According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1262 is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The analysis assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill's provisions—such as the commissioning of peace officers by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) or expanded school safety reporting—can be absorbed within the agency’s existing resources​.

This assumption likely hinges on the TEA’s ability to manage expanded responsibilities, such as oversight of newly commissioned peace officers and enhanced data reporting, without requiring new appropriations. The fiscal analysis does not provide detailed breakdowns of expected expenditures, suggesting either that initial implementation costs are modest or that the infrastructure and staff needed for execution are already in place or can be reallocated from within current agency operations.

For local governments and school districts, the fiscal note likewise indicates no significant financial burden. This implies that compliance with new safety plan mandates, reporting duties, or participation in regional school safety coordination meetings would not impose substantial new costs, possibly due to existing requirements that already cover similar activities. However, it's worth noting that while no immediate fiscal impact is expected, long-term sustainability and adequacy of local resources for school safety enhancements may still merit attention as districts work to meet the law's expectations.

SB 1262 reflects the Texas Legislature’s continued effort to address public school safety in the wake of tragic events that have spotlighted vulnerabilities in campus security across the state. The bill includes several commendable provisions: it strengthens requirements for emergency operations planning, expands training in psychological and physical safety, mandates regular reporting and reevaluation of safety-related exceptions, and introduces annual statewide safety audits and reports. Additionally, it addresses coordination through sheriff-led safety meetings and provides guidance on the use of school safety allotment funds.

However, the bill’s central feature—the authorization of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to commission peace officers—marks a significant expansion of centralized state power that raises serious concerns under multiple core liberty principles, particularly Limited Government, Individual Liberty, and Local Control. The TEA is a regulatory and oversight agency, not a traditional law enforcement body. Granting it authority to commission its own peace officers represents a structural shift in Texas’ education governance model, one that is not accompanied by adequate statutory guardrails. The bill does not meaningfully constrain the jurisdiction, scope of duty, or enforcement protocols for these officers, nor does it require external oversight or periodic legislative reauthorization.

While the bill asserts that TEA-commissioned officers would assist in investigations and coordination with local agencies during crises, it lacks the specificity necessary to ensure these powers are not misused or allowed to expand unchecked over time. For instance, the bill does not limit the presence or action of TEA officers to school grounds, to request-only deployments, or to situations where local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to act. Nor does it require public reporting on the officers' actions, complaints, use-of-force incidents, or interactions with minors. These omissions open the door to unaccountable law enforcement operations tied directly to the state bureaucracy—a development that stands in direct contrast to Texas’ long-standing commitment to localism and decentralized governance.

Additionally, the bill does not offer school districts a clear opt-out mechanism for declining TEA enforcement if they already employ their own law enforcement personnel or alternative safety models. Instead, it imposes uniform compliance and oversight with no allowance for flexibility, collaboration agreements, or waivers. This undermines the principle of Personal Responsibility by removing decision-making authority from the very entities—school boards, parents, and local officials—best positioned to respond to community-specific safety needs.

Although the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note states that SB 1262 would have no significant impact on state or local budgets, this projection may be overly optimistic. Establishing, managing, and supporting a peace officer corps—even a limited one—within TEA is likely to involve ongoing administrative, operational, and legal costs. Without a clear funding mechanism, the bill risks becoming an unfunded mandate or requiring redirection of funds away from more direct, local safety initiatives.

Given these concerns, the bill requires substantial amendment before it should be considered for passage. The following amendments are necessary to preserve its core intent while aligning it with Texas' constitutional principles and practical governance standards.

Amendment Recommendations:

1. Limit the Scope of TEA Peace Officer Authority
   Add language to Section 37.1031 of the Education Code specifying that TEA peace officers may only exercise enforcement powers:

   • On school property or at school-sanctioned events;

   • In response to violations of state education safety regulations;

   • Upon formal request by a local school district or law enforcement agency;

   • With written notice provided to local school board leadership.
     This ensures that TEA enforcement remains supportive—not duplicative or intrusive.

2. Establish Civilian Oversight and Transparency
   Create a statutory requirement for TEA to report annually on the activities of its peace officers, including:

   • The number and nature of deployments;

   • Any complaints filed;

   • Disciplinary actions or legal claims;

   • A breakdown of time spent assisting districts versus conducting independent investigations.
     This report should be submitted to the Legislature and made publicly available.

3. Add a Local Opt-Out or Override Provision
   Allow school districts to opt out of TEA enforcement and officer deployment by passing a resolution during a public board meeting.

   • The opt-out must be reported to TEA and remain valid for two years unless revoked.

   • Districts must certify that they have a valid alternative safety plan in place.
     This protects local control and encourages innovation.

4. Sunset the TEA Commissioning Authority
   Include a provision that sunsets Section 37.1031 after six years unless reauthorized by the Legislature.

   • Prior to reauthorization, TEA must submit an evaluation of the effectiveness, cost, and necessity of the program.
     This aligns with sound legislative oversight and ensures the program does not become permanent without review.

5. Clarify Use of School Safety Allotment Funds
   Amend Section 48.115 to prohibit the use of safety allotment funds for direct personnel or administrative costs associated with operating a TEA law enforcement division.

   • Funds should instead be earmarked for local facility improvements, mental health support, and emergency preparedness.
     This preserves the legislative intent behind school safety funding: to directly benefit schools, students, and teachers.

In conclusion, SB 1262 contains important policy ideas to strengthen school safety and preparedness. However, in its current form, it concentrates too much enforcement authority in a centralized agency without providing the necessary safeguards, accountability, or deference to local expertise. For this reason, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1262 unless amended as described above to reflect Texas’ deep-rooted values of local control, limited government, and individual liberty.

• Individual Liberty: The most concerning aspect of the bill from a liberty perspective is its authorization for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to commission peace officers. This represents a significant increase in state-level enforcement authority within schools. Without clear limitations on jurisdiction, use of force, or interaction with minors, this move risks undermining the civil liberties of students, parents, and educators—particularly in how investigations, detentions, or surveillance may be conducted. Additionally, TEA officers would not be locally elected or directly accountable to the communities they serve, which reduces transparency and recourse for abuse of authority. There is no provision for parental notification standards, due process protections for students, or independent civilian review. This expansion of state policing power within an educational context raises real concerns about mission creep, bureaucratic enforcement, and loss of due process—particularly for vulnerable student populations.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by requiring school districts to proactively develop multihazard emergency operations plans, conduct regular vulnerability assessments, and engage in coordinated safety meetings with sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies. These measures promote district-level initiative in safety planning and ensure local actors are accountable for their preparedness. However, the benefit is somewhat undercut by the top-down nature of TEA’s new enforcement role, which risks shifting responsibility for school safety from local actors to state bureaucrats. Empowering TEA to police districts may disincentivize district innovation or reliance on community-based approaches.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not significantly interfere with or promote private enterprise. It does, however, rely on public funding and oversight to support school safety infrastructure, which could indirectly crowd out private sector innovation in school security if TEA uses its authority to create uniform, centralized standards without allowing space for local contracting flexibility. If implemented thoughtfully—with room for local partnerships, school-specific procurement, and innovation—the bill could support enterprise-driven solutions. But without amendments, there’s a possibility that a centralized TEA-driven approach could standardize procurement in a way that restricts competitive markets.
• Private Property Rights: The bill focuses primarily on public school property and activities, so direct encroachment on private property is limited. However, the undefined scope of TEA peace officer authority—particularly in response operations or investigations—could theoretically lead to indirect impacts on private individuals and their property, such as when parents, vendors, or adjacent landowners are involved in school-related incidents. Without strong jurisdictional limits or accountability mechanisms, there’s a risk that state agents could exert authority beyond school grounds or without clear probable cause, which warrants clarification in the law.
• Limited Government: This bill presents one of the clearest challenges to the principle of limited government. The expansion of TEA’s role into law enforcement—a function traditionally reserved for local agencies—fundamentally alters the agency’s mission from oversight and coordination to direct enforcement. There are no sunset provisions, external oversight requirements, or statutory constraints on how and where TEA officers may operate. Additionally, the bill places new compliance burdens on districts without offering meaningful local opt-out mechanisms, thus centralizing authority and reducing community flexibility. The long-term risk is the creation of a permanent, unelected state police force within public education—a significant shift away from Texas’s decentralized governance model.

• HB 121 (Same As)