AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to virtual schools.
Summary
HB2420 revises Tennessee’s laws governing virtual schools by creating a stronger intervention and closure framework for low-performing virtual schools. Under the bill, if a virtual school is identified as a priority school beginning with the 2025 priority list, or if it posts TVAAS growth of “significantly below expectations” for three consecutive years, the commissioner must direct the LEA to close the school at the end of that school year. The bill also requires notice to parents, prohibits new enrollment after a closure decision, and directs the Department of Education to help families identify other eligible school options.
The bill further provides that if a virtual school is closed under these standards, TISA funding calculations for the LEA must exclude certain students who do not remain in the LEA after the closure. It also allows an LEA to open a new virtual school later, but bars a nonprofit or for-profit provider whose virtual school was closed under the bill from operating a new virtual school in Tennessee for five years. The department must publish a list of providers that are currently barred and those whose five-year ineligibility has expired.
Impact
HB2420 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 by adding mandatory closure triggers for virtual schools, new parent-notice and student-transfer requirements, and a five-year provider ban tied to closure for poor performance. It affects LEAs that establish virtual schools, the Tennessee Department of Education, virtual school operators, and nonprofit or for-profit service providers. The bill also changes how TISA payments are calculated after a closure and gives the department a role in notifying families and tracking ineligible providers.
Sentiment
The committee voting history suggests the bill was generally viewed favorably, though not unanimously. It received a 5-3 recommendation for passage in the House K-12 Subcommittee and a 13-5 recommendation for passage in the House Education Committee, indicating majority support but some reservations. The absence of transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the votes suggest the bill was seen as a policy response to accountability concerns in virtual schooling.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on how aggressively the state should intervene in virtual schools that underperform, and whether mandatory closure and provider bans are the right remedies. Supporters appear to favor stronger accountability, clearer notice to families, and limits on repeat providers after a failed virtual school. Opponents may be concerned about reduced flexibility for LEAs, disruption for students and families, and the fairness of barring providers from the market for five years, especially where multiple schools share the same provider and only one school triggers closure.