According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 117 indicate a total projected cost of $2,154,136 to the state’s General Revenue Fund over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill does not appropriate funds directly but provides the legal basis for appropriations necessary to support the operations of the Governor’s Task Force on the Governance of Early Childhood Education and Care. All administrative costs are to be borne by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), using either newly appropriated or existing available funds.

The fiscal impact begins in Fiscal Year 2026, with an estimated cost of $788,174, followed by $1,365,962 in FY 2027. These costs primarily cover a combination of staffing, research, administrative support, and technology expenses. TEA anticipates the need to hire 1 full-time equivalent (FTE) employee to help implement the task force's provisions, at a cost of roughly $300,000 for the biennium. In addition, producing required reports and compiling policy and budget recommendations will cost $125,000 annually.

The most substantial expense is related to information technology (IT), specifically for integrating agency data systems. TEA estimates IT development and system integration efforts will cost approximately $1.5 million over the two-year period. These improvements are central to the task force’s objective of aligning statewide data systems across TEA, HHSC, and TWC.

There is no anticipated fiscal impact to local governments, and the analysis assumes other state agencies involved can absorb their costs within existing resources. Overall, while the bill represents a modest short-term investment, it aims to lay the groundwork for long-term efficiency and structural reform in early childhood governance statewide.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 177 unless amended as described below. While the bill is framed as a good-government effort to streamline early childhood education programs across multiple state agencies, its structure raises serious concerns for liberty-oriented governance. By establishing a task force with broad review and advisory powers under the Governor’s office, the bill invites a more centralized approach to an area that is fundamentally rooted in parental authority and private sector participation. Although the task force itself cannot mandate policy, it creates a framework for future reforms that may lead to increased government control or regulation in early childhood education—an area where families should remain the primary decision-makers.

The bill does include representation from private and public education stakeholders, which is a positive step. However, it lacks clear statutory protections to ensure the independence of private childcare providers and does not affirm the role of parents as the ultimate authority in early education choices. Additionally, while the bill sunsets the task force in 2027, its findings and recommendations could lay the groundwork for long-term policy shifts that weaken the role of families, local providers, and market-based solutions.

Given these risks, the bill cannot be supported in its current form. However, with amendments that reinforce parental rights, protect free enterprise, and place clear limits on the scope and power of the task force, the bill could serve a valuable, supporting—not controlling—role in shaping future policy. Until such protections are added, the responsible position is to oppose the bill while advocating for specific amendments to bring it into alignment with the core principles of individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility.

• Individual Liberty: The bill poses a risk to individual liberty by increasing the role of the state in planning and potentially reshaping early childhood education and care. While parents retain legal authority under this bill, the structure—particularly its location within the Governor's office and its focus on centralized policy alignment—opens the door for future recommendations that may diminish parental choice and reduce the diversity of educational options available to families. Without clear protections for parental decision-making, this bill trends toward a model where government—not families—sets the direction for early learning systems.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not directly interfere with the ability of families to make choices for their children. However, it also doesn’t reinforce the principle that parents, not the state, are the primary educators and caretakers of their young children. Instead, it approaches early childhood education as a system for the state to optimize. By failing to center parents in the process, the bill subtly shifts the narrative from one of personal responsibility to government stewardship, which could have longer-term implications.

• Free Enterprise: Although the bill includes private child care providers on the task force, it does not include language to protect their autonomy. There is no assurance that future policy recommendations won’t favor public systems, restrict provider flexibility, or impose burdensome standards. As it stands, the bill may lead to policy directions that distort the childcare market, crowd out small providers, or undermine competition.

• Private Property Rights: The bill doesn’t directly impact property rights, but downstream effects are possible. For example, recommendations on facility standards, zoning, or program licensing could affect how private property is used by child care businesses. Without safeguards, property owners in the early education sector could face new compliance burdens stemming from this task force's recommendations.

• Limited Government: The most direct conflict is with the principle of limited government. The bill creates a new state entity with broad authority to examine and recommend potentially sweeping administrative changes. While its recommendations are non-binding, the bill grants it a central planning role in a deeply localized and family-centric policy area. Even with a sunset provision, this represents a top-down approach that expands executive branch influence without adequate legislative or local checks.

• HB 3802 (Same As)