According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 401 will have no fiscal implications for the State of Texas or for local government entities. This finding indicates that implementing the bill’s provisions—allowing non-enrolled students to participate in University Interscholastic League (UIL) activities—would not require additional state funding, nor would it place new financial burdens on school districts or charter schools.

This fiscal neutrality is likely due in part to the bill’s opt-out mechanism, which allows school districts or open-enrollment charter schools to decline participation through a local policy decision. This flexibility means that any school that believes accommodating non-enrolled students would impose administrative or financial strain can choose not to participate. Additionally, the substitute version of the bill omits provisions from the originally filed version that could have introduced new costs, such as standardized academic assessments or detailed reporting requirements for homeschool participants.

In essence, the Committee Substitute streamlines implementation and avoids new administrative mandates that would have necessitated additional resources. By not imposing unfunded mandates and leaving participation decisions largely to local control, the bill minimizes its financial footprint while still achieving its primary policy objective.

SB 401 presents a modest but meaningful expansion of educational opportunity by allowing non-enrolled students, particularly homeschoolers, to participate in University Interscholastic League (UIL) extracurricular activities offered by public schools. The bill shifts the default from optional to presumptive participation, meaning schools must allow access unless they adopt a formal policy opting out. This change removes barriers for families seeking to engage their children in UIL activities without compromising the autonomy of local school boards, who retain the right to opt out entirely.

This legislation aligns strongly with liberty principles, particularly Individual Liberty and Parental Choice, by ensuring that all students, regardless of their educational setting, can benefit from publicly funded extracurricular programs. Importantly, the bill carries no fiscal impact on the state or local governments, according to the Legislative Budget Board, and does not grow government or impose new taxes. It also reduces the regulatory burden compared to the originally filed version by eliminating mandatory testing or reporting requirements for homeschoolers, a move that respects educational diversity and minimizes state interference in private education.

While some concerns remain about fairness and local authority, the bill offers a reasonable balance by preserving local control through an opt-out mechanism and avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates. It promotes inclusivity and fairness for families who already contribute to the public school system through taxes, even if their children are not enrolled. Supporting this bill affirms Texas's commitment to educational freedom and equitable access to opportunity without growing the size or cost of government.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 401.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strongly supports individual liberty by expanding access to publicly funded extracurricular opportunities for students who are not enrolled in public schools, especially homeschoolers. It affirms a parent's right to direct their child's education without forfeiting access to athletic, academic, or artistic enrichment opportunities. Families who choose alternative education paths gain equal footing to participate in activities their tax dollars help support. This directly promotes educational freedom and equal opportunity.
• Personal Responsibility: The original version of the bill included academic accountability measures, such as testing and grade reporting, which tied participation to performance. These provisions were removed in the committee substitute, reducing burdens on families but also removing structured incentives for academic responsibility. While this reduces red tape, it also weakens the alignment with the principle that privileges (like UIL participation) should come with responsibility. Schools may still apply their own eligibility policies, but the lack of a uniform baseline could raise fairness questions.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate, restrict, or promote private enterprise. UIL is a government-administered entity, and this bill focuses solely on access to public school-sponsored activities. That said, it could indirectly encourage innovation in the private education sector by improving the compatibility between public and homeschool programs, supporting educational entrepreneurship and hybrid schooling models.
• Private Property Rights: No effect. The bill does not impact ownership of physical or intellectual property.
• Limited Government: Here lies the greatest tension. By changing the default from local discretion to statewide presumptive participation (unless districts opt out), the bill slightly expands the scope of state authority over local school operations. While it does not create new agencies or mandates, it places a new obligation on districts unless they proactively reject it. Some may view this as an unnecessary state-level directive that conflicts with the decentralization central to the limited government principle.

• HB 775 (Same As)