Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
House backs bill allowing ESA students to take nationally normed tests instead of TCAP
Summary
After extended debate about accountability and comparability, the House passed a substitute for Senate Bill 15‑85 allowing some students who use Education Scholarship Accounts to take a nationally norm‑referenced test rather than the TCAP; supporters said it aligns testing with the chosen school’s curriculum, opponents warned it will undermine statewide comparability.
The Tennessee House approved a substitute conforming to Senate Bill 15‑85 on third and final consideration, a measure that would allow students using Education Scholarship Accounts (ESA) to take a nationally norm‑referenced test instead of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP).
Chairman Slater, the bill’s sponsor on the floor, said the measure “does 1 thing” — it gives ESA families and their schools the option to use a nationally norm‑referenced test that aligns with the private school’s curriculum, avoiding the need for some students to take two tests. He said the change does not expand ESA eligibility or adjust income caps.
Opponents raised accountability concerns. Chairman Clemens and others argued that TCAP provides a uniform, comparable statewide measure and that allowing a different test for ESA students could undermine the ability to evaluate outcomes across sectors. Supporters replied that other cohorts already take national tests and that the state will still collect comparable data from multiple reporting streams.
The House adopted the previous question, then voted to pass the bill. The clerk read the final tally as 54 yeas and 39 nays; the speaker declared the bill passed on third and final consideration.
What happens next
With passage in the House, the measure will proceed per the legislative process for enrollment and any required Senate concurrence on floor changes.
Why it matters
Proponents say the change reduces duplication and aligns testing to students’ instructional programs; critics say it reduces apples‑to‑apples comparability needed to judge the performance of public dollars used for private education.
