Tennessee Senate Bill SB1975

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Failed: 3/18/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to the Individualized Education Act.

Summary

SB1975 revises Tennessee’s Individualized Education Act, which provides individualized education accounts (IEAs) for certain students with disabilities. The bill expands and clarifies who qualifies as an “eligible student” by retaining the existing disability-based eligibility for students with active IEPs, while also adding a separate category for students with a medical condition that prevents in-person school attendance, as determined by the State Board of Education. For the disability-based category, the bill keeps the requirement that the student either previously attended a Tennessee public school for a full year, is newly enrolling in a Tennessee school, or received an IEA in the prior school year. The bill also revises the definition of “participating school” to distinguish between nonpublic schools serving the traditional IEA population and home schools serving students eligible under the new medical-condition category. It exempts the medical-condition/home-school category from certain existing provisions that apply to participating schools generally, and it adds new oversight rules for those students’ IEA funds. Parents must ensure funds are used only for approved expenses, the Department of Education must monitor compliance, and the department may suspend or permanently terminate participation if misuse occurs. In practical terms, the bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49, Chapter 10, Part 14, affecting the administration of the state’s special education scholarship/account program. It broadens access to IEAs for a new class of students while also creating a more tailored regulatory framework for home-school participation tied to medical necessity. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a program expansion with added accountability measures, suggesting a policy balance between increased flexibility for families and tighter controls on fund use. The main point of potential contention is likely the addition of a home-school pathway for medically unable-to-attend students and the permanent ineligibility penalty for misuse of funds, which could raise concerns about oversight, enforcement, and program access.

Impact

SB1975 would amend Tennessee’s Individualized Education Act provisions in Title 49, Chapter 10, Part 14 by expanding the definition of eligible students and creating a separate participating-school category for home schools serving students with qualifying medical conditions. It would also impose new monitoring and compliance requirements on IEAs used by those students and authorize suspension or permanent termination for misuse. The bill would therefore affect the Department of Education, parents of eligible students, nonpublic schools, and home-school families participating in the IEA program.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or voting record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the materials supplied. From the bill text, the measure appears to combine a policy expansion for certain students with disabilities and medically fragile students with stronger oversight provisions, which suggests a generally reform-oriented but cautious approach. The absence of recorded debate prevents a more specific assessment of legislative sentiment.

Contention

The most likely areas of contention are the scope of eligibility and the enforcement structure. Supporters would likely favor the added access for students with medical conditions who cannot attend school in person and the ability to use a home-school setting, while critics may question whether the new category broadens the program too far or complicates administration. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s strict penalty allowing permanent future ineligibility if a parent fails to comply with approved-expense rules, which may be viewed as necessary accountability by some and overly punitive by others.