According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 6 is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. Any costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill, such as updates to guidance, data reporting, or rulemaking by the Texas Education Agency, are expected to be absorbed within existing agency resources and appropriations​.

However, the bill may have financial implications at the local level, particularly for school districts. Specifically, if districts choose to establish virtual Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), they may face development and ongoing maintenance costs. These programs would require technological infrastructure, instructional materials for remote learning, and potentially new staffing or administrative oversight. The bill permits virtual DAEPs as an option for expelled students, and while not mandated, districts adopting this model would need to budget accordingly.

Additionally, school districts may need to revise their student codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures to align with the new statutory requirements. This may involve staff training, administrative planning, and public communication—costs that, while not likely substantial, may vary by district size and existing discipline policies.

Overall, while the state will not incur major expenses from this legislation, the local fiscal impact will depend largely on district choices regarding virtual program development and how extensively they must update current disciplinary frameworks.

HB 6 seeks to modernize and strengthen school disciplinary policy in Texas, citing the post-pandemic rise in classroom disruptions and threats to student safety. While this goal is understandable and shared by many stakeholders, the bill expands authority in ways that undermine key liberty principles—particularly individual liberty, limited government, and due process. The bill lacks adequate procedural protections for students and families, incentivizes exclusion through virtual disciplinary placements, and centralizes power disproportionately in the hands of school administrators, especially the superintendent. These structural flaws demand a No; Amend recommendation.

A core problem lies in the bill’s expansion of the threat assessment process, which authorizes school districts to conduct internal evaluations and then seek court-ordered removal of students—potentially for up to 60 instructional days, and with renewals possible. This process allows for such removals based solely on a district-conducted threat assessment without first requiring parental notification, participation, or access to independent review. Moreover, it delegates decision-making authority to the superintendent or their designee to determine whether a student has engaged in certain off-campus conduct that may warrant expulsion or alternative placement. These decisions can be based on the administrator’s “reasonable belief” that such conduct occurred, without requiring a court adjudication or corroborating evidence. This grants enormous discretionary power to one individual, enabling wide latitude in how punishment is applied.

Such unchecked administrative discretion is ripe for inequitable application, as different superintendents could interpret student behavior and disciplinary triggers in inconsistent, subjective, or even biased ways. The lack of mandatory standards, guardrails, or third-party accountability mechanisms further exacerbates this risk. In effect, the bill vests substantial quasi-judicial authority in unelected school officials, without the necessary legal safeguards or appeals processes to protect students and parents. This violates the principle of limited government, where power should be clearly defined, narrowly tailored, and subject to oversight.

The bill’s creation of virtual Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) deepens this concern. A superintendent may place students in such programs—often with limited access to live teachers, materials, or in-person support—while the district continues to receive full ADA-based funding for the student. Without requiring parental agreement or support infrastructure, this creates a dangerous incentive to “remove and forget” high-needs or challenging students, especially when the district faces little financial or legal downside in doing so.

In addition, the bill weakens procedural protections for students with disabilities by repealing language that previously required ARD committee review before disciplinary action for certain behaviors and by allowing students with disabilities to be judicially removed based on threat assessments without specific rights to challenge the placement. This further centralizes power within the hands of administrators—particularly superintendents—at the expense of legal protections designed to safeguard vulnerable populations.

Suggested Amendments:

• Parental Rights and Notification:
  • Require parental notification before threat assessments are conducted, including notice of the reason, procedures involved, and the right to participate in the process.
  • Restore protections for students in special education by requiring an ARD (Admission, Review, and Dismissal) committee meeting before disciplinary action is taken for conduct related to bullying, harassment, or similar behavior.
  • Require that any removal of a student from class by a teacher be preceded by parental notification and an opportunity to respond to the allegations before disciplinary action proceeds
• Parental Participation and Support:
  • Mandate communication with parents in their preferred language, at flexible times and using accessible formats (including virtual), to inform them of the child’s behavioral progress and any continuing concerns
  • Require that ongoing behavior concerns result in a formal Behavior Improvement Plan, developed in partnership with parents or guardians and lasting at least six months (Floor Amendment 3).
  • Require that parents be active participants in disciplinary conferences and behavior planning meetings, and ensure those meetings are scheduled at times and locations convenient for parents
• Limits on Virtual DAEP Placements:
  • Prohibit placement into a virtual DAEP unless:
    • Parents or guardians agree that virtual placement is in the child’s best interest
    • The family can support the technology and supervision required
    • In-person learning has been considered first
  • Require TEA rulemaking to guarantee:
    • Parental involvement in all virtual placement decisions
    • Student access to live instruction, materials, and academic help
    • Minimum standards for academic quality and student engagement;
    • In-person options if virtual learning is failing the student
• Due Process and Oversight:
  • Establish a clear right to appeal any expulsion, removal, or virtual DAEP placement, especially for students placed through the judicial process or threat assessments
  • Require independent review or oversight for threat assessment findings before a district can seek injunctive relief or remove a student to an alternative setting
  • Limit the superintendent’s discretionary authority by:
    • Requiring documented evidence or legal adjudication (not just “reasonable belief”) before off-campus behavior can lead to removal
    • Ensuring all disciplinary decisions are reviewed by a neutral panel or committee when long-term exclusion is proposed
• Financial Safeguards and Equity:
  • Create guardrails on funding by requiring:
    • Transparency about how many students are placed in virtual DAEPs
    • Public reporting of performance data, engagement levels, and completion rates
    • Justification of continued ADA funding based on student participation and progress
  • Ensure that financial incentives do not encourage overuse of virtual placements, particularly for historically marginalized or high-needs student groups

In conclusion, HB 6 must be amended to reduce the concentration of discretionary authority in the hands of superintendents, introduce procedural safeguards, and protect student and parental rights. Without those reforms, the bill violates key liberty principles, opens the door to inequitable enforcement, and creates incentives to sideline students without oversight. A vote of No; Amend is the only appropriate position.

• Individual Liberty: The bill’s provisions allowing for the court-ordered removal of a student from their educational setting based on a district-conducted threat assessment raise serious concerns about due process. This is especially true for students with disabilities, who may face expulsion or alternative placement without the procedural protections typically afforded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The ability of schools to bypass traditional due process in seeking injunctive relief from a judge places considerable discretion in the hands of administrators and courts, potentially at the expense of a student’s civil rights. Additionally, open-enrollment charter schools are given greater discretion to exclude students with criminal convictions or disciplinary placements, including students merely subject to an expulsion order. While safety concerns are valid, this expanded exclusionary authority lacks built-in safeguards such as appeals processes, rehabilitation opportunities, or review standards. This could result in the long-term denial of educational opportunities based on past behavior, effectively punishing students without a path to redemption—an outcome in tension with the principle of liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the expectation that students must take responsibility for their actions by clearly defining the types of conduct that may lead to in-school or out-of-school suspension, removal, or expulsion. It also requires teachers to document disruptive behavior and utilize classroom management strategies aimed at improving student conduct before escalating to more punitive measures. In doing so, it supports a model in which both students and educators share responsibility for maintaining a productive learning environment. At the same time, the bill risks undermining the principle when it allows for exclusion or removal without clearly defined standards for rehabilitation or reintegration. Liberty-based governance should encourage correction, not indefinite exclusion, particularly when dealing with youth.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly impact the free market or the ability of businesses to operate without government interference. However, there is a secondary concern related to how open-enrollment charter schools, which often operate with greater autonomy and may receive public funds, use their newfound discretion to exclude students. If charter operators begin using discipline policies to selectively enroll students in ways that boost performance metrics rather than serve all students equitably, it could distort the competitive education landscape—undermining the transparency and fairness that a truly free enterprise system relies upon.
• Private Property Rights: This bill does not affect property rights in any meaningful way. There are no provisions regarding land use, eminent domain, or regulatory takings. The principle of private property rights is not implicated by this legislation.
• Limited Government: While the bill purports to empower local school districts with greater flexibility, it also significantly expands the scope of state and local authority, particularly by granting schools and courts new powers to remove students via judicial proceedings. It repeals certain oversight mechanisms (such as ARD committee review prior to disciplinary action for students in special education), thereby diminishing the checks and balances that previously limited administrative overreach. In addition, by authorizing virtual DAEPs and placing more students in remote placements, the state assumes a larger role in the delivery and structure of disciplinary education without establishing clear performance or accountability standards for these programs. In effect, this centralizes more decision-making power at the district and agency level without proportionate oversight.