AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 49 and Title 49, relative to the Education Freedom Act of 2025.
SB 1, titled the Education Freedom Act of 2025, creates a statewide education freedom scholarship program administered by the Tennessee Department of Education. The program would provide state-funded scholarships equal to the base funding amount for eligible students to attend approved private schools in Tennessee, beginning with the 2025-2026 school year. For the first year, the bill caps awards at 20,000 scholarships and divides them between students meeting income-based or other priority criteria and students regardless of income. In later years, scholarship availability would depend on appropriations and returned funds, with a mechanism to increase the number of scholarships if demand is high.
The bill sets out detailed eligibility, application, and use requirements. Eligible students generally must be Tennessee residents entitled to public school attendance, with exclusions for certain home school and church-related school participants. Scholarship funds may be used for tuition, fees, textbooks, curricula, uniforms, tutoring, transportation, technology, summer and afterschool academic programs, certain exams and credentials, and educational therapy services. Students receiving scholarships must attend private school rather than public school for that year, and scholarship accounts remain open across school years until graduation, withdrawal, public school enrollment, completion of 13 school years, or disqualification.
The bill also imposes testing and reporting requirements on participating private schools. Students in grades 3 through 11 must take either a nationally standardized test aligned to the school’s instructional plan or the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test, and private schools must provide results to parents and to the Office of Research and Education Accountability for annual reporting to the legislature. At the same time, the bill states that participating private schools remain autonomous and are not state agents, and it limits state and local regulation of those schools to rules narrowly tailored to enforce the scholarship program.
Beyond the scholarship program, SB 1 amends Tennessee’s school funding law so that a local education agency’s TISA allocation cannot decrease from one year to the next because of student disenrollment; if it would, the state must backfill the difference. It also directs a one-time $2,000 bonus to each K-12 public school teacher for the 2024-2025 school year, subject to appropriation, and revises the distribution of certain privilege tax revenue to support public school construction and maintenance, with priority factors for distressed counties, disaster damage, and other demonstrated need.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly supportive of school choice and private-school access while also including offsetting provisions intended to protect public schools through funding guarantees, teacher bonuses, and facility funding. The main points of contention likely center on the use of public funds for private education, the impact on public school enrollment and accountability, the treatment of special education services, and the extent of state oversight over participating private schools.
The bill would add a new part to Title 49 creating the Education Freedom Scholarship Act and would modify existing school finance provisions in Title 49 and a tax distribution provision in Title 4. It establishes a new state scholarship program for private school tuition and related educational expenses, requires testing and reporting for participating students, limits participation for students already in certain other state education programs, and bars scholarships for applicants unable to prove lawful presence. It also changes TISA funding rules to prevent year-over-year decreases tied to disenrollment, authorizes a one-time teacher bonus, and redirects a portion of privilege tax revenue for public school construction and maintenance.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or floor action. The bill’s text itself reflects a pro-school-choice, pro-parental-choice policy approach, paired with provisions meant to reassure supporters of public education by protecting district funding, funding teacher bonuses, and supporting school facilities. Overall, the measure appears designed to appeal to both school choice advocates and those seeking safeguards for public schools.
The most likely points of contention are the scholarship program’s use of state funds for private school attendance, the scale and prioritization of awards, and whether the program will divert students and resources from public schools. Additional concerns may include the testing and reporting requirements for private schools, the bill’s limits on special education rights for scholarship recipients, and the degree to which the state can regulate participating private schools without undermining their autonomy. Supporters are likely to emphasize parental choice, access to private education, and scholarship portability, while opponents are likely to focus on public accountability, equity, and the effect on local school systems.