From Ballot to Boardroom: How Amendments Affect Local Schools

In November 2025, Texans will vote on 17 proposed amendments to the state constitution. These propositions address issues ranging from property taxes and infrastructure to higher education and local governance. While not all are directly tied to schools, several could indirectly affect public education through funding structures, property-tax revenue, or long-term workforce preparation.

Traditionally, school boards operate within a non-partisan framework—tasked with setting measurable goals for student achievement, managing resources responsibly, and ensuring accountability to the community. Constitutional amendments, though decided at the state level, often shape the fiscal environment in which those boards function. Understanding their potential impact—both benefits and limitations—helps communities maintain an outcome-centered focus.

Proposition 1 (SJR 59)

Summary: The amendment would create a Permanent Technical Institution Infrastructure Fund and an Available Workforce Education Fund to support capital projects and equipment needs at Texas State Technical Colleges and other state workforce training programs.

Potential Pros

• Provides a dedicated funding stream for workforce and technical education.

• Could strengthen programs aligned with labor-market needs and college, career, and military readiness goals.

• Long-term investment may support infrastructure benefiting Texas’ economy and skilled labor pipeline.

Potential Cons / Considerations

• Funding allocation methods would be determined by the Legislature, leaving timing and oversight uncertain.

• Resources are targeted to technical institutions, not K–12 public education, which may raise questions about distribution balance.

• Requires transparency to ensure funds are tied to measurable outcomes and not diverted from student-learning goals.

Proposition 10 (SJR 84)

Summary: This amendment would authorize the Legislature to exempt from property taxation any portion of a home’s appraised value that corresponds to improvements destroyed by fire.

Potential Pros

• Offers targeted property-tax relief for homeowners recovering from fire damage.

• Reflects flexibility in the tax code during local crises.

• Helps stabilize affected communities by reducing short-term financial strain.

Potential Cons / Considerations

• Could create short-term declines in property-tax revenue for school districts in areas impacted by fires.

• Temporary revenue fluctuations may complicate district budgeting and planning.

• May require coordination with state funding formulas to maintain equity among districts.

Proposition 11 (SJR 85)

Summary: This amendment would authorize the Legislature to increase the school-district homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation for elderly or disabled persons, aligning it with any future increases to the general homestead exemption.

Potential Pros

• Provides financial relief to senior and disabled homeowners on fixed incomes.

• Maintains consistency and fairness in property-tax policy across different homeowner categories.

• Supports community stability among long-term residents.

Potential Cons / Considerations

• Could reduce taxable property values for school districts, slightly lowering local revenue.

• May require additional state recapture or equalization funding to sustain district budgets.

• Districts with high proportions of eligible homeowners could feel the revenue effect more strongly.

Proposition 13 (SJR 2)

Summary: This amendment would increase the general school-district homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 of a home’s appraised value.

Potential Pros

• Provides broad tax relief for homeowners across the state.

• Helps offset property-value growth, easing household tax burdens.

• May improve public perception of fairness in school taxation.

Potential Cons / Considerations

• Could reduce the amount of local property-tax revenue available to school districts.

• May shift a larger portion of school funding responsibility to the state.

• Districts may face tighter budgets for programs, staffing, or campus improvements if offset funds are delayed or insufficient.

Broader Impact on School Outcomes

Although these amendments do not directly change how districts teach or assess students, they influence the financial framework in which school boards operate. Funding levels, tax exemptions, and state allocations all affect how districts plan programs, hire teachers, and sustain student-support services.

A neutral, outcomes-focused approach encourages voters and community members to consider:

• How will these measures affect revenue stability for local schools?

• What oversight ensures funds—whether new or reduced—connect back to measurable student outcomes?

• How can districts maintain transparency and community trust during implementation?

When constitutional changes are evaluated through the lens of student outcomes—not politics communities can make informed choices that balance fiscal responsibility with educational opportunity.

Subscribe