AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to community schools.
SB0364 creates the “Tennessee Full Service Community Schools Act” and rewrites the existing community schools provisions in Title 49. The bill authorizes and encourages local boards of education to establish full service community schools that coordinate educational, developmental, family, health, nutrition, mental health, and other support services through partnerships with community organizations, businesses, and agencies. These schools are intended to serve students, families, educators, and the broader community both during and outside the school day.
The bill also creates a grant program, administered by the University of Tennessee, to help local boards of education develop and sustain full service community schools beginning January 1, 2026, subject to available funding. To receive a grant, an LEA must show partnership commitments through memoranda of understanding, conduct a needs and assets assessment, develop an action plan and logic model, designate a full-time coordinator, and report implementation data to the University of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee is also tasked with providing technical assistance, ongoing evaluation, and support, and may work with statewide coalitions to identify and publish best practices for community schools.
The bill would replace Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 24 with a new statutory framework for full service community schools. It creates a state-recognized model for integrating school-based and community-based services, establishes eligibility and reporting requirements for grant recipients, and assigns the University of Tennessee administrative and evaluative responsibilities for the grant program. The measure affects local boards of education, LEAs, community partners, and the University of Tennessee, while potentially expanding access to wraparound services for students and families if funding is appropriated.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and policy-oriented. The legislation is framed as an encouragement and capacity-building measure rather than a mandate, suggesting an emphasis on voluntary participation, local partnership, and long-term sustainability. No opposition, amendments, or recorded controversy are reflected in the available context.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee transcripts or voting history. Potential areas of debate inherent in the bill include the role of the University of Tennessee as grant administrator, the reporting and monitoring requirements imposed on local boards of education, the need for matching funds for subsequent grants, and whether the program’s success depends on future appropriations. The bill also leaves room for discussion about local control versus state-supported coordination of school-based social and health services.