According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1868 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The study mandated by the bill, which focused on the feasibility of modifying performance tier funding metrics for dual credit or dual enrollment courses, can be conducted using existing resources within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).

The bill does not authorize or mandate any immediate changes to the performance-based funding formula itself, but instead calls for a review of the potential effects of reducing the credit hour requirement from 15 to nine hours. Because no actual formula adjustments or funding reallocations would occur without further legislative action, the implementation of this bill is projected to be budget-neutral at this stage.

Additionally, no fiscal implications are anticipated for units of local government, including public junior colleges, as the bill requires only a study and not direct programmatic changes. THECB and partner institutions can absorb the workload using their current staffing and infrastructure, particularly as the reporting deadline is set for late 2026, allowing for a manageable timeline.

In summary, HB 1868 presents no immediate fiscal burden to the state or local entities and offers a cost-effective approach to evaluating future changes in education funding policy.

HB 1868 presents itself as a modest, data-gathering bill aimed at examining potential changes to the funding formula for dual credit and dual enrollment courses at public junior colleges. However, on closer examination, it raises several red flags for lawmakers who are concerned about protecting taxpayers, maintaining a limited scope of government, and avoiding unnecessary delegation of legislative authority to unelected agencies.

The bill requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to conduct a multi-year study examining the feasibility and fiscal impact of reducing the current 15-semester credit hour threshold (used for performance funding purposes) to nine hours. While this may appear harmless, there is a longstanding concern among fiscal conservatives that government-funded studies often serve as the opening act for future spending increases and bureaucratic expansion. Historically, these studies are frequently used to generate justification for policy changes that grow government involvement in areas that should remain under local control.

Moreover, there is no demonstrated need for the study. The bill analysis, fiscal note, and background statement offer no compelling evidence of a widespread problem with the current funding structure. Junior colleges and independent school districts already have the flexibility to design dual credit programs that meet local needs. If there are real barriers or inequities, they should be addressed through direct legislative action, not through an open-ended study that extends the influence of unelected regulatory agencies.

While the bill includes a sunset clause and carries no significant fiscal impact according to the Legislative Budget Board, it nonetheless uses existing agency time and taxpayer-supported resources to explore a speculative policy shift. This “solution in search of a problem” approach risks opening the door to permanent policy changes that could increase state spending and centralize more education policy under the coordinating board, rather than the legislature.

Additionally, lawmakers may rightly be concerned that the study encourages further entrenchment of centralized education planning. It authorizes THECB to consult with other agencies and institutions, further normalizing the delegation of policymaking to state bureaucracy. Even though no new rulemaking authority is granted, the report’s findings could serve as the basis for future bills that expand performance funding or workforce development programs in ways that undermine fiscal restraint or overreach into local education governance.

In conclusion, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1868, consistent with a philosophy of limited government, fiscal discipline, and skepticism toward agency-driven policymaking. The bill is unnecessary, potentially burdensome in its consequences, and misaligned with the principle of only legislating when clear, demonstrated problems exist. Lawmakers committed to restraining the size and influence of government may oppose the bill on the grounds that even temporary studies can pave the way for permanent policy and spending expansion.

• Individual Liberty: On the surface, the bill appears to support individual liberty by exploring ways to make dual credit programs more accessible and cost-effective for students, potentially offering faster, cheaper paths to college completion. However, it does not directly change any laws or guarantee new freedoms. The real concern lies in the potential for this study to produce recommendations that lead to centralized state intervention in local education systems, which could result in the state exerting more control over curriculum, course structures, and educational funding models. This indirect pathway to increased state involvement may, over time, undermine parental choice and local control, which are critical components of individual liberty in education.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither promotes nor restricts personal responsibility in any clear way. Dual credit programs inherently reward responsible students who take initiative, but this bill does not modify access to such programs; it merely commissions a study of funding structures. That said, any future policy change resulting from the study could affect incentives within the education system, such as by encouraging or discouraging student engagement, depending on how funding formulas are revised. As written, however, the bill’s impact on this principle is minimal.
• Free Enterprise: While dual credit programs help develop workforce skills and are generally supported by the business community, this bill does not expand those programs through market forces. Instead, it relies on a state-sponsored study to explore how to alter funding formulas, an approach that may lead to increased public subsidization of programs in ways that distort the education and labor markets. By funneling more state dollars toward certain outcomes, policymakers may inadvertently disadvantage private or alternative educational providers. Moreover, growing reliance on state-driven workforce planning, rather than market signals, can undermine innovation and flexibility in both the education and private sectors.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not touch on property rights. It neither expands nor restricts an individual’s or institution’s right to own, use, or dispose of property. The study focuses exclusively on internal government funding structures and academic outcomes.
• Limited Government: This is the most significant area of concern. While the bill doesn’t create a new agency or mandate immediate changes, it expands the scope of state government activity by directing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), an unelected agency, to conduct a multi-year study on matters traditionally left to local control. It also encourages inter-agency cooperation and signals openness to future regulatory expansion. Even though the bill technically includes a sunset provision and has no immediate fiscal cost, it sets a precedent for bureaucratic policymaking through research rather than legislative deliberation. This type of study often becomes a springboard for future legislation that increases state control, expands spending, and weakens the legislative branch’s direct accountability to the public.