A RESOLUTION to propose an amendment to Article XI, Section 12 of the Constitution of Tennessee, relative to parental rights.
Summary
SJR 79 is a proposed constitutional amendment to Tennessee’s Constitution that would expressly recognize a parent’s inherent and fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child, including the child’s education. The resolution specifically emphasizes the right to choose home-based education and states that the government may not adopt or enforce laws or rules that abridge, infringe, or otherwise restrict a parent’s ability to educate a child at home.
The proposal also says that parents do not lose or waive these rights by accepting a publicly funded education scholarship, grant, stipend, or voucher. It further provides that the state and local governments may not compel attendance at a specific educational institution or impose compulsory attendance laws that limit a parent’s ability to educate a child in the home. Because this is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it would not itself change statutory law unless approved through the constitutional amendment process and adopted by the legislature and voters as required.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would amend Article XI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution to create explicit constitutional protections for parental authority over child-rearing and home education. It would constrain state and local regulation of homeschooling, limit compulsory attendance requirements as applied to home instruction, and protect those rights even when families receive public education funds such as vouchers or scholarships. The measure would likely affect education policy, school attendance enforcement, and any statutes or rules governing home-based education.
Sentiment
The available record does not include committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from discussion transcripts. Based on the text alone, the resolution reflects a strongly pro-parental-rights and pro-homeschooling policy position, suggesting support from advocates of educational choice and family autonomy. Any opposition would likely come from those concerned about reduced state oversight of education or conflicts with existing attendance and regulatory frameworks, but no such arguments are documented in the provided materials.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the proposed parental-rights language and its effect on state oversight of education. Supporters would favor the explicit constitutional protection for home-based education and the preservation of parental control even when public funds are involved. Critics may object that the amendment could limit the state’s ability to set minimum educational standards, enforce attendance laws, or regulate homeschooling to ensure child welfare and educational quality. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided record, and no committee testimony is available.