According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1832 is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication for the state. The bill proposes to allow parents of students victimized by a public school employee to either transfer their child to another public school or receive equivalent public education funding for private or home schooling. Despite introducing a form of publicly funded school choice in specific instances, the state does not anticipate increased costs beyond the standard funding allocations already tied to each public school student.

From a funding perspective, the bill redirects existing per-student allotments (as calculated under Chapter 48 of the Education Code) rather than requiring new appropriations. This model aligns with how public education funding in Texas follows the student, so the overall expenditure levels for the state would remain relatively stable. In other words, while funds would be used differently—potentially directed to private institutions or homeschool expenses—they would not represent new or additional spending above what would have been spent if the student remained in the public system.

There are also no significant fiscal implications expected for local governments. School districts may see some fluctuation in student enrollment, which would affect their funding, but not in a way that would produce major financial disruption. The flexibility for parental choice granted by the bill may lead to minor administrative adjustments for school districts handling transfers, but those changes are not anticipated to require significant resources.

SB 1832 presents a narrowly tailored and liberty-focused response to a deeply serious issue: the victimization of students by public school employees. As outlined in the bill analysis, the legislation addresses the emotional, psychological, and safety challenges that students face when forced to return to the same campus after experiencing abuse or misconduct. Recognizing that such schools can remain sites of trauma, even when the offending employee is removed, SB 1832 empowers families with actionable alternatives, giving them the authority to transfer their child to a different campus or seek funding for a private or home school arrangement.

This policy upholds the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility by placing decision-making power squarely in the hands of the parent. It allows families to choose the educational environment that best promotes their child’s healing, safety, and well-being. The bill also respects free enterprise by enabling public funds to follow the student, even into the private education marketplace, without imposing new regulatory burdens on those private institutions. By preventing the use of federal dollars or available school fund resources, the bill maintains fiscal discipline, which reinforces the principle of limited government.

The fiscal impact, as noted by the Legislative Budget Board, is not expected to be significant for either the state or local school districts. Funding merely shifts in accordance with the student's enrollment, rather than expanding the public education budget. This fiscal neutrality, paired with targeted eligibility criteria and rulemaking authority granted to the Commissioner of Education to prevent fraud or abuse, helps ensure responsible implementation.

In summary, SB 1832 advances core liberty principles by ensuring that victims of school-based abuse are not retraumatized through forced continued enrollment. It supports family autonomy, responsible use of public funds, and the expansion of educational choice for those most in need. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1832.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by giving parents the legal right to act in the best interest of their child’s safety and mental health without having to navigate bureaucratic resistance or be confined to limited district-level options. When a student is victimized by a public school employee, the emotional and psychological fallout often makes it untenable to remain in that environment. This bill affirms that parents, not the state, should determine whether remaining in that school is appropriate, and gives them the ability to choose a safer, more supportive setting, whether in another public school, a private institution, or through home education.
• Personal Responsibility: By providing parents with the authority to make educational decisions in response to a traumatic event, the bill aligns with the principle of personal responsibility. It acknowledges the family’s primary role in determining what is best for the child, and entrusts them with both the freedom and accountability to use public education dollars wisely. This reflects a shift away from state-centered paternalism toward empowering families to take control of their own educational and healing paths.
• Free Enterprise: The bill allows public funds to follow students to private or home school settings, opening new opportunities for education providers and expanding the marketplace of educational options. By enabling state dollars to be spent on private tuition or instructional materials for homeschooling, it supports a more competitive, decentralized education model. This market-oriented approach encourages innovation and responsiveness among education providers while respecting parental choice.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill does not directly involve property ownership, it affirms families' autonomy over decisions that affect the upbringing and education of their children. Insofar as private and home-based education are expressions of individual and familial sovereignty, the bill reinforces the right to make use of private educational resources without undue state interference.
• Limited Government: The bill limits the role of government by decentralizing decision-making and reducing dependency on a single, rigid public education system. It provides a legal mechanism for families to seek alternatives without requiring state agency approval for each transfer or imposing new mandates on private education providers. Notably, the bill bars new regulations from being imposed on private schools participating in the program if those regulations were not in effect as of January 1, 2025—a strong guardrail against government overreach.

• HB 5338 (Same As)