Tennessee House Bill HB1016

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/25/25
• Engrossed: 4/1/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter __ of the Public Acts of 2025 (1st Ex. Sess. – SB 6001 / HB 6004); and Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8 and Title 49, relative to education.

Summary

HB1016 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s early grades reading reporting law. It amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-1-907 to require the Department of Education to submit its annual early grades reading report by October 15 each year, covering the immediately preceding school year, and to deliver that report to the Senate and House education committees with jurisdiction over education. The bill does not create a new program or funding stream; instead, it adjusts the timing and recipients of an existing reporting requirement tied to early literacy oversight. Its practical effect is to standardize when lawmakers receive the annual reading report and to ensure it is directed to the relevant education committees for review.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee’s education code by changing the statutory deadline for the Department of Education’s annual early grades reading report and clarifying that it must be submitted to both chambers’ education committees. It affects the Department of Education and legislative committees responsible for education oversight, but it does not alter student eligibility, school funding formulas, or classroom requirements.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little controversy. The bill passed the House Education Administration Subcommittee, the House Education Committee, and the House floor unanimously or near-unanimously, with no recorded opposition votes. That pattern indicates the measure was viewed as a routine administrative update rather than a substantive policy change.

Contention

No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. Because the bill is limited to a reporting deadline and committee routing, there is no evidence of disagreement over policy direction, costs, or implementation. Any discussion appears to have centered on administrative clarity and legislative oversight of early literacy reporting rather than on substantive education reform.