Grant Finder: Tennessee K-12 Schools

Tennessee changed the way it funds public education in 2023.

The Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) replaced the state's longstanding Basic Education Program and shifted Tennessee toward a student-based funding model.

That distinction matters.

Instead of relying primarily on a system built around staffing and resource calculations, TISA starts with individual students. Every student generates base funding, while additional funding is calculated for specific student needs and circumstances. The formula also includes direct funding for priorities such as early literacy, Career and Technical Education, and postsecondary readiness, along with funding tied to student outcomes.

For the 2026-27 school year, Tennessee's TISA base funding amount is $7,530 per student.

But TISA is a funding formula, not a district spending plan.

That is an important distinction for leaders planning for FY27 and beyond.

Districts still have to determine how state allocations, local resources, federal programs, competitive grants, and targeted funding opportunities can work together to support priorities that extend across the school system.

Few priorities demonstrate that challenge better than school safety.

Physical security, behavioral intervention, emergency communications, visitor management, mental health, staffing, training, and incident response can cross multiple funding categories.

Tennessee has also continued to invest directly in school security. For FY27, the state included an additional $10 million one-time investment in the Public School Security Grant, while a separate School Safety Alert Grant supports eligible purchases of mobile panic alert systems.

For district leaders, that creates both opportunity and a strategic question:

How do you turn funding from different sources into one sustainable school safety strategy?

How TISA Changes the Funding Conversation

TISA is built around four major components:

• Base funding for every public-school student
• Weighted funding for students with identified needs and circumstances
• Direct funding for specific priorities
• Outcomes funding connected to student achievement

The formula determines how much funding is generated based on students and their characteristics. Districts then make budget decisions based on local priorities and requirements.

That makes enrollment and student demographics particularly important.

It also means a TISA allocation should not be confused with a prescribed list of district expenditures.

For school leaders, the practical question is therefore not simply, “How much TISA funding did we receive?”

It is:

“What does our core funding support, where do gaps remain, and which other funding sources can appropriately close them?”

That is where Tennessee's broader funding landscape becomes important.

State resources provide the foundation. Local funding remains part of the equation. Federal programs support specific eligible populations and purposes. Competitive and targeted grants can provide additional resources for priorities ranging from student support to school safety.

The percentages matter less than understanding what each dollar can actually do.

And for school safety, Tennessee has created several funding pathways districts should understand.

Where School Safety Fits in Tennessee’s Funding Strategy

School safety rarely fits within a single budget line.

Physical security, behavioral intervention, emergency communications, visitor management, mental health, training, staffing, and incident response may all contribute to the same safety strategy while relying on different funding sources.

Tennessee has increasingly directed resources toward those needs.

For FY27, the state included an additional $10 million one-time investment in the Public School Security Grant. The funding is available to public school districts and is distributed based on average daily membership, with no local match required.

Tennessee also offers the School Safety Alert Grant, a more targeted program supporting the purchase of mobile panic alert systems. Eligible schools can receive up to $8,000 per school through the program.

The distinction between those programs is important.

One provides broader resources for improving school security. The other targets a specific emergency-response capability.

Together, they illustrate an important lesson for districts:

School safety may be one strategy, but funding it can require multiple sources.

Start With the Need, Not the Grant

That becomes especially important when grant funding is temporary.

A grant may help purchase equipment or technology today. It may not cover future licensing, maintenance, training, staffing, integrations, or expansion.

District leaders therefore need to look beyond whether an expense is eligible.

They should ask whether the investment fits the district's longer-term safety strategy.

For example, a mobile panic alert system may provide an important way to initiate an emergency response. But the alert itself is only the beginning.

What happens next?

Who receives the alert? How is the location identified? Who responds? When is an incident escalated? How are administrators and first responders coordinated? How is the response documented?

Those questions turn a technology purchase into an operational strategy.

The goal should not simply be to fund the alert. It should be to fund the capability behind the alert.

Tennessee Has Raised the Safety Baseline

Tennessee's school safety requirements reinforce that broader approach.

State law requires districts and schools to maintain safety teams and emergency operations plans, coordinate with law enforcement, and evaluate security measures. Tennessee's 2023 school safety legislation also added requirements related to building security and directed school safety teams to consider the use of mobile panic alert systems.

That last distinction matters.

Tennessee does not simply prescribe one technology and declare the school safe.

Districts still have to determine which capabilities make sense for their schools, how those capabilities fit established procedures, and how they will work with the people responsible for responding.

Funding decisions should follow the same logic.

One Strategy, Multiple Sources

State safety grants are only part of the funding landscape.

Federal programs can provide another layer. The COPS School Violence Prevention Program has supported eligible security improvements and coordination with law enforcement, while the STOP School Violence Program has supported prevention-focused activities such as Behavioral Threat Assessment, training, anonymous reporting, and intervention.

Local and capital resources may also play a role, particularly when projects involve facilities or physical security.

The result can become complicated quickly.

One source funds visitor management. Another supports emergency communications. Another addresses behavioral intervention. Another improves physical security.

Each investment may solve a legitimate problem.

But individually successful projects can still create a fragmented safety environment if there is no common strategy connecting them.

That is why districts should reverse the traditional grant conversation:

Define the problem. Determine the capability required. Identify the appropriate funding. Plan for sustainability.

Do not build the safety strategy around the grant.

Build the funding plan around the safety strategy.

Planning for FY27 and Beyond

Tennessee districts cannot control when every grant opens, how federal funding priorities change, or how future state investments evolve.

They can control whether they are ready when an opportunity becomes available.

That requires moving away from a grant-first approach.

Instead of finding funding and then deciding what to buy, districts should define the need, determine the required capability, and understand how the investment will be sustained.

A useful framework is:

Mission → Solution → Measurable Benefit → Implementation Readiness

For school safety, that means asking four questions:

• Mission: What problem are we trying to solve?
• Solution: What capability is required to address it?
• Measurable Benefit: How will we know the investment is working?
• Implementation Readiness: Can we deploy, integrate, support, and sustain it?

That final question is particularly important.

A grant may fund an initial technology purchase without covering future licensing, training, staffing, maintenance, integrations, or expansion.

Winning the grant is not the strategy. Sustaining the capability is.

Use Tennessee’s Funding Infrastructure

Preparation also means knowing where funding opportunities are managed.

The Tennessee Department of Education uses ePlan as a central platform for administering federal and state education programs, including applications, budgets, reimbursements, and related grant-management activities.

District teams should therefore be monitoring funding opportunities before deadlines approach, while also understanding eligibility requirements, allowable uses, local match requirements, implementation timelines, and ongoing costs.

The objective is not to pursue every available dollar.

It is to identify funding that advances an established district priority.

Before pursuing an opportunity, leaders should ask:

• Does it support an identified need?
• Can it work with systems already in place?
• Can the district sustain it after initial funding ends?
• Can it scale across schools or use cases?
• Does it improve coordination or create another silo?

Tennessee's funding environment may be complex, but complexity does not require a fragmented strategy.

The districts best positioned for FY27 and beyond will know what they need before they start looking for the dollars to fund it.

Turning Funding Into a Connected Safety Strategy

Tennessee's funding environment creates multiple pathways for districts to invest in school safety.

The challenge is making sure those investments ultimately work together.

A district may fund visitor management through one opportunity, behavioral intervention through another, and emergency-response technology through a targeted safety grant. Different funding sources and different budget cycles do not have to result in disconnected systems.

That is where long-term planning matters.

Kokomo24/7® helps districts connect critical health, safety, and operational functions within a unified platform, including:

• Visitor Management
• Behavioral Threat Assessment
• Incident Management
• Panic Button and Emergency Response
• Emergency Communications
• Analytics and Reporting

That connected approach allows districts to think beyond the individual technology purchase.

A visitor concern can become an incident. A behavioral concern may require assessment and intervention. An emergency alert can initiate an established response. Communications can reach the appropriate stakeholders. Follow-up can be documented and analyzed.

Different workflows. Different funding opportunities. One broader safety strategy.

Funding may be fragmented. School safety should not be.

Final Takeaway

TISA changed the way Tennessee funds public education, but it did not eliminate the complexity facing district leaders.

State allocations provide a foundation. Local resources, federal programs, targeted school safety investments, and competitive grants can provide additional opportunities.

The districts best positioned to navigate that landscape will not necessarily be those pursuing the greatest number of grants.

They will be the ones that know what they are trying to accomplish before the funding opportunity appears.

For school safety, that means defining the operational need, identifying the right capability, determining how success will be measured, and planning for implementation and sustainability.

Then find the funding that fits.

Do not build the strategy around the grant. Build the funding around the strategy.