AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to dependent children of service members.
Summary
HB1725 amends Tennessee’s education code to create special enrollment and continuity protections for dependent children of service members. The bill requires local education agencies (LEAs) to take steps to ensure that any necessary services are in place when a transferring student arrives with an active Section 504 plan, an individualized family service plan, or an individualized education program. It also allows certain high school students in grades 11 and 12 to remain enrolled in the same high school even after a military relocation causes them to no longer live in the district, until graduation or withdrawal.
The bill further requires LEAs to permit enrollment for a dependent child of a service member who is relocating on military orders if the child is living in the district at the time of enrollment and the parent intends to establish residency in the school zone within one year. The parent must provide proof of residency within that year, or the LEA may require the student to transfer to the zoned school. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies statewide to public schools and LEAs.
Impact
The bill adds new subsections to Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-6-3101, expanding the obligations of local school districts when serving military-connected students. It creates a statutory right for certain dependent children of service members to remain in their current high school after a move, and it imposes a duty on LEAs to coordinate and provide needed special education or disability-related services upon enrollment. The measure affects public school enrollment practices, student residency verification, and service delivery for students with 504 plans, IFSPs, or IEPs.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little opposition. The House Education Administration Subcommittee and House Education Committee both advanced the bill unanimously, including a later committee action recommending passage as amended. No committee transcript is available, but the recorded votes indicate the bill was viewed favorably as a support measure for military families and students with disabilities.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The main policy details that could raise implementation questions are the one-year residency proof requirement, the ability of LEAs to require a transfer if proof is not provided, and the administrative burden of ensuring services are in place immediately for students with existing disability-related plans. Otherwise, the bill appears to have been treated as a broadly supported accommodation for dependent children of service members.