According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 100 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The analysis anticipates that any administrative or implementation costs incurred by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) related to enforcing the instructional materials restrictions can be absorbed within existing resources and budgetary allocations​.

For local governments, specifically school districts, the bill may impose compliance costs if they are currently using instructional materials that appear on the State Board of Education's (SBOE) list of rejected materials. These districts would be required to discontinue the use of such materials and potentially incur additional expenses to replace them with approved alternatives. However, the fiscal note does not quantify these local impacts, suggesting they may vary widely depending on district size, current material usage, and existing inventory.

In summary, while the state-level fiscal impact is minimal, HB 100 could create operational and budgetary pressures for local school districts that must transition away from instructional materials now deemed noncompliant under the proposed law.

HB 100 strengthens the role of the State Board of Education (SBOE) by codifying prohibitions against the use of instructional materials that have been formally rejected by the board. The bill clarifies that public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools may not purchase or use these rejected materials, regardless of whether state instructional materials funds or local funds are used, and extends this restriction to open educational resources. This change ensures full alignment with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards and supports consistent academic quality across all public classrooms.

It is appropriate and necessary for the state to enforce minimum quality and content standards through a democratically accountable body like the SBOE. By requiring schools to comply with these standards—even when using local funds—HB 100 ensures that all public education materials meet baseline expectations for academic rigor and age-appropriateness. It also reinforces the state’s responsibility to protect students from materials deemed unsuitable or inconsistent with TEKS.

While some may raise concerns about state overreach, this bill represents a measured and focused policy aimed at preserving the integrity of Texas public education. It does not limit private or supplemental educational choices, nor does it restrict innovation outside the public system. Instead, HB 100 reinforces the SBOE’s role as a quality control body for publicly funded instruction and enhances trust in the content delivered in Texas classrooms. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 100.

• Individual Liberty: The bill bolsters individual liberty in the public education context by ensuring that students and families are not subjected to instructional materials that the State Board of Education (SBOE) has deemed inappropriate—particularly those flagged as obscene, harmful, or misaligned with state curriculum standards (TEKS). This empowers parents by giving them a clearer expectation of the academic and moral guardrails within public schools, reinforcing a sense of trust in publicly funded education. While the bill may limit exposure to a broader range of content, it does so through a transparent, public review process overseen by elected SBOE members.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes the principle of personal and institutional responsibility by holding school districts accountable for ensuring their instructional materials meet state standards. It sends a message that public institutions must steward their resources—whether from the state or local taxpayers—in a manner consistent with educational expectations. Schools are expected to take responsibility for their material choices and cannot sidestep quality controls by shifting to local funds or alternative sources.
• Free Enterprise: The bill restricts the public market for educational publishers by prohibiting the use of SBOE-rejected materials in any publicly funded context, including open education resources and local purchases. While this may limit opportunities for some vendors, it also creates a fairer playing field by requiring all instructional content providers to meet clearly defined quality standards to access the public education market. Rather than suppressing competition outright, the bill redirects it toward meeting objective benchmarks, which can ultimately enhance educational quality.
• Private Property Rights: The bill affects the autonomy of local school districts in how they choose to allocate their local property tax funds for educational materials. By prohibiting them from using local funds to acquire materials rejected by the SBOE, the bill imposes a new constraint on local decision-making. While this limits the discretionary use of local resources, it reflects a belief that public funds—regardless of source—should align with a unified, state-established academic standard for the sake of consistency and student welfare.
• Limited Government: Though the bill increases the state’s regulatory reach over local schools, it does so in service of a core constitutional function: ensuring a uniform system of public education. The SBOE is an elected body charged with maintaining curricular integrity. The bill reinforces this mandate by preventing circumvention through local purchases. From this perspective, the bill reflects a properly limited government action—exercising oversight where it has been explicitly entrusted to do so.

• HB 1358 (Same As)
• SB 451 (Same As)