Tennessee House Bill HB1889

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Failed: 3/17/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29; Title 8, Chapter 44; Title 10, Chapter 7 and Title 49, Chapter 6, relative to education freedom scholarships.

Summary

HB1889 revises Tennessee’s education freedom scholarship program, which functions as a school-choice/voucher-style program for eligible students attending private schools. The bill adds new oversight, reporting, and transparency requirements for both the Department of Education and participating private schools. It authorizes audits by the comptroller of the treasury, requires annual public reporting on scholarship use and school participation, and directs the comptroller to evaluate the program and report to the General Assembly by December 31, 2029. The program is also set to be repealed on July 1, 2030. The bill also changes eligibility and testing rules. It narrows income eligibility to students in households at or below 300% of the federal free- or reduced-price lunch income threshold, and it requires scholarship recipients to take the same TCAP or successor state tests given to public school students in the same grade or course. Private schools enrolling recipients must administer tests uniformly, unless a student has an IDEA or Section 504 accommodation. Schools must also provide progress reports to parents, limit tuition increases for recipients to 10% over the prior year, and disclose admissions criteria, tuition, demographics, admittance rates, and test outcomes. In addition, participating private schools would be required to contract for annual CPA audits covering scholarship funds received, large expenditures, and compensation for the five highest-paid employees. The Department of Education must publish an annual program report that identifies participating schools, enrollment counts, test outcomes, scholarship spending, known violations, and school-submitted audits. The bill also ties the scholarship program more directly into existing education accountability provisions by amending related code sections on student data and reporting. The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history is negative, at least at the subcommittee stage: the bill failed in the House K-12 Subcommittee by a 3-5 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to show support or opposition arguments in detail. The failure suggests there was sufficient concern among members about the bill’s policy direction, likely around regulation, oversight, or the broader scholarship program structure. The main points of contention appear to be the extent of government oversight imposed on private schools, the mandatory testing and reporting requirements, and the transparency obligations that would apply to schools participating in the program. Supporters would likely view these provisions as accountability measures for public funds, while opponents may see them as burdensome regulation of private schools or as a constraint on school autonomy. The bill’s tighter income eligibility and eventual repeal date also indicate a more limited and time-bound approach to the scholarship program than existing law.

Impact

HB1889 would amend Title 49 to expand oversight, reporting, and accountability requirements for the education freedom scholarship program, while also tightening eligibility and testing rules for recipients. It would require annual audits by the comptroller and by participating private schools, public disclosure of program data, and annual state reporting, and it would modify related education reporting statutes in Titles 8 and 10 to include scholarship recipients and participating private schools. It also changes scholarship eligibility standards and testing requirements, affecting students, parents, private schools, the Department of Education, and the comptroller’s office.

Sentiment

The only recorded vote shows the bill failing 3-5 in the House K-12 Subcommittee, indicating limited support at that stage. With no transcript available, the precise arguments are not documented, but the vote outcome suggests skepticism or concern among members about the bill’s approach. The bill appears to have been treated as a contested school-choice measure with significant accountability provisions.

Contention

Likely areas of disagreement include whether the bill appropriately balances school choice with public accountability, whether private schools should be subject to audits and public disclosure requirements, and whether mandatory state testing undermines private-school independence. Another likely point of contention is the tuition cap and reporting obligations, which may be viewed by opponents as intrusive, and by supporters as necessary safeguards for taxpayer-funded scholarships. The subcommittee defeat suggests these concerns outweighed support at that stage.