According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 222 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill modifies the permissible uses of the school safety allotment under the Foundation School Program but does not increase or mandate any new state-level spending. As a result, implementation of the proposed changes is anticipated to occur within existing funding structures, with no additional appropriations required from the state budget.

For local governments and school districts, the fiscal note states that no significant fiscal implication is anticipated. While the bill broadens the range of allowable expenditures—such as funding for chaplains, security infrastructure, and emergency communication technology—it does not require districts to implement any specific measure. Instead, the legislation offers greater flexibility in how districts use the funds they already receive under the school safety allotment. This optional nature of the bill’s provisions minimizes potential cost burdens on local education agencies.

In summary, HB 222 is designed to enhance local decision-making regarding school safety without altering the overall funding formula or necessitating increased financial support from state or local sources.

HB 222 proposes a single substantive addition to Section 48.115(b) of the Texas Education Code, authorizing school districts to use their school safety allotment funds for professional development related to classroom behavioral management training for educators. While this goal is reasonable and responsive to ongoing concerns about student behavioral challenges, the bill primarily restates what is already included in current statute. Nearly all other uses listed in the bill—such as infrastructure upgrades, communications systems, mental and behavioral health services, and chaplain-led programming—are already authorized under existing law.

The concern arises not from the new teacher training language itself, but from the bill’s reaffirmation of an overly broad and loosely constrained framework for school safety spending. Current law already permits districts to use public funds for mental and behavioral health programming, suicide prevention, restorative justice initiatives, and even spiritual counseling through chaplains, with little to no statutory requirement for parental notification or consent. HB 222 does nothing to address these open-ended uses or to introduce safeguards that would protect individual liberty and parental rights.

By enacting a largely redundant bill that subtly endorses a broad and concerning statutory framework, HB 222 misses an opportunity to narrow or reform the law in a way that upholds limited government and constitutional boundaries. Though classroom management training may be a worthwhile endeavor, it does not justify reinforcing a statute that authorizes public schools to function far beyond their core educational and security missions. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 222.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill adds a modest provision related to professional development, it also reinforces a statute that permits schools to provide mental and behavioral health services—including those delivered by chaplains—without explicit requirements for parental consent or opt-in participation. This blurs the line between public education and personal/family autonomy. The principle of individual liberty includes protecting the rights of families to direct the upbringing and care of their children without uninvited institutional intrusion, especially in areas as personal as psychological services or spiritual care.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does little to promote or hinder personal responsibility. It focuses on institutional training for educators, aiming to help them manage student behavior more effectively. While that could indirectly reduce reliance on punitive discipline or law enforcement intervention, it does not engage students, families, or communities in taking ownership of behavioral outcomes—nor does it promote civic or character education that might reinforce internal accountability.
• Free Enterprise: Though current law already allows for engagement with private vendors for safety-related services and technologies, the bill does not expand or restrict those opportunities. By reinforcing the existing structure, the bill continues to allow districts to contract with trainers, consultants, and service providers, but it does not introduce new enterprise channels or remove market barriers.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect land use, property ownership, or regulatory takings. There are no direct or indirect implications for private property rights.
• Limited Government: Even though the bill's new provision is modest, the bill’s reaffirmation of the current statutory framework supports continued government overreach into roles that arguably fall outside the scope of public education. These include delivering behavioral health services, operating restorative justice programs, and offering spiritual or religious counseling through chaplains. The absence of guardrails or oversight provisions—particularly concerning how funds are used and whether parents are notified—undermines the principle that government powers should be narrowly defined, transparent, and restrained.