A top Tennessee education review committee is urging lawmakers to include children receiving special‑education pre‑kindergarten services in the state’s public school funding formula, a move that would shift the cost of serving three‑ and four‑year‑olds with disabilities from local districts to the state.
Committee flags unfunded mandate for local districts
The recommendation comes from the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) Review Committee, a panel of senior education officials and public school leaders tasked with proposing revisions to the state’s overarching K‑12 funding formula. The committee’s survey this summer showed members ranked special‑education pre‑K funding as a top priority alongside reworking how the state identifies economically disadvantaged pupils.
Local school boards and superintendents have long argued they are legally required under federal and state law to serve children with disabilities from age three, yet the current funding formula covers only K‑12 pupils. At a recent TISA meeting, Bob Nardo, executive director of the Libertas School, a Memphis charter, said districts have been left to shoulder the cost.
“The problem is, they've legally compelled us to serve kids for whom they're not proportionally funding us,” said Bob Nardo.
The committee was created last year and is due to issue its first report later this autumn. Any change to TISA would require action by the state legislature.
Budgetary scale and political hurdles
Previous attempts to fold special‑education pre‑K into the state funding formula stalled in 2025, with lawmakers citing funding concerns. The legislature estimated that fully financing the programmes could cost the state more than $159 million annually. It is not yet clear how much influence the TISA Review Committee’s recommendations will have on legislative decisions.
Committee member Ron McPherson, finance director at Knox County Schools, said in the committee’s summer survey that early childhood education is widely recognised as an important factor in long‑term academic success. That view underpinned the panel’s prioritisation of special‑education pre‑K alongside measures to improve the identification of pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
What would change for districts and classrooms
If lawmakers adopt the committee’s recommendation, districts that currently absorb the costs of early special‑education services could see additional state resources to cover personnel, therapies and specialised materials. For schools with an "acute population" of pupils with severe needs, as Nardo described his school, state support would reduce pressure on local budgets that are already stretched.
However, any proposal faces practical and political questions: how to count and weight early‑childhood special‑education pupils within TISA; which services and wraparound costs the state would fund; and when expanded funding would take effect. Those details will determine the ultimate budgetary impact and whether previously stalled proposals gain traction this legislative session.
| Current system | Proposed change |
|---|---|
| State funding formula covers K‑12 students only | Include special‑education pre‑K students in the formula; estimated cost more than $159 million annually |
- The TISA Review Committee will issue its first report later this autumn.
- Any change to the funding formula requires legislative approval.
- Previous efforts to include pre‑K special‑education in state funding stalled in 2025.
The debate in Tennessee echoes broader national questions about how to fund inclusive early‑childhood services and the fiscal responsibility of states versus local districts. For parents, teachers and school leaders, the stakes are practical: whether children with disabilities will receive timely, adequately resourced early interventions without placing unsustainable strain on local school budgets.
As the TISA Review Committee finalises recommendations, lawmakers will face a clear policy choice — to change the rules about who the state funds, or to continue requiring districts to provide early‑childhood services without corresponding state funding.
