Tennessee Senate Bill SB1968

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Engrossed: 3/2/26
• Enrolled: 4/15/26
• Passed: 4/27/26
• Chaptered: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 37, Chapter 1, Part 1; Title 49, Chapter 1; Title 49, Chapter 2 and Title 49, Chapter 6, relative to attendance.

Summary

SB1968 revises Tennessee’s school attendance and truancy laws, with a focus on students who transfer, withdraw, or stop attending after the school year has begun. The bill requires local education agencies (LEAs) and public schools, including public charter schools, to retain attendance records for students who leave during the school year and to share those records with a new school within five business days when requested. It also requires the enrolling school to count any unexcused absences accumulated at the prior school and to place the student into the appropriate tier of the receiving LEA’s progressive truancy plan, if applicable. The bill also strengthens the response when a student withdraws from an LEA while receiving tier three truancy interventions and does not enroll elsewhere. In that situation, the director of schools must report the absences to the juvenile court judge in the county where the student resides. The judge may handle the case in the student’s best interest and, if a K-12 student is adjudicated unruly for accumulating five or more unexcused absences in a school year, may impose a fine of up to $50 on a parent or legal guardian or require community service. The bill further clarifies attendance-related language in existing truancy provisions and removes a reference to “five (5) hours” in one section of the code. The bill’s impact is to tighten statewide attendance tracking and make truancy enforcement more continuous across school transfers. It amends provisions in Titles 37 and 49 of the Tennessee Code, affecting LEAs, public schools, charter schools, school directors, juvenile courts, parents or guardians, and students subject to truancy interventions. By requiring records to follow the student and by counting absences from prior schools, the bill reduces the ability to avoid truancy consequences by changing schools mid-year. Overall, the bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the Senate Education Committee unanimously and later passed on third consideration with strong majorities, indicating general agreement with the goal of improving attendance accountability. The voting history suggests limited opposition to the underlying policy, though an amendment vote on April 15 showed more division, which may indicate some disagreement over the details of the final language rather than the bill’s core purpose. The main point of contention is the bill’s enforcement approach, especially the juvenile court referral process and the possibility of fines or community service for parents or guardians when a student is adjudicated unruly for excessive unexcused absences. Supporters likely view these provisions as necessary to deter chronic truancy and ensure continuity in intervention, while critics may be concerned about criminalizing attendance problems, the burden on families, or the fairness of penalizing parents when students move between schools.

Impact

SB1968 amends Tennessee’s truancy and attendance statutes in Titles 37 and 49 by requiring attendance records to be preserved and transferred when a student changes schools mid-year, by mandating that prior unexcused absences follow the student to the new school, and by directing juvenile-court referral when a student leaves an LEA after receiving tier three truancy interventions and does not enroll elsewhere. It also authorizes juvenile court sanctions against parents or guardians in certain unruly truancy cases and clarifies existing attendance-related code provisions, thereby expanding administrative duties for schools and enforcement options for courts.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around SB1968 appears favorable. The bill advanced unanimously out of the Senate Education Committee and later received strong floor support, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement with its attendance-accountability goals. The final passage vote was decisive, indicating that most legislators supported the measure even if some details were debated.

Contention

The most notable contention concerns how aggressively the state should enforce truancy rules when students transfer or withdraw mid-year. The bill’s requirement that schools report withdrawn students to juvenile court, along with the possibility of fines or community service for parents or guardians, is the primary area where concerns may arise. Another likely point of debate is the amendment process itself, as the April 15 amendment vote was more divided than the final passage vote, suggesting disagreement over specific enforcement language or procedural details rather than the overall attendance policy.