.
• Personal Responsibility: On one hand, the bill aims to give teachers and parents more timely data about student progress, which could support more informed decision-making and shared responsibility in student learning. The provision of diagnostic reports and performance-based instructional feedback could enable parents to better support their children and allow teachers to adjust instruction more effectively. However, the centralized design of the assessment system undercuts this benefit. By placing strict requirements on the timing and structure of assessments and concentrating decision-making authority at the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the bill reduces local discretion. Educators and parents are given data, but have little control over how it's generated, when it's collected, or how it's used, limiting their ability to exercise genuine responsibility over educational outcomes.
• Free Enterprise: The bill mandates that TEA contract with a nationally recognized vendor to develop and administer the new assessment instruments. This may benefit a small number of large, incumbent assessment providers, likely through multi-year contracts worth tens of millions of dollars. However, the bill does not contain competitive safeguards or incentives for innovation, nor does it encourage the participation of smaller, Texas-based, or open-source alternatives. By institutionalizing a narrow procurement model, the bill risks distorting the educational services market and entrenching monopolistic vendor relationships. This could reduce competition, stifle innovation, and limit the opportunity for local or independent actors to contribute to assessment development or accountability planning.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly affect tangible property rights such as land use or ownership. However, there are potential privacy implications related to the expanded collection and use of student performance data. The bill requires TEA to collect, analyze, and disseminate detailed, individualized assessment results and diagnostic reports, but it lacks clear provisions regarding data privacy, parental consent, data retention limits, or third-party sharing restrictions. Though not a traditional property rights issue, student data privacy is increasingly viewed as an extension of personal liberty and informational self-ownership. Without safeguards, this broad collection effort could raise future liberty concerns, especially if data is used beyond its intended purpose.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly conflicts with liberty principles. The bill significantly expands the authority of the Texas Education Agency in several ways. It transfers rulemaking power from the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) to the unelected Commissioner of Education. The bill grants TEA the authority to enforce campus interventions and turnaround plans—even when performance ratings are blocked by court orders. It allows TEA to maintain sanctions indefinitely based on prior ratings. The bill limits local school districts’ ability to challenge TEA decisions or use public funds for litigation. These provisions represent a clear shift toward centralized executive control in education policy. They reduce the influence of locally elected school boards and voters, diminish legislative oversight, and undermine the principle that government should be as close to the people as possible.