Wisconsin schools would need to adopt policies on appropriate communication under bill
Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy speaks to Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) after delivering testimony on AB 678. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Wisconsin school districts would be required to establish policies on appropriate communication between students and staff members before the next school year, under a bill that received a public hearing Thursday.
The bill comes in reaction to a report from the Capital Times in November that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. Another bill coauthored by Nedweski, AB 677, making grooming a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing earlier this week.
“Many of these cases begin with the erosion of professional boundaries when a school employee starts communicating with the students inappropriately often outside of school hours and without parent knowledge usually through the use of text messaging and social media,” Nedweski told the Assembly Education Committee. “While the vast majority of school staff use these tools responsibly, a small number have exploited that access — sometimes leading to devastating consequences.”
AB 678 would require Wisconsin school boards to adopt a policy on appropriate communications between students and employees or volunteers in the school district.
“This bill preserves local control. It does not mandate a one-size-fits-all policy; instead it allows each school district to determine what communication policies work best for its own community,” Nedweski said.
The policies would need to include specific consequences for staff who violate the policy and specify that it applies to communications during and outside of school hours. The policy would need to include standards for appropriate content and methods of communication.
An amendment to the bill, which Nedweski said came at the request of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and other stakeholders, would require annual training for employees on identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations.
The Department of Public Instruction has worked with Nedweski on the legislation and supports it.
“We think this is a good effort to get the conversation started,” Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy said, noting the agency has been working on policy related to appropriate communication for over eight years. He said there are a lot of districts that are using technology for software that allows them to track communications.
“There’s a bit of a dichotomy with this issue. We know that in order to educate kids we need to foster and build relationships with students and families, and so we do encourage appropriate communication in every school district,” McCarthy said, adding that the policy and training would be critical. “You will find some circumstances where you’re going to want communication and it might not be as neat and tidy as you’d expect it to be. There are always emergency circumstances where a teacher might need to call a student directly… so we want some policies to be flexible to address those areas.”
Chris Kulow, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB), said the organization had some concerns about the language in the bill related to consequences. He testified for information only, noting the issue of communication between staff and students is not new to school districts.
“Although recent news coverage and increased interest from state policymakers may make this appear to be a new issue, it is not new to schools. School boards have long recognized the need for policies addressing appropriate communication and professional boundaries between pupils and staff. Many districts have already adopted such policies,” Kulow said. “This bill may require some districts to update existing policies to reflect its specific language and to the extent it prompts boards to review and strengthen policies is beneficial.”
Kulow said complying with the provision related to consequences as currently written would be challenging as violations can vary widely and require a wide range of responses. The organization wanted the provision removed, but said Nedweski wanted something related to be included in the bill.
“Attempting to predetermine specific consequences for every specific scenario may be impractical and could complicate the disciplinary process,” Kulow said. “We suggested revising the language in the bill to read that ‘the school board shall include in the policy a range of consequences up to and including termination.’”
The bill currently only covers Wisconsin public schools, though Nedweski told Democratic lawmakers, who expressed concerns about the bill not including the state’s private voucher schools, that she is working on an amendment.
“We need to protect all kids. This is such a growing problem. We’ve seen just an increase in inappropriate communication,” Nedweski said.
Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), also asked whether lawmakers would be open to including funding for school districts to support the implementation of the bill.
Nedweski said she hasn’t had any requests for funding from schools or the DPI throughout the development of the bill.
“I think it’s a serious enough issue, a weighty enough issue, that all schools can find the resources to craft a policy and do some training to make sure they are protecting children,” Nedweski said, adding that DPI already has modules related to this type of training.
McCarthy said additional funding, including the release of $1 million set aside for the agency in the state budget, could help speed along the process. Those funds, which sit in a supplemental fund, can only be released by the Joint Finance Committee. He said without the funds the agency could potentially have to cut down on staff and other areas of its operations, which could affect how quickly work is done.
Under the bill in its current form, school boards would need to adopt a policy by July 1, 2026.
McCarthy said DPI would like to see an amendment that would move the deadline for policy adoption to a later date, saying DPI may need a longer “runway” to ensure the agency has time to change and update policies and training if needed. He told the Wisconsin Examiner that some of the changes could be necessary if Nedweski’s grooming bill becomes law.
Rich Judge, assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, also noted that school boards would need to have time to meet, develop and approve policies.
Nedweski said in a written statement to the Examiner that she is taking the agency’s suggestion under consideration and is discussing potential dates. One potential date could be Sept. 1, 2026, she said.
“If AB 678 is signed into law, the goal is for school districts to have these policies in place for the 2026–27 school year,” Nedweski said. She noted that some of the agency’s concerns are tied to her other bill. “This only underscores the importance of passing AB 677 and getting it signed into law promptly to ensure that districts across Wisconsin can take the necessary steps to better protect students in school.”
