SB 2185 offers a targeted correction to the current bilingual education funding policy by allowing school districts that use state-approved alternative language instruction methods to receive the same funding allotment as those using traditional bilingual programs. The bill addresses a statutory gap created after House Bill 3 (86R) introduced enhanced funding weights for dual language immersion programs but did not account for districts operating under TEA-approved alternative models. SB 2185 clarifies that those districts may qualify for the additional bilingual education allotment, subject to a biennial cap of $10 million.
This legislation does not grow government. It does not establish new programs, expand bureaucratic authority, or grant new rulemaking power. Instead, it utilizes existing infrastructure within the Texas Education Agency (TEA), including the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), to collect modest additional data. These reporting requirements are limited in scope and tied directly to transparency and accountability in funding use.
Importantly, the bill does not increase the burden on taxpayers. According to the Legislative Budget Board, there is no significant fiscal implication to the state, and all associated costs can be absorbed with existing appropriations. The $10 million funding cap does not represent a new appropriation but rather a reallocation of available resources to support educational equity for emergent bilingual students.
SB 2185 supports Individual Liberty by expanding equitable educational access, Personal Responsibility through enhanced local reporting, and Limited Government by restraining scope and cost. It reflects principled governance that balances flexibility in service delivery with fiscal prudence. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2185.
- Individual Liberty: The bill expands educational opportunities for emergent bilingual students by ensuring equitable funding for alternative dual language immersion programs. These programs are already permitted under TEA’s waiver authority but previously did not qualify for the same funding weights as traditional bilingual models. By closing this policy gap, the bill affirms the principle that students—regardless of geography or district capacity—should have access to tailored, high-quality language instruction. This strengthens parental choice and student access, two key expressions of individual liberty.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes accountability in educational programming by requiring school districts that use alternative language methods to provide detailed reporting through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). This provision supports transparent stewardship of public funds, ensuring that districts bear responsibility for how state dollars tied to emergent bilingual education are used. It also encourages districts to maintain and report outcomes on educational quality and equity.
- Free Enterprise: Though education is a public function, the bill encourages instructional innovation by supporting a broader range of program delivery methods for bilingual education. Districts are incentivized to adopt effective, flexible instructional models that better meet student needs. In this way, the bill mirrors principles of decentralized problem-solving often found in the free market.
- Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect land use, ownership, or any form of physical or intellectual property. There is no impact—positive or negative—on this principle.
- Limited Government: The bill is a legislative clarification—not an expansion of state power. It does not grant TEA new regulatory authority, create new programs, or impose new mandates. Instead, it corrects a narrow funding inconsistency within the existing structure of public education finance. The bill explicitly caps the funding available at $10 million per biennium and avoids growing state bureaucracy. By resolving the funding issue through legislation rather than bureaucratic interpretation, it respects constitutional separation of powers and maintains the integrity of legislative oversight.
