Costs of HB3 outweigh benefits

Despite the apparent benefit of having armed security on campus and increasing funding, the costs of these actions would outweigh the benefits.

Although many parents believe that armed security officers would be an effective way to combat school shootings, studies show that armed security officers may not be as effective as once thought. An article by The Trace published in August, points out that of “133 school shootings and attempted school shootings between 1980 and 2019… [in which a]t least one armed guard was present in almost a quarter of cases…researchers found no significant reduction in rates of injuries in these cases”. Additionally, this bill allows districts to appoint district employees, who have undergone the appropriate training, as armed security officers who are required to carry “a handgun on the[ir] person while on school premises”. Now, statistics show that school shootings are often committed by students or alumni. However, the prospect of facing off against a student with a gun can be distressing and the simple truth is most teachers do not want to be armed. Finally, asking schools to hire the new employees required to meet the demands of this bill is unreasonable. Many districts have already claimed exemptions to the bill, including FISD, Hays CISD, SAISD, and HISD, as they are unable to fulfill the armed security officer requirement. So, while stationing armed security officers in schools appears to serve as a deterrent to school shootings, it instead places an additional burden on teachers, school districts, and police departments, while not guaranteeing increased safety, making it truly unnecessary.

Although HB 3 would significantly increase the “school safety allotment” for districts, it would negatively impact stakeholders in one of two ways: a likely increase in property taxes or a budget cut. 

The TEA categorizes the school safety allotment as a Tier One Entitlement, meaning that it’s funded both by property taxes and the state. According to a report published by the TASB in 2022, “the greater a district’s property value per student, the greater its local share and the smaller the state’s share of Tier 1 funding,” meaning that “the wealthiest districts will generate their entire Tier 1 entitlement with local property tax revenue”. Although Frisco ISD has provided a 41-cent decrease in its tax rate since 2017, this may not be something that can continue to drop as residents could eventually be faced with property tax rates to create funding to secure already-secured schools. 

Even with the recent cut in property taxes, the state may be forced to provide a larger than expected portion of the school safety allotment. Currently, FISD generates more than two-thirds of its funding from property taxes. A reduction in property tax rates, as aforementioned, could have a significant impact on school funding, forcing the state to pick up the slack. Although these tax cuts were made in the wake of more than an $18 billion dollar surplus, much of this “historic budget surplus [is to] be allocated toward driving down school district property tax rates, increasing homestead exemptions for Texas homeowners, and increasing Franchise Tax exemptions and appraisal caps for small businesses”. As the state’s funds are limited and “the cost to the state of the bill for the biennium [was projected to] be $292,978,263 in general revenue related funds” several months prior to the enactment of the tax cuts, the state may be forced to redistribute funds to ensure schools get the new school safety allotment. 

Currently, the school-safety allotment is derived from general revenue related funds, which also supports the Available School Fund, which in turn funds the Foundation School Program, both of which are a key part of FISD’s revenue; combined, they are estimated to make up almost $70 million, or a tenth of FISD’s total revenue, this school year. Since the FSP, ASF, and school safety allotment are all derived from the same sources, the amount of revenue FISD makes through these avenues may take a significant hit, leading to budget cuts, especially in the wake of a $24 million deficit. 

Either way, the increase in school safety allotment created by HB 3 proves to be more of a detriment to stakeholders than it does an asset.

So, while House Bill 3 is an admirable attempt to make campuses safer and more secure, the measures taken in this bill significantly hurt schools and school districts.