According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1962 are substantial, with an estimated negative impact of $36.2 million to General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) would incur most of these costs as it assumes new responsibilities for the development and administration of a restructured assessment system and related accountability reforms.

A significant portion of the cost stems from the bill’s requirement for TEA to implement enhanced interim assessments and to provide technical assistance to school districts. The development and support for these assessments are expected to cost $4.9 million in FY 2026 and around $4.4 million annually thereafter. Additionally, the bill establishes a local accountability grant program to assist one district per education service center region, with annual costs projected at $5.0 million. TEA would also provide technical assistance grants totaling approximately $5.4 million annually starting in 2027. Some of these expenditures would be partially offset by an estimated $1.3 million per year in savings from streamlining existing summative assessments.

Further, the bill calls for the inclusion of teachers in assessment scoring, resulting in stipend payments of $3.6 million annually. The agency anticipates needing 16 additional full-time employees (FTEs) to support implementation, costing about $1.9 million in FY 2026 and slightly less in subsequent years. Minimal IT costs of $100,000 are also expected.

On the local level, school districts that become subject to state-imposed interventions may incur additional expenses, especially if conservators are appointed. The estimated cost for these conservators ranges from $2,500 to $8,000 per month. Finally, although the bill expands the legal and administrative authority of TEA, the fiscal impact on the state’s judicial system—due to new legal proceedings enabled by the bill—remains uncertain and unquantified at this time.

SB 1962 presents a comprehensive overhaul of Texas's public school accountability and student assessment systems. It rightly addresses a major concern: the legal obstruction of A–F ratings by school districts through litigation. By prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for such lawsuits, requiring escrow of legal fees, and imposing sanctions on districts that litigate to block ratings, the bill reasserts the importance of transparent, timely performance data for parents and communities. It also brings much-needed changes to the state’s assessment program by replacing the STAAR with shorter, instructionally aligned tests, reducing benchmark overuse, involving educators in scoring, and ensuring faster turnaround of results.

However, the bill includes a significant structural shift that raises concerns: the transfer of rulemaking authority over assessments from the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) to the Texas Education Agency (TEA). This change centralizes power in an unelected agency and weakens a key layer of democratic oversight over curriculum-aligned assessment policies. While efficiency may improve in the short term, the removal of SBOE from assessment policy decisions limits public accountability and transparency in the long term. This change undermines the constitutional role of SBOE in guiding education policy and represents a notable departure from Texas’s commitment to checks and balances in public education governance.

Balancing these factors, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1962 unless amended as described below. The bill offers valuable reforms in terms of both assessment modernization and accountability enforcement, but it should not move forward without amendments to preserve SBOE’s oversight role. Restoring SBOE authority over assessment-related rulemaking would maintain public trust and ensure long-term accountability within the state’s education system. With this key adjustment, the bill could achieve its goals without sacrificing institutional balance.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances transparency and access to school performance data by reinforcing the state’s A–F accountability system. This supports parents' right to make informed choices about their children’s education and holds schools accountable to the public, aligning with the principle that individuals should be empowered with knowledge to direct their own lives.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that public institutions—like school districts—must take responsibility for performance and cannot avoid accountability through procedural or legal delay. It ensures that districts implement improvement plans in a timely manner and prohibits them from using public funds to challenge state oversight unless clearly authorized. This directly upholds the principle that entities (and, by extension, individuals within them) should be accountable for their outcomes.

• Free Enterprise: The bill does not significantly affect private enterprise. However, its provisions on industry certifications and career readiness indicators support workforce alignment and could create more transparent pathways between public education and the job market. The bill’s grant program and TEA’s expanded support may also lead to more contracting opportunities for education service providers, but it neither significantly expands nor restricts economic freedom.

• Private Property Rights: There are no provisions in the bill that directly impact land use, ownership, or personal economic freedoms tied to property rights.

• Limited Government: The most significant concern from a liberty perspective is the bill’s expansion of centralized power within the Texas Education Agency. By removing rulemaking authority from the State Board of Education (SBOE)—a constitutionally created and publicly elected body—and vesting it in the executive agency, the bill reduces oversight and shifts control to unelected officials. This erodes the balance of power in Texas’s education governance structure and is inconsistent with the principle that government should be constrained, transparent, and accountable to the people.