Knox County Board Opposes HB 793 Limiting Immigrant Education

(KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE) The Knox County Board of Education is preparing for a high-stakes vote on December 4, 2025, over whether to formally oppose a Tennessee bill that would let public schools reject or charge tuition to children who cannot prove legal immigration status. The proposal has drawn strong reaction from educators, immigrant families, and civil rights groups across the state.

The legislation at issue: HB 793 / SB 836

At the center of the dispute is state legislation known as HB 793/SB 836, which would require school districts to verify students’ immigration status before enrollment. If the bill ever becomes law, districts could deny enrollment or demand tuition from students who lack proof of lawful presence in the country.

Supporters of immigrant students say that would place school employees in the role of immigration screeners and could frighten families away from classrooms.

Knox County’s response: “Free Education for All Children”

Board members in Knox County drafted a legislative priority titled “Free Education for All Children.” Led by members Bike and Templeton, the board revised and merged earlier proposals into a single resolution aimed at sending a clear message to state lawmakers.

• The resolution states: “The Knox County Board of Education urges the General Assembly to oppose any proposals that require districts to monitor immigration status as they pose legal risks, increase administrative burdens, and detract from the educational mission.”
• The statement explicitly references the legal and practical problems school leaders fear would come with trying to monitor who is and is not authorized to live in the United States 🇺🇸.

Legal context and precedent

Board members pointed to long-standing legal guarantees that protect immigrant children in classrooms:

• The Tennessee Constitution promises public education to all children in the state.
• The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe held that public schools cannot deny a free K–12 education to children based on whether they or their parents have legal immigration papers. That ruling remains the key federal precedent shaping current practice.

Advocates argue that HB 793/SB 836 runs directly against the principle established in Plyler v. Doe.

“Public schools cannot deny a free K–12 education to children based on whether they or their parents have legal immigration papers.” — Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Community reaction and mobilization

Tension grew in the community as the December 4 vote approached. A coalition of local organizations — including the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Coalition and Allies of Knoxville’s Immigrant Neighbors — organized a vigil urging the board to support the Free Education for All Children resolution.

• Families, faith leaders, students, and teachers gathered to call on the Knox County Board of Education to send a strong signal to Nashville that schools should welcome all children, not ask them or their parents for immigration papers.
• During the board meeting, 22 speakers — students, educators, and community members — spoke in favor of the resolution, according to organizers.

Concerns from advocates and educators

Advocates and educators emphasize several risks if schools must attempt to verify immigration status:

• Mixed-status households (where some members are U.S. citizens and others are not) may avoid school buildings altogether.
• Asking for immigration documents or reporting to outside agencies could lead to:
  • More absenteeism
  • Racial profiling
  • A deep loss of trust between students and teachers

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, policies that draw schools into immigration enforcement debates tend to push families into the shadows, even when those families have every right to enroll their children.

Legislative history and statewide reaction

The political story of HB 793/SB 836 extends beyond Knox County:

• The bill narrowly passed the state Senate but stalled in a House subcommittee after heavy pressure from educators, parents, and advocacy groups.
• On April 22, 2025, the Tennessee House adjourned without advancing HB 793, effectively killing the measure for the 2025 legislative session.

That outcome was celebrated by a broad alliance that included:

• EdTrust-Tennessee
• Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC)
• Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment (SOCM)
• NAACP

Together, these groups led a coalition of more than 65 organizations fighting the proposal.

Local school board actions around Tennessee (examples)

Several districts have taken public positions; responses have varied:

• Murfreesboro City Schools: Adopted a resolution opposing HB 793.
• Franklin County School Board: Adopted a resolution opposing HB 793.
• Clarksville-Montgomery County: Voted down a resolution that would have opposed HB 793 in October 2025. That decision prompted angry protests from community members.
• Other districts and examples outside Tennessee:
  • Woodburn, Oregon: Local board rejected a resolution (February 2025) that would have publicly supported immigrant student rights, citing legal risk and controversy.
  • Durham, North Carolina: In November 2025, the board approved a resolution restricting federal immigration agents’ access to school property and student records and stated its commitment to protecting every student regardless of immigration status.

These local decisions demonstrate different approaches districts can take while navigating similar statewide debates.

Federal guidance and legal nuances

While Plyler v. Doe bars public schools from denying education to children without lawful status, it does not spell out every detail regarding:

• Document handling
• Data collection
• Contact with immigration officers

For that reason, federal civil rights guidance is important. The U.S. Department of Education civil rights guidance explains that asking for certain documents or creating barriers to enrollment can violate federal law if it discourages immigrant families from sending their children to school:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405-immigration.pdf

Advocates cite this guidance when arguing that collecting or reporting students’ immigration status is not only bad policy, but may also be unconstitutional in practice.

Practical burdens on school staff

Educators argue these bills distract from teaching by imposing new administrative burdens. The Knox County resolution warns that verifying immigration status would:

• Increase administrative burdens
• Detract from the educational mission

Specific concerns include:

• School staff having to interpret complex immigration documents
• Tracking families’ status and responding to disputes
• Needing training for functions most staff are not prepared to perform
• Diverting funds and attention away from classroom instruction and student support

Stakes for vulnerable students and families

Community groups stress the stakes for children already facing language barriers, poverty, or trauma:

• If parents fear that enrolling their child could expose the family to immigration questions, they may delay or avoid enrollment.
• That could leave children out of school during key years of learning — a result Plyler was intended to prevent.

Advocates view the Free Education for All Children resolution as a direct defense of that principle at the local level.

Why the December 4 vote matters locally and beyond

For immigrant families in Knox County, the December 4 vote represents more than a line in a legislative priority document. It signals whether the local board will stand with them if the state legislature revisits HB 793/SB 836 or proposes similar measures.

• Although the bill is dead for the 2025 session, few expect the debate to disappear.
• As school boards across Tennessee and other states continue to take public stands, decisions made in places like Knox County, Murfreesboro, Clarksville-Montgomery County, Woodburn, and Durham will shape how immigrant children experience public education for years to come.

Key takeaway: Local school board actions — whether to oppose, remain neutral, or abstain — have tangible consequences for immigrant families’ access to public education and for the daily priorities of school districts.