Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Community Schools Grants topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House Bill 225 to create state community-schools grant program passes K-12 Subcommittee, 6-2

2389764 · February 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 225, which would establish a state community schools grant program administered by the University of Tennessee and tied to coordinated school health, was amended and passed by the K-12 Subcommittee and advanced to full committee on a 6-2 vote.

House Bill 225, creating a state community schools grant program administered by the University of Tennessee, was amended and approved by the K-12 Subcommittee and sent to the full committee on a 6-2 vote.

The bill, as amended by drafting code 3522, would establish a competitive grant program to support community schools—public schools that coordinate academics with health, family and community supports—and align the program with coordinated school health. Chairman Haston, the bill sponsor, told the committee the amendment “changed LEA to school site” and added coordinated school health language but did not rewrite the bill.

Supporters told the panel that community schools can reduce absenteeism, improve math and English language arts scores and lower discipline rates. “This bill establishes a community schools grant program that would benefit public schools, whether urban or rural,” Chairman Haston said. He added the program would “work in conjunction with coordinated school health” and that the University of Tennessee would serve as the grant administrator.

Committee members pressed supporters on oversight, evaluation and costs. Representative McKenzie asked why the bill removes a requirement for OREA (the Office of Research and Education Accountability) to review the program; McKenzie said an independent review every few years would provide a “sound independent look.” Drew Sutton of the Tennessee Education Association said the intent was for the University of Tennessee to administer and evaluate grants because it would be closely involved with grantees, but he did not oppose OREA conducting a separate review. Caitlin Stewart, district coordinator of community schools in Hamilton County Schools and co-chair of the state network, said the university partnership would bring “supportive infrastructure to districts that might not have the capacity” to run a statewide grant program.

Fiscal and structural details discussed in committee include a 15% administrative set-aside contemplated in the fiscal note and an estimated $234,200 in state expenditures tied to university staffing in the note. Sutton said the 15% administrative set-aside is contemplated in the fiscal note and that some university FTE listed in the fiscal summary would be existing positions repurposed to administer the program; he also suggested bill language could be clarified so the university would not staff up absent an appropriation.

Amber Reeves, co-chair of the Tennessee Community School State Network, said the bill updates statutory language adopted in 2014, adds state funding support, and allows more flexible local implementation (for example, permitting districts to choose how enhanced learning opportunities are scheduled rather than prescribing before- or after-school programs). Committee members also noted a 2018 comptroller report that recommended common metrics and found inconsistencies across community-school implementations; Reeves said the state network and partners are adopting common metrics in response.

Committee members asked about service delivery and parental consent. Stewart said needs-and-assets assessments and site-based steering committees give parents and caregivers a strong voice in deciding services; she added that “the parents decide,” and that parental permission is sought before a student receives supports. The committee also heard that the bill’s definition of full-service community schools would model federal definitions and include a requirement for a full-time staff member to coordinate the strategy at the school site.

The committee adopted amendment drafting code 3522 (no tally announced) and later voted to advance the amended bill to full committee. The clerk recorded the final vote as six ayes and two noes.

The bill sponsor and supporters described the program as permissive rather than mandatory; Chairman Haston said the program would be a “permissive grant opportunity.” The committee advanced the amended measure to the full committee for further consideration.