Key Takeaways
- Texas public schools faced significantly increased credit pressure in 2024, with downgrades and outlook revisions to negative outpacing upgrades and positive outlooks.
- We took negative rating actions on Texas school districts experiencing weaker local taxing base growth, declining enrollment, or management's difficulty in closing structural gaps due to constrained revenue or expenditure flexibility.
- State legislative negotiations continue on increases to per-pupil funding and the establishment of a statewide Educational Savings Account (ESA) program for private and alternative school options, which could affect long-term funding for public schools.
In the face of growing credit pressure, downgrades and negative outlook revisions for Texas public schools outpaced upgrades and positive outlooks by a margin of 2.5 to 1.0 in 2024. The recent trend of negative rating actions reflects the confluence of inflation-driven pressures on operating expenditures, constrained local revenue growth, and limited increases in basic aid for public schools over the past two state biennial budgets. Taken together, these factors have weakened financial performance for many districts and have led some to materially thinning reserve positions. Legislative negotiations over education funding are ongoing, and as a result, Texas has not disbursed approximately $4.5 billion in contingent appropriations for basic aid funding that is in the current state biennial budget. In our view, negative credit pressures will continue absent implementation of state or locally derived funding solutions. S&P Global Ratings will continue to monitor potential solutions the state and school districts could implement for the 2026-2027 fiscal biennium, and if the proposals support greater financial predictability and credit stability for schools.
What's Happening
The Texas State Legislature convened its session on Jan. 14, 2025, with unresolved policy differences related to education reforms and state funding for public schools. Negotiations to increase per-pupil funding and establish a statewide ESA program stalled during the 2023 legislative session and subsequent special sessions. Since this time, some school districts have seen a material deterioration in credit quality as they grapple with revenue and expenditure mismatches amid historically high inflation, property tax compression, and insufficient state funding levels, which have remained essentially flat since 2019. We expect the legislature will likely resolve education funding differences in either the amended fiscal 2024-2025 biennium budget or the 2026-2027 biennial budget. If increases to per pupil funding are approved, this will likely provide some relief to school district operating budgets, although adjustments may not fully offset inflationary cost increases in recent years. In addition, we are monitoring how any additional local property tax relief measures affect local revenue-raising authority and how the statewide ESA program, if enacted, could affect public school enrollment (a key determinant of the basic aid funding formula) and the resilience of school district finances over time.
Why It Matters
Credit deterioration could become more widespread in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 if public schools don't take further action to address revenue shortfalls.
We expect budgetary pressure will continue if basic aid funding is not adjusted to accommodate inflationary growth in operating costs, or if the requirement to adopt essentially revenue-neutral local tax rates is not balanced by electorate-approved increases to local property tax rates above this neutral level. In addition, expiration of federal stimulus funding and moderating enrollment growth in the past year have exacerbated credit deterioration for some school districts, primarily tied to structural imbalance, eroding reserves, and expectations for continuing operating deficits.
Districts experiencing enrollment growth and/or those that significantly built reserves in recent years are better-positioned to maintain credit quality.
Any upgrades in the past year were for districts with expanding local taxing bases, stable enrollment levels, and proactive management of expenditures to maintain strong reserve positions. The availability of federal economic stimulus funding generally bolstered schools' reserve positions, which many districts have used to offset increasing operating costs without corresponding revenue growth in the past two fiscal years. Districts with stable or growing enrollment and effective cost controls have generally maintained balanced operations and large reserve positions, providing significant runway to weather the challenging state and local revenue environment. However, we expect that even strong, nominally large reserves could begin to erode in the next year, limiting districts' capacity to offset rapid growth in operating costs, barring adjustments to state basic aid funding.
What Comes Next
Approximately $4.5 billion in contingent appropriations could become available for public school funding and ESAs if passed.
In our view, disbursement of these contingent appropriations budgeted for the current biennium, and any additional increase to fund per-pupil aid and teacher salaries for the next biennium, will likely hinge on resolving policy differences over establishing a statewide ESA program. The magnitude of state funding increases will determine the level of possible financial relief to school districts. However, the creation of a school choice program also poses competitive challenges and potential enrollment losses for public schools--particularly those in urban and suburban settings where private schools have become increasingly prolific--and could lead to additional financial challenges for some districts. S&P Global Ratings will continue to monitor for potential enrollment losses and budgetary pressures for public schools, particularly if a statewide school choice program is approved and funded by lawmakers.
We expect districts will be held harmless if they receive additional property tax relief, but this funding might not keep pace with long-term inflation.
In the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers increased the homestead exemption significantly to $100,000 from $40,000, though losses in taxable value for schools were offset by the state. Districts have historically been held harmless by the state for losses in taxable value due to increased exemptions. Given Texas' strong budgetary performance and significant liquidity and reserves, we expect this support will continue. However, inflation could continue to outpace increases to basic aid, which might cause additional pressure on Texas school districts' financial performance and reserves.
Related Research
U.S. Local Governments Credit Brief: Texas School Districts Means And Medians, April 4, 2024
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Lauren Levy, Englewood + 1303 721 4956; lauren.levy@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Thomas J Zemetis, New York + 1 (212) 4381172; thomas.zemetis@spglobal.com |
Joshua Travis, Dallas + 1 (972) 367 3340; joshua.travis@spglobal.com | |
Research Contributor: | Divya Bachhawat, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.