On Wednesday, October 29, 2025, Texas Tribune editor in chief Matthew Watkins interviewed Texas Senator Paul Bettencourt (R–Houston). The Senator spent a significant portion of the conversation talking about property taxes, homestead exemptions, free speech, and the November constitutional amendments. He framed Propositions 11 and 13 which are currently on the ballot as a “huge tax cut,” especially for homeowners over 65, and he repeatedly urged voters to support all 17 proposed constitutional amendments, echoing what he described as Gov. Greg Abbott’s message to “just vote for all 17.” He argued that raising homestead exemptions and further compressing school tax rates is about “housing affordability, not affordable housing” and keeping people from being “taxed out of their homes,” and rewarding older Texans for “a lifetime of paying taxes.” 

What was not emphasized in his talking points is that school property taxes are the primary local revenue stream for public education in Texas. When you increase mandatory tax compression and expand homestead exemptions at the state level, which is exactly what Propositions 11 and 13 do, you reduce how much districts can collect locally. That leaves the state on the hook to make up the difference in order to maintain formulas and keep districts whole. Bettencourt celebrated that Texas has already committed roughly $51 billion in state funds toward buying down local property taxes, calling it “the largest single item in the budget right now,” and said this is “the right investment.” But he did not meaningfully address the long-term risk. You can only afford this model as long as the state has explosive revenue growth. He openly acknowledged that the state comptroller is already projecting much slower revenue growth than before, and that large employers are announcing layoffs. In other words, the state is promising permanent Constitutional tax cuts to property owners while heading into potentially tighter budgets for public education. 

That’s the core tension for educators. Lower property taxes feel good to homeowners in the short term, and no one is arguing that affordability isn’t a real issue. But Propositions 11 and 13 would lock into the Texas Constitution a school finance strategy that depends on the state continually writing a very large check to replace money districts are no longer allowed to collect themselves. If state revenue softens, and Bettencourt himself warned lawmakers “have to worry about it”, public schools are the part of the budget most exposed. This is why those measures, as written, are ultimately negative for public education. They reduce local capacity, increase state control, and create pressure for future statewide budget cuts in classrooms when the economy slows. 

Bettencourt repeatedly described these proposals as a win for older homeowners, saying that with the increased exemptions and state-funded compression “over half of the over-65s won’t pay any property tax in the state,” and in some cases seniors’ school tax bill could fall to zero. He called that “an awesome occurrence” and said it reflects “Texas common sense.” But that isn’t free and it’s no coincidence that people over the age of 65 are the largest voting block. Every school district losing that revenue will now depend even more on the state to fund day-to-day operations, payroll, and services. That shift is exactly why school districts are concerned, and educators should be, about long-term stability. The more districts rely on the decision made at the state Capitol, the easier it becomes for the legislature to force policy changes on assessment, staffing, curriculum, or vouchers by attaching strings to the dollars. We already saw very prescriptive funding be the only new funding come out of the 89th legislative session. 

That theme of moving decisions from local communities to the state came up throughout the interview, and it’s important. Bettencourt casts himself as a champion of taxpayers against “runaway” local governments. He criticized cities like Austin for asking voters to raise local revenue for local needs, calling one city proposal “preposterous,” and he praised efforts to cap what local governments can do without state approval. He also talked about legislation to override city zoning and density rules, shut down local attempts to slow certain kinds of housing development, and even punish cities he thinks are overreaching. He specifically said that when cities respond to state housing mandates with new local standards he doesn’t like (for example, requiring expensive amenities in new apartment complexes), “we are going to do something about it … and we’re gonna pass a bill and stop it.” He described similar state intervention in areas like rental occupancy rules in College Station, local floodplain and housing authority decisions, and tax and debt practices in Austin. He made clear that if local governments don’t do what he thinks is reasonable, the Legislature should “stomp on that.” 

That is a notable posture from someone who also claims to oppose “government overreach.” The throughline is that Bettencourt favors strong centralized state authority when local elected bodies (school boards, city councils, county commissioners, even college towns) make decisions in line with the voters who elected them that he disagrees with. In practice, that is big government at the state level superseding local government control. For public schools, this matters. The more the Legislature preempts local taxing authority and local policymaking, the more local school boards lose meaningful control over both revenue and operations. District leaders become implementers of state mandates instead of budget- and policy-setters for their own communities. 

Bettencourt also called 2025 “the most transformational year in public education since World War II,” and framed that transformation as positive. He touted roughly $8 billion in new education-related spending, emphasizing teacher pay, a new statewide voucher/ESA (now “Freedom Accounts”), and changes to special education funding and virtual education. He argued that half the money went to teacher pay (through the Teacher Incentive Allotment) and said he wants to see classroom teachers able to reach six figures. He praised an overhaul of the STAAR system, moving to a three-part “through-year” assessment model with tests at the beginning, middle, and end of the year. He said the change is meant to stop what he called wasted “teach the test” time and to generate faster feedback for teachers. He also strongly defended keeping an A–F accountability system, dismissed lawsuits filed by districts over those ratings, and criticized districts that challenged their grades instead of, in his words, “fixing the problem.” 

For educators, there are two takeaways here. First, Bettencourt is explicitly tying school funding, teacher pay, special education formulas, virtual education policy, testing design, and A–F accountability to a single statewide agenda directed from legislative leadership. Second, the same lawmakers driving that agenda are also the ones pushing constitutional changes that would make districts more financially dependent on the state by permanently cutting back local property tax capacity. 

That’s why Propositions 11 and 13 are not just about “your tax bill.” They are also about who ultimately controls Texas public schools. Bettencourt celebrated that the Legislature is forcing down school property tax rates, raising homestead exemptions, and limiting local discretion, and he wants voters to cement that into the Constitution. He said directly that once it’s in the Constitution, “it’s going to be honored.” But constitutionalizing state-driven tax cuts without guaranteeing long-term state replacement dollars creates a squeeze. Districts lose local flexibility now when the majority of independent school districts in Texas are already facing deficit budgets and many are being forced to close schools, and classrooms could feel the pain later when the next state budget is tight due to lower state revenue. 

Bettencourt closed by talking about “civil discourse” and teacher speech, and his position was clear. In his view, certain speech should effectively disqualify you from the classroom. He said teachers “are allowed to have an opinion outside of school,” but he drew a hard line at any expression he interprets as endorsing political violence. He repeatedly said there is “zero tolerance” for educators who, in his words, “condone assassination,” and he cited what he described as 168 ongoing TEA investigations. He argued that someone who publicly celebrates or encourages assassination should not be allowed to teach students and said, “Sorry, you don’t get to teach that … as long as a Bettencourt has their name on a bill.” He also previewed work by his Senate committee on “civil discourse and freedom of speech,” which he said will try to define the boundary between protected speech and speech that, in his view, crosses a moral line and justifies removal from the classroom. 

In short: Homeowners, including many educators, understandably welcome tax relief. But voters should understand the tradeoff. Propositions 11 and 13 would lower property taxes in the near term while making public education funding more vulnerable over time. They take taxing authority and budget control away from local school districts and hand more leverage to the state. Based on Bettencourt’s own comments about preempting cities, overriding local decisions, and “stomping on” local policies he doesn’t like, Texans should be clear. This agenda is not about defending local control, it’s about consolidating control and giving it to the state legislature. That same theme runs through his remarks on educator free speech, where he suggested that teachers who express political views contrary to his, especially online, could face investigations or even removal. For educators, this reflects a broader pattern. The state’s growing willingness to dictate not only how schools are funded and measured, but also how educators speak, teach, and engage as citizens.