← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB569
SB569 creates a new framework for public-school virtual and hybrid courses, programs and campuses.
Official caption: Relating to the provision of virtual education in public schools and to certain waivers and modifications by the commissioner of education to the method of calculating average daily attendance in an emergency or crisis for purposes of preserving school district funding entitlements under the Foundation School Program during that emergency or crisis; authorizing a fee.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Bettencourt, Flores, Middleton, Parker, Paxton, et al.. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- SB569 creates a new framework for public-school virtual and hybrid courses, programs and campuses.
- Who can enroll: full-time hybrid campuses are available to students eligible for Texas public school.
- Student choice: districts must retain an in-person option and cannot compel enrollment at a full-time hybrid or virtual campus.
- Schools must inform families about available courses and may not intimidate students to discourage enrollment.
- Quality and oversight: districts and charters certify curriculum alignment, rigor and compliance with commissioner standards—or the specified national online-course standards if commissioner standards are absent.
- Teachers and access: schools cannot coerce an in-person teacher into a virtual/hybrid assignment.
What does it do?
SB569 creates a new framework for public-school virtual and hybrid courses, programs and campuses. It replaces the former state virtual school network law with Education Code Chapter 30B, changes attendance funding, and gives the education commissioner authority to approve and oversee full-time campuses. It was signed and took effect May 6, 2025, and applies beginning with the 2025–26 school year. Existing network courses and programs, including those operating under waivers, may continue under the old framework through 2026–27, but use the new funding provisions. Existing virtual operators receive an expedited authorization process—not automatic permanent approval. Sections 7 and 14–18; Official history.
Who can enroll: full-time hybrid campuses are available to students eligible for Texas public school. Full-time virtual-campus eligibility has five alternatives: at least six weeks in a Texas public school in the current or preceding school year; first seeking enrollment in first grade or below; not having been required to attend Texas public school the preceding year because of nonresidency; being a dependent of a deployed U.S. military member; or placement in Texas substitute care. A hybrid program means less than 90% of annual instructional minutes in person; a virtual program has minimal or no in-person attendance and primarily online content. A campus is classified as full-time hybrid or virtual when at least half its students are in the corresponding program. Sections 30B.001 and 30B.103.
Student choice: districts must retain an in-person option and cannot compel enrollment at a full-time hybrid or virtual campus. Open-enrollment charters have an express exception allowing such a requirement. Individual courses generally cannot be compulsory, subject to that charter exception. Special-education and accommodation obligations continue, and enrolled students may participate in their school’s extracurricular activities on the same basis as other students. Sections 30B.005, 30B.052 and 30B.104.
Schools must inform families about available courses and may not intimidate students to discourage enrollment. A parent’s course request may be denied for an inconsistent graduation/college/certification course load, incompatible enrollment timing, or a determination that the cost is too high. The old “we offer a similar course” reason is removed. Denials require a written reason and appeal instructions; the local school board’s decision is final under this provision, replacing the former appeal to the commissioner. Schools may decline to pay for more than three yearlong virtual courses or the equivalent, except for full-time virtual students. Providers may charge tuition and fees to students not eligible for Texas public school or not enrolled in the offering district or charter. This is not a promise that every outside course is free. Section 5 and Section 30B.055.
Quality and oversight: districts and charters certify curriculum alignment, rigor and compliance with commissioner standards—or the specified national online-course standards if commissioner standards are absent. Full-time campuses need authorization, ordinarily including a year of planning, academic and operations plans, privacy/security measures and evidence of capacity. Authorization must be likely to improve learning opportunities. Campuses receive separate identifiers and cannot switch their authorized hybrid/virtual designation. Three preceding years of unacceptable or needs-improvement ratings require revocation; special investigations can also lead to intervention or revocation. Closure-related revocation appeals use the specified statutory process, while the initial authorization decision is final. Whole-program private providers face performance review and possible five-year ineligibility, with a limited commissioner-approved exception. Sections 30B.051 and 30B.101–30B.152.
Teachers and access: schools cannot coerce an in-person teacher into a virtual/hybrid assignment. Generally, a teacher cannot be required to teach in-person and online students simultaneously; an enrichment-course waiver and a noninteractive simulcast exception apply. Appropriate professional development is required unless the school finds sufficient prior experience. State tests generally follow the same administration rules as in-person courses unless commissioner rules authorize otherwise. The chapter permits but does not require schools to supply home computers or internet service. TEA must list available virtual courses, costs and outside providers, and provide professional development and development grants from available funds. Sections 30B.004, 30B.053–30B.057 and 30B.201–30B.202.
Funding and other changes: attendance rules must allow live or self-paced online instruction to receive the same per-student funding as in-person instruction without requiring attendance at a specific place or time. For full-time campuses, funding uses full-time-equivalent enrollment multiplied by the district/charter attendance rate excluding its full-time hybrid/virtual-campus students, or the statewide rate if a reliable local rate is unavailable. Funding is apportioned when a student alternates settings. Dropout-recovery programs use the new framework; the law changes their funding trigger from course completion to enrollment. Full-time virtual students must be included for the specified compensatory-education calculation but remain excluded from the fast-growth allotment. Special-purpose university-operated districts use the campus funding formula while retaining their no-local-share treatment. Sections 6–7 and 11–13.
Before certain expulsions, schools must consider whether a virtual or hybrid alternative is appropriate and feasible; the law expressly excludes specified serious-offense and alternative-placement cases. It does not ban expulsion or guarantee virtual placement. Separately, a statewide or regional attendance decline caused by an emergency or crisis requires the commissioner to modify or waive applicable attendance-funding requirements with safeguards for continued instruction. Sections 9–10.
What changed along the way?
The Senate committee substitute made the substantive changes that survived into law. It replaced the introduced bill’s general attendance-counting language with explicit reporting and verification rules, flexibility for live or self-paced instruction, and funding parity without mandatory in-person or fixed-time attendance. It clarified that the hybrid-program 90% measure covers a school year, extended the transition language to programs operating under waivers, and included 2022–23 among the years referenced for expedited authorization. It also added repeal of the old distance-learning course-listing provision, Section 29.909; the new Chapter 30B supplies a replacement listing duty. Introduced text; Senate committee substitute; Final text.
The Senate committee, engrossed, House committee and enrolled operative texts match. The House reported the bill without amendments; the official amendment index lists none, and no conference rewrite appears in the history. The review compared all five texts rather than treating an empty amendment index as proof of an unchanged bill. All versions; Amendment index.
Compared with the prior law, this shifts from network course approval to district/charter course certification plus state authorization of full-time campuses. The repealed network chapter contained course-price/fee ceilings and detailed course-review and informed-choice-report requirements that the new chapter does not simply reproduce. The new law instead requires a course list and campus/provider accountability. Its transition protects existing offerings temporarily, so repeal should not be read as an overnight shutdown. Former course approval and price limits; Former informed-choice reports; Former fee limits; New Chapter 30B and transition.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Potential benefits: districts can develop more flexible schedules and course access, including dropout-recovery options. Families may gain options that fit health, travel or learning needs. Funding parity and clearer campus authorization can make those programs easier to operate. These are potential benefits, not evidence that online instruction improves every student’s results. The law retains special-education duties and requires performance oversight. Student protections, funding and accountability.
Trade-offs: schools face planning, staffing, data-security and reporting work. Students need adequate technology and support, but the chapter itself does not guarantee home equipment or broadband. Outside-course fees, enrollment rules and full-time virtual eligibility can limit access. Local-board finality narrows the specified course-denial appeal route, and the new framework replaces some former network-specific controls rather than merely adding protections. Sections 5 and 30B.004–30B.152; Prior parent appeal route.
The March 6 Senate-substitute fiscal note, the latest posted note and applicable to the unchanged final operative text, estimates a $62.6 million net cost to state general-revenue-related funds for 2026–27—about $30.5 million in 2026 and $32.1 million in 2027. It assumes 3,000 additional units of average daily attendance each year, nine agency staff positions, $5 million annually for development grants and assistance, and technology costs of $1.3 million in 2026 and $3.5 million in 2027. Existing and new local programs may incur adjustment costs. SB569 makes no appropriation; these are forecasts based on enrollment and implementation assumptions, not measured spending or guaranteed savings. The introduced note has the same two-year estimate. Latest fiscal note; Introduced fiscal note.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.