HB2348 revises Tennessee law governing threats of mass violence in schools and school-related activities. It changes the criminal offense in Title 39 so that a person who recklessly makes a valid and credible threat to commit an act of mass violence on school property or at a school-related activity commits a Class E felony. The bill also updates multiple education code provisions to use the phrase “valid and credible threat” rather than “threat of violence” or “valid threat,” aligning the school-safety statutes with the criminal threat standard.
The bill expands and clarifies the school threat-assessment process in Title 49. When a student is being assessed for behavior that may threaten the health or safety of the student or others, the assessment must include a mental health evaluation by a qualified mental healthcare provider, which may be done by telehealth. The provider must give a written mental health assessment to the school threat team, and the bill defines who qualifies as a mental healthcare provider, including psychiatrists, certain physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and school psychologists. It also requires school leaders to immediately report a student’s valid and credible threat of mass violence to law enforcement, with the threat determination based on the required threat assessment.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen and standardize Tennessee’s school threat response framework by tying criminal liability, school threat assessments, and mandatory reporting together under a “valid and credible threat” standard. It affects students, school administrators, threat assessment teams, mental health professionals, and local law enforcement, and it amends provisions in Titles 39 and 49 of the Tennessee Code Annotated. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2026.
Available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at school safety and early intervention, with an emphasis on clearer threat evaluation and reporting procedures. Because no transcripts or votes are included, there is no specific evidence of opposition or support in the provided record.
Notable points of contention, if any, are not documented in the supplied materials. Potential areas of concern suggested by the bill itself include the breadth of the “valid and credible threat” standard, the mandatory reporting trigger for school officials, and the use of mental health assessments in student threat cases. However, the record provided does not show any expressed disagreement from legislators, school officials, or advocates.
HB2348 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 39 and 49 to create a more explicit and coordinated response to threats of mass violence in schools. It elevates reckless communication of a valid and credible threat of mass violence on school property or at a school-related activity to a Class E felony, and it revises school safety and threat-assessment statutes to use consistent terminology. The bill also requires student threat assessments to include a mental health evaluation by a qualified provider, permits telehealth assessments, and requires written findings to be shared with the school threat team. School leaders must report qualifying student threats to law enforcement, and the bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of school safety and preventive intervention. The measure is framed as a public-welfare response to threats of violence, with an emphasis on clearer definitions, mandatory assessment, and prompt reporting. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or recorded controversy to indicate a divided sentiment in the legislative process.
No specific contention is documented in the provided record because there are no committee transcripts or vote tallies. Based on the bill’s provisions, likely points of debate could include whether the felony standard for threats is too broad, whether the “valid and credible” determination gives too much discretion to school threat teams, and whether mandatory mental health assessments and reporting requirements could raise privacy, due process, or resource concerns. The bill also may prompt discussion about the role of telehealth and the scope of professionals authorized to perform assessments.