According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 213 is not expected to have a fiscal impact on the state budget. Specifically, it states that any costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill—such as tracking chronically absent students and modifying reporting mechanisms—can be absorbed within the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) existing resources​.

For local governments, particularly school districts and open-enrollment charter schools, the bill introduces new administrative responsibilities. These include identifying students who meet the definition of “chronically absent” and reporting this data to the TEA. Additionally, schools must determine whether these students qualify as "at risk of dropping out" under the amended criteria. While this represents an increase in compliance and reporting duties at the local level, the fiscal note does not estimate these as having significant monetary costs or requiring new state appropriations.

In summary, HB 213 is considered to have no significant fiscal impact at the state level and only minor implementation implications for local education agencies. However, the workload for school districts may increase in practice as they adapt data systems and train staff to meet the expanded reporting requirements.

HB 213 seeks to expand the definition of a "student at risk of dropping out of school" in the Texas Education Code to include chronically absent students—those who miss more than 10% of instructional time in a school year or grading period. The bill mandates that school districts track and report this data to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), with disaggregation by various demographic factors. While the bill aims to identify students who may need additional support, its approach raises substantive concerns regarding the proper role of the state in education and family life.

At its core, HB 213 further embeds the assumption that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure school attendance and educational success. This premise contradicts the foundational principles of limited government and personal responsibility. Education is, first and foremost, a family and community matter. By expanding state definitions and data mandates, the bill places more burdens on school districts and centralizes oversight in Austin rather than empowering local solutions and parental authority.

Although the bill does not appear to carry a significant state fiscal impact, it does impose additional reporting requirements on local school districts, which must now identify and track a new category of students without clear evidence that such data collection alone improves outcomes. More importantly, the bill's logic promotes the idea that student behavior—such as attendance—is best corrected through bureaucratic classification and intervention rather than by cultivating individual, familial, and community responsibility.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 213 as it expands the scope of state involvement in education without respecting the boundaries of parental rights or community autonomy. It may have noble aims, but it relies on mechanisms that further erode the balance between the state and the individual in shaping educational success.

• Individual Liberty:  While the bill is intended to help students by identifying those who are chronically absent and offering support, it does so through increased state oversight and bureaucratic classification. This shifts the focus away from the individual’s or family’s right to determine educational priorities and toward a top-down intervention model. The designation of a student as “at risk” based solely on attendance—without context—may lead to interventions that are intrusive or misaligned with the student’s or family's values.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill subtly undermines the principle that parents and students should bear primary responsibility for educational engagement and outcomes. By assigning schools the role of identifying, tracking, and intervening with chronically absent students, the state absorbs more of the accountability that traditionally belongs to the family. This disincentivizes personal ownership over attendance and educational habits and expands the idea that government institutions are ultimately responsible for student success.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has minimal direct impact on the free market but may carry indirect consequences. Mandating new reporting and intervention responsibilities on public schools could increase administrative workload and compliance costs, diverting resources away from instructional priorities. Over time, this kind of policy direction could disincentivize innovation in educational service delivery by shifting focus toward compliance over outcomes.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve any issues related to land use, ownership, or property seizure and does not impact private property rights.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly diverges from core liberty values. The bill expands the role of the state in defining at-risk student populations and requiring detailed data reporting from local education agencies. It places an administrative burden on school districts without additional funding and establishes a precedent for further state involvement in what should be locally managed issues—like school attendance and dropout prevention. This kind of state-centered policy framework undermines the principle that local communities and parents, not state agencies, should be the primary drivers of education.

• HB 2236 (Same As)
• SB 56 (Same As)