House Public Education Committee Interim Hearing: HB 2 Redux

The House Public Education committee met in Austin on Mon., June 1 to take up three charges all related to House Bill (HB) 2: 

• Implementation of HB 2  

• Teacher Recruitment and Retention  

• Investment in Special Education 

This was a 231-page bill, so the hearing to assess its impact during 2026-2026 was proportionately long. Stay with us, readers. 

Implementation of HB 2  

The first panel represented Texas Education Agency (TEA) leadership and went through each of the articles of the bill and outlined how TEA is working to implement many and various aspects of the bill. It took staff 15 minutes to go over the bill at the highest level; a reminder of just how much was ultimately wedged into this legislation.  

The first question asked was about the “hold harmless” aid that was meant to ensure school districts would be “made whole” in their funding as new homestead exemptions adversely impacted district revenues. Chair Buckley gently scolded the agency for correcting the formula more or less “at the last minute” when district budget decisions were being made. He charged the TEA with bringing these types of “unintended consequences” to the attention of the committee at an earlier date so that they can be addressed before districts are negatively impacted.  

Rep. Jeff Leach was more direct: “Had I known then what I know now, it might have changed the way I voted on the bill and certainly would have changed the way I advocated for my districts during session….How are we supposed to determine reliably how to vote on a bill of this magnitude if we can’t all agree on what the data is and what the numbers are,” Leach said. “What do I say to my voters at that point?” Leach asked. It is rare in these hearings to hear the dais, let alone the Republican members, excoriate TEA in this way, indicating that these members are likely getting an earful from their districts.  

TEA also reported that with the enrollment loss in 2025-2026, due in large part to immigration drops, Texas districts are seeing a negative impact to the tune of about $650 million dollars. It will be enlightening to learn what the precise funding impact has been once all the 2025-2026 budget reconciliation has occurred. 

Rep. James Talarico asked a panel of district leaders how they were implementing the Support Staff Retention Allotment (SSRA). Hotline readers will remember the data report that Texas AFT published last September which outlined how many of the hourly wage workers were being left out of the raise pools for this allotment as it was flowing to non-instructional, professional staff. One superintendent described how creative they had to get with staffing models to ensure certain staff like librarians could be considered for the teacher retention allotment so the SSRA could be used as intended. Another school board member said voters narrowly passed a $0.02 VATRE election in order to give raises to support staff. All acknowledge the essential work that these employees perform for our students and schools. 

One district financial leader pointed out the new allotment for basic costs (ABC) intended to address utilities, transportation, insurance, and other costs out of the districts’ control was somewhere short of $600 per student to fully address those budget items; the current funding is $106 per student. That is not “financial mismanagement” that is a static funding system that cannot keep up with the rising fixed operational costs of running a school district. 

Not all the conversation around the bill was gloom and doom. The bill expanded the funding for Rural Pathway Excellence Partnership (R-PEP) which allows smaller rural districts to combine forces and finances to offer more career and technical education (CTE) pathways for students than might otherwise be available at only their high school of attendance. One superintendent stated their CTE pathways grew from two before R-PEP to as many as 16 pathway opportunities. For the second hearing in a row, district leaders have asked to expand the eligibility for the program to larger schools to increase opportunity and participation. 

Rep. Diego Bernal issued a firm challenge to panelists to be completely honest about their challenges, saying the Legislature cannot fix a problem they do not fully understand. His comments hinted at a necessary “clean-up” bill that stakeholders can expect in the coming session. 

Just as they did at the last interim hearing, testifiers pointed out how their districts are struggling with deficits and begged for an increase in the basic allotment which is the bedrock of the finance formulas and the most flexible dollars in a district’s budget. 

Teacher Recruitment and Retention 

TEA Deputy Commissioner Kelvey Oeser testified that although teacher attrition is declining from its peak (12.1%), it is still above pre-pandemic levels (~10%) with uncertified teachers leaving at higher rates than veteran teachers. Additionally, though the rate of new teachers who are uncertified teachers is also declining, it still sits above the 50% mark. Our total rate of uncertified teachers across the workforce is 11.8%. TEA also noted that there are a surprising number of former teachers returning to the profession which is encouraging.  

The committee also learned that due to HB 2, the average teacher salary was increased by $4,270 since last year (6.3% increase), with a slightly higher increase in rural systems; though not enough to bridge the salary gap between larger/urban and rural/small districts. 

The Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) continues to grow with the state distributing $750 million to over 800 districts and 65,000 designated teachers (~17% of all teachers). The agency anticipates that over 1,000 districts will be participating by 2026-2027. Thanks to HB 2, rural districts were given the tools needed to create their local designation systems and fully participate in the program. However, even with this noted expansion, many testifiers spoke to the unevenness of the program such as gaps in eligibility and varying compensation within designation levels. 

We have written extensively through our State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) updates about the preparing and retaining educators through partnership (PREP) allotment. TEA reported that 576 districts have applied for at least one pathway available for the 2026-2027 school year: Grow Your Own (GYO), residency, and/or mentorship. Next year will be a proving ground for the efficacy of this allotment. 

Teachers prepared through the residency route tend to be retained at higher rates than other preparation pathways, as do TIA-designated teachers. However, residents are not currently being produced (even with the HB 2 infusion of funding) at a rate necessary to replace the number of teachers Texas is losing through attrition. 

One testifier pointed out that many teachers are spending much of their new raise from HB 2 on increased insurance premiums, asking the legislature to investigate how this might be tempered next session. Education Austin member Traci Dunlap, when asked about the biggest factor in the loss of teachers from the profession, stated: 

“… the biggest reason we are losing  so  many good  people  is  because  they  are  tired  of  public  schools  being  demonized,  of  teachers  demonized.  I’m tired  of  hearing  that  I'm  indoctrinating  children in  some  radical  leftist  agenda.  I’m tired  of  culture  wars,  book  bans,  the  Ten  Commandments  being  posted  in  classrooms.  All of  those  things  are  contributing  to teachers just  being  fed  up.  Yes,  I  would  love  to  earn  more  money.  I  mean,  money  is  a  good  incentive  to  get  people  to  stay.  It  only  goes  so  far.  And  at  the  end  of  the  day,  when  you  start  to  feel  like  you're  constantly  under  attack  and  undervalued,  it  doesn't  matter  how  much  money  you  throw  at  that person's  salary  when  they're  not  respected. 

Another testifier also named that the culture of fear established by school takeovers, or even the threat of one, with the manic pursuit of improved test scores, is also driving teachers away from classrooms. 

Investment in Special Education  

TEA testified that 16.6% of students in Texas are now eligible to receive various special education services. One of the major changes made to school finance in HB 2 has not yet been implemented and that is the new “intensity of services” model for funding special education services. This will be an eight-tiered system of funding based on a student’s educational needs. While advocates have long asked for this, the changeover presents logistical challenges requiring more analysis to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable system. The TEA has been collecting data on these tiers in hopes of more reliable implementation in 2026-2027.  

The committee learned that state funding is coming up short by $1.69 billion (or $2.5B according to one panelist) even though the state spent about $7.2 billion last year. Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding to Texas is also decreasing at a per student level. However, there was assurance that next year’s funding from the state would not be less than the current year. 

One panelist requested that educators be removed from evaluating students that are only requesting screening in order to access the state’s new voucher program. Another panelist described districts as the unintentional “gatekeepers” to the voucher, as applicants are required to have this evaluation, and the $1,000 reimbursement from HB 2 is not sufficient to cover the cost and is diverting time and resources away from their enrolled students. 

What’s Next 

The committee still has a few charges to consider during the interim. Typically, these will conclude prior to the November election, but there is not currently a plan for the next committee hearing. When a huge funding package like this passes into law, there is a tendency for the Legislature to ignore the issue during the following session, a real “fix it and forget it” pattern. What was clear from Monday’s conversations is that stakeholders do not consider school finance “fixed” nor the work of HB 2 finished, and committee members seemed willing to address many of the concerns in the room. It is likely we will see another bill in the 90^th Legislative Session to address policy gaps and hopefully the infusion of additional state dollars to help cash-strapped schools.