According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 12 are expected to result in a net negative impact to the state’s General Revenue-Related Funds totaling approximately $1.48 million over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. This cost is primarily driven by the administrative and technological infrastructure needed to implement the new mandates imposed by the bill. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) anticipates hiring two full-time employees to manage compliance and reporting requirements, with ongoing personnel costs estimated at $195,856 annually from FY 2028 through FY 2030.

One of the bill’s cost drivers is the requirement for TEA to collect and publish annual facility usage reports from all school districts, including detailed information on instructional capacity and land use. Additionally, TEA must oversee new mandates that require school boards to adopt, publish, and submit grievance procedures and parental engagement policies. These provisions necessitate the development and maintenance of information systems, accounting for $0.3 million in technology expenses in FY 2026 and $0.8 million in FY 2027.

Local education agencies (LEAs) may also face indeterminate costs due to obligations for compliance reporting, policy adoption, website updates, documentation of grievances, and the production and distribution of new parental rights materials. While specific costs to individual districts could vary widely based on local capacity, TEA notes that the overall financial burden to LEAs could be meaningful, although not quantifiable at this time.

In summary, SB 12 creates new administrative demands at both the state and local levels. While the financial burden on TEA is clearly outlined and modest in scale, the bill’s broad mandates may result in additional, though unspecified, compliance costs for school districts statewide.

SB 12 represents a robust and thoughtful expansion of parental rights within Texas public education, rooted in the principle that families, not schools or government, should have ultimate authority over their children’s moral, educational, and health-related upbringing. The bill codifies key rights for parents, such as the ability to opt into human sexuality instruction, access to instructional materials and student health services, and participation in grievance and appeals processes. These provisions substantially increase transparency and accountability in school governance, aligning well with the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

The bill also establishes limits on the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) duties within school systems, restricting administrative mandates that could lead to compelled speech or viewpoint discrimination. Importantly, the House committee substitute version of SB 12 softens some of the originally broad DEI prohibitions to ensure they do not conflict with federal anti-discrimination requirements. This pragmatic refinement maintains the bill’s objective—preventing ideological imposition in public education—while minimizing legal and operational risk for schools.

Though SB 12 comes with moderate fiscal implications, including an estimated $1.48 million impact on the General Revenue Fund over the 2026–2027 biennium, these costs are primarily attributed to new reporting requirements and compliance functions at the Texas Education Agency. School districts may also face manageable administrative responsibilities, such as publishing grievance policies and reporting facility usage, but these are reasonable expectations given the bill’s goals of improving oversight and engagement.

In sum, SB 12 strongly reflects foundational liberty values—especially parental authority, limited government, and accountability in public institutions. The bill’s overarching structure is sound. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 12.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strongly reinforces individual liberty by asserting and protecting the rights of parents to make decisions regarding their children’s moral, religious, educational, and medical upbringing. The bill places limits on school authority, requiring parental consent for certain health-related services, and increases access to instructional materials and school records. These provisions ensure that parents, not the state, have final say over decisions affecting their children, directly enhancing constitutional protections of family autonomy and privacy.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by placing decision-making authority squarely in the hands of families. Parents are empowered to actively participate in grievance processes, monitor their child’s exposure to sensitive curriculum, and select educational settings that align with their values, including private and home school options. The bill implicitly expects families to take an active role in navigating their children’s educational paths, reflecting a deeper commitment to civic responsibility and local engagement.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly regulate private business, but its prohibition on DEI duties may have indirect implications for innovation and staffing flexibility within public education systems. By limiting DEI-related training and hiring policies—even voluntary ones—it may restrict how school districts experiment with inclusive practices that reflect community needs. Still, since these constraints apply to government entities and not the private sector, the free enterprise principle is largely unaffected.
• Private Property Rights: There is no significant effect on private property rights. The bill’s provisions focus on public institutions, and while facility reporting requirements involve school property, they do not implicate individual ownership or use of private property.
• Limited Government: The bill generally aligns with limited government by removing the state from domains better governed by parents. It curtails public schools’ authority to enact DEI-related mandates or operate without meaningful parental oversight. However, it also introduces several new administrative mandates—including TEA compliance certifications, grievance tracking, and facility usage reporting—which expand state oversight and bureaucratic involvement. While these additions serve transparency goals, they may challenge the ideal of minimal state intervention unless carefully managed.