AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36 and Title 49, relative to safety.
Summary
SB2285 requires Tennessee public schools to create and implement a student safety plan when the school receives an order of protection involving two students enrolled at the same school, with the protected student named as the petitioner. The plan must be developed by the principal, and when appropriate, the building-level school safety team, with input from the student’s parent or legal guardian, and must be in place as soon as possible but no later than five school days after the school receives the order.
The required safety plan must include procedures for sharing the order with school administrators, campus security, or a school resource officer; separating the students to the greatest extent possible; providing a way for students to report contact; documenting attempted contact; and notifying local law enforcement if a violation is suspected. The bill also requires the parent or guardian to notify the school within 48 hours of any changes to the order so the plan can be updated.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 3, and ties school safety procedures to protective orders issued under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6. It creates a new statutory duty for public schools to respond quickly when a student is protected by an order of protection against another student at the same school, and it formalizes coordination among school administrators, safety teams, school resource officers, and law enforcement. The measure affects public schools, students subject to protective orders, and parents or guardians involved in those cases.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill’s core school-safety purpose. The Senate Education Committee recommended passage unanimously, and the bill later passed third consideration with overwhelming support. The only recorded resistance appears to have been on a separate motion to consider Amendment #2, which failed, indicating some disagreement over proposed changes rather than over the bill’s main framework.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to center on implementation details rather than the underlying goal of protecting students. The bill gives school principals discretion to determine separation measures and requires action only when reasonably practicable and appropriate, which may reflect concern about balancing safety, scheduling, and school operations. The failed motion on Amendment #2 suggests there were disagreements about how the bill should be modified, but the record provided does not show the substance of that amendment or any organized opposition to the bill itself.