The fiscal implications of SB 11 cannot be precisely determined at this time, as the cost largely depends on the number of schools that choose to implement the policy. If school districts or open-enrollment charter schools decide to adopt a period of prayer and religious text reading, they may incur costs related to providing a designated space for these activities. Additionally, should any legal challenges arise as a result of the policy, the Office of the Attorney General would be responsible for representing these schools in court. The state would then bear the financial burden of legal expenses, including costs related to litigation, judgments, or settlements.

At the local level, schools that implement the policy may need to allocate resources to ensure compliance, including administrative oversight, communication with parents, and processing consent forms. While these costs may not be substantial on an individual school basis, they could accumulate if a significant number of schools adopt the policy. The potential for legal challenges presents an unpredictable financial liability for both the state and school districts. Since similar policies have been challenged in courts on constitutional grounds, the state may face legal fees and settlement costs that could strain public funds. However, without specific data on how many schools will adopt the policy and the extent of potential litigation, a precise fiscal estimate remains unavailable.

SB 11 presents a complex balance between religious liberty and government neutrality in public education. The bill seeks to expand the right of students and employees in public schools to participate in voluntary prayer and religious text readings, aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings affirming religious expression in schools (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). By requiring an opt-in consent process, prohibiting religious activities from being broadcast over public address systems, and ensuring that non-participants are not within earshot, SB 11 attempts to mitigate concerns of coercion and establish a framework that respects individual choice​.

However, while the bill ensures participation is voluntary, it still places public schools in the role of facilitating religious practices, which raises Establishment Clause concerns. Even if no student or employee is forced to participate, having schools actively organize and regulate religious activities introduces a gray area where public institutions could be seen as indirectly endorsing religion. Moreover, the bill requires a legal liability waiver, limiting participants' ability to challenge potential issues related to religious coercion, which could lead to legal complications in implementation​.

From a fiscal standpoint, the bill’s impact is uncertain, as litigation costs would be covered by the state if schools face legal challenges for implementing the policy. While schools would bear the minor cost of providing a space for religious activities, legal battles over the policy could place a burden on state resources, depending on how widely it is adopted. Politically, the bill aligns with Republican priorities on religious freedom but conflicts with Democratic concerns about church-state separation, while Libertarians may be divided due to their emphasis on both religious liberty and limited government intervention in religious affairs​​.

Given these considerations, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SB 11. The bill makes efforts to protect religious freedom while attempting to remain compliant with constitutional standards, but it also introduces practical and legal challenges that could complicate its execution. The voluntary nature of the policy and its opt-in mechanism prevent outright government-imposed religious practice, yet its structured implementation through public institutions makes its long-term impact uncertain.