Tennessee House Bill HB0676

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/6/25
• Refer: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Refer: 4/1/25
• Engrossed: 4/8/25
• Enrolled: 4/9/25
• Passed: 4/24/25
• Chaptered: 4/28/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 50 and Title 49, relative to employees of state special schools.

Summary

HB0676 revises Tennessee law governing employees of state special schools, which are operated by the Department of Education. The bill clarifies that the department, subject to a new salary-parity requirement, determines the salary and terms of employment for these employees. It also defines “teacher” for this part of the code as a licensed person employed at a state special school, while excluding the chief administrative officer and employees already treated as state employees for leave purposes. The bill requires the Department of Education to provide state special school teachers with leave benefits comparable to public school teachers, including the ability to accumulate and use leave under the public-school leave provisions and eligibility for paid family leave under state law. It also changes terminology from “professional personnel” to “licensed personnel” and adds salary protections so that if an LEA where a state special school is located receives a percentage increase in its salary schedule, the state special school salary schedule must receive an equivalent increase. In addition, when the General Assembly appropriates money for teacher salaries, raises, bonuses, or other incentives for public school teachers and licensed personnel in LEAs or public charter schools, the Department of Education must obligate and spend an equivalent amount for teachers and licensed personnel in state special schools. The bill states legislative intent that appropriations will be sufficient to carry out this parity requirement, and it allows the state to provide even more than the minimum required. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and applies beginning with the 2025-2026 school year. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It advanced through subcommittee, full committee, and floor votes with unanimous or near-unanimous approval, and there is no recorded opposition in the provided voting history. The measure appears aimed at aligning compensation and leave benefits for state special school educators with those of public school educators, suggesting broad agreement on fairness and retention for this workforce. The main point of policy significance is fiscal and administrative parity: the bill ties state special school compensation and benefits to increases provided to local school systems and public charter schools, which could affect state budgeting and Department of Education payroll obligations. Because the bill mandates equivalent treatment, any future raises, bonuses, or incentive packages for public school educators will have corresponding implications for state special school employees, making funding adequacy and implementation the primary practical considerations.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 and Title 8 to establish salary, leave, and benefit parity for teachers and other licensed personnel employed at state special schools operated by the Department of Education. It requires equivalent salary-schedule increases when an LEA hosting a state special school receives a percentage increase, and it obligates the department to fund comparable raises, bonuses, and incentives whenever the General Assembly funds such benefits for public school teachers and licensed personnel. It also extends public-school-style leave accumulation and paid family leave eligibility to state special school teachers, while clarifying who is included in the term “teacher.”

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little to no controversy. It moved through committee and floor votes unanimously or overwhelmingly, with no recorded dissent in the provided history. The discussion context suggests the measure was viewed as a fairness and parity bill for state special school employees rather than a contentious policy change.

Contention

There is no recorded substantive opposition in the provided committee or floor history, but the bill’s likely points of concern are fiscal and implementation-related. The most notable issue is that it creates an ongoing obligation for the Department of Education to match salary increases, bonuses, and incentives provided to public school educators, which could increase state expenditures. Another possible point of attention is the scope of coverage—specifically, the definition of “teacher” and the exclusion of certain employees such as chief administrative officers and some state employees for leave purposes—though no disagreement on those points is reflected in the available record.