A state Senate committee put off taking action despite threats from lawmakers to fire unconfirmed members of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents after two regents shared more details Thursday about the decision to fire former UW President Jay Rothman. 

While the regents were legally prevented from sharing specific details about the firing, they said, they described their sense that Rothman moved too slowly to act on pressing issues including developing a UW policy on artificial intelligence.

The UW Board of Regents voted unanimously in a virtual meeting Tuesday to fire Rothman, who had refused to leave his position voluntarily. The decision took effect immediately and the the search for the next leader has already begun. Rothman, who will get six months of severance pay, told the Associated Press after the vote that he was “blindsided” by the ousting but wasn’t going to challenge it.

Republican lawmakers had come to the defense of Rothman after the news broke about the effort to oust him. Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said lawmakers should reject the regents’ nomination if they fired Rothman without cause. The Senate Technical Colleges and Universities committee quickly scheduled Thursday’s public hearing and executive session on the consideration of the nominations of the ten unconfirmed Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees, including Bogost and Nixon. 

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) said at the start of Thursday’s meeting that the decision required an explanation.

“Transparency is the foundation of public trust, and when decisions are made without explained justification, it further erodes confidence, not just to the Board of Regents, but in the institution itself,” Hutton said, adding that lawmakers could provide oversight of state entities. “We are faced with a sudden leadership shake-up at risk, creating instability at a time when the chancellor turnover is high and our flagship university is losing its CEO.”

Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Timothy Nixon said that Rothman had been told about the changes the regents wanted to see. Their decision to let him go, they said, was not made lightly and came after he failed to make those changes. They also said that his decision to take his complaints public was harmful to the UW system.

Bogost has served on the Board for the last six years, including as president since 2024. Nixon has served as a regent for the last two years. Neither has received a confirmation hearing, which has become standard procedure for the Republican-led Senate, which has left most Evers appointees unconfirmed. 

Until the meeting, the regents hadn’t given any additional details about the decision to fire Rothman, other than that the decision came after an annual review was conducted by Bogost and that Rothman was “not without notice” and the process was not “sudden.”

Evers stood behind the regents’ decision in a statement released during the meeting, saying the choice was their and that they decided to make a leadership change, “nothing more, nothing less.” 

“Republican lawmakers should resist their temptation to turn this into a political conversation, because it isn’t one,” Evers said. “The UW Board of Regents is not supposed to be an extension of any politician or political party. The Regents are responsible for doing what’s best for our UW System, and they should be able to do their jobs without political interference from elected officials.” 

Evers also warned it would be a “mistake” if the lawmakers used it as an opportunity to fire people and that that would “jeopardize our continued bipartisan work this session.” 

“It’s pretty simple: I trust that the Regents are doing what is best for students, faculty, staff, and our UW System — lawmakers should, too.”

At the start of the hearing, Bogost told lawmakers that she would be as transparent with them as she legally could. 

“President Rothman knows exactly what he is doing. He is a sophisticated professional who understands that personnel matters are confidential,” Bogost said. “The confidentiality surrounding his evaluation was not arbitrary… It is what law requires and is what our obligation is to these universities, and yet, President Rothman, who understands all of this, has chosen to use that constraint as a shield — making public statements, he knows I cannot deny, and framing a narrative he knows I cannot correct.” 

Rothman was a Milwaukee lawyer and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner before being chosen to serve as the UW president in 2022.

Bogost told lawmakers that she would also be willing to walk the committee through the details of the conversations held in closed session with Rothman and the decision to fire Rothman if he waived his confidentiality.

Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) asked why Bogost thought he hadn’t waived his confidentiality. 

“I believe that his objective is to be able to get his narrative out and be one-sided…He knows the truth, and he understands what this is all about, and we were hoping that he would move on,” Bogost said. “To do the media circuit that he’s on denigrates our wonderful universities, and that makes me really sad, because I know that he worked tirelessly for the universities, and I really was hoping to celebrate his past accomplishments… it’s unfortunate that he’s taking that path.”

Before firing Rothman, the regents had offered him the opportunity to resign. Rothman refused, saying he hadn’t been given clear reasoning for his firing and that he thought he had accomplished a lot during his tenure as president.

Nixon also said offering at-will employees the option to leave voluntarily is standard procedure within the UW system and in private businesses. As an example, he noted former Gov. Tommy Thompson, who served as interim president of the system between 2020 and 2022 and voluntarily stepped down from the position. He also noted James Langdon, who, according to WisPolitics, wrote in an email that Rothman fired him in a similar way from his position as vice president of administration. 

Nixon added that the same practice applies to corporate CEOs, who are routinely let go by companies that don’t want to harm their brands. “You try not to have these public blow-ups, alright,  and so nothing here in my mind [is] unusual, and not only that, it follows UW practice.”

In a statement, Rothman said his recent evaluation from Bogost was “overwhelmingly positive.” However, during the hearing, Bogost said that when giving reviews it is typical to “give at least four positives to every negative,” which is what happened with Rothman. 

“He was very disheartened by those… I was surprised. These were things that we tried to work on. It was not sudden,” Bogost said. “Mr. Rothman knows that it was ongoing situations that we had many discussions with him about.”

Bogost said there is not an evaluation document, but that she took notes and delivered the evaluation in person to Rothman.

Bogost said Rothman was the right person to lead the UW system as it sought to deal with a tough financial and operational situation. During his time as president, Rothman oversaw the “right-sizing” of campus budgets and the closure of campuses. Nixon said when it comes to other accomplishments Rothman has touted, he is “a bit like the rooster crowing and then taking credit for the sunrise after.”

As the UW system is addressing other pressing issues, the regents said Rothman was too slow to act. 

Nixon noted that U.S. News and World Report ranked the 50 most innovative universities in the U.S., and the only Wisconsin school on the list was Marquette University. 

“Thank God, one higher education institution in the state has made the list,” Nixon said. “Change is not Mr. Rothman’s strong suit, yet change is what we desperately need.”

Nixon said there was a “lack of urgency” coming from Rothman, adding that coming from a law background he tends to move deliberately to ensure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed. 

As an example, Nixon said the regents started asking for a system-wide policy on artificial intelligence in November, but they still had not received one. 

“We can’t take a year and six months to decide and think about every single issue. This is no different than moving on to a new quarterback — no matter what you thought of the previous quarterback or what they did,” Nixon said. 

Nixon said he had also spoken with Rothman about reassigning some of the over 500 employees who work for the UW system administration to campuses, but there had not been changes. 

Sen. Rachael Cabral Guevara (R-Fox Crossing) thanked Nixon for giving the committee some concrete reasons for its decision  rather than staying in the “gray zone.”

The regents said that the timing of the decision was partly the result of state budget negotiations and the implementation of the state budget. In the most recent state budget, the UW system received a boost in state funding, which came as a result of negotiations between Evers, Democratic and Republican lawmakers and advocacy efforts from UW stakeholders. Republican lawmakers had initially sought a cut to the UW budget. 

At the end of Thursday’s hearing, the committee delayed its vote on whether to recommend confirming the nominees.

Hutton told reporters afterwards that there was more information the senators needed to consider and it would have been “premature” to vote. He said that he wants to see more documents related to Rothman’s evaluation and hear from more of the regents. 

“Based on some of the information we requested from the board president, really thought that was beneficial to receive that information, let the committee go through that a little bit more, maybe ask some additional questions before we go to exec[utive session],” Hutton said, adding that Bogost was “very willing” and “cooperative” when it came to providing information. 

Hutton said that there would need to be a conversation with the Republican caucus leadership on whether the full Senate, which has adjourned for regular session work, will come back to take a long-delayed vote on the regents’ nominations.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

There were over 70 school referendum questions on ballots across Wisconsin Tuesday, and according to preliminary results, about 62% passed and 38% failed.

The results determine whether school districts can keep up with costs, will need to make difficult decisions about cuts or even put themselves on a path to consolidation or dissolution. April ballot measures are just the latest round of school funding requests as school districts continue to struggle under the state’s current funding system.

Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that the slate of referendum requests this spring is a “clear signal” that the state is falling short of providing every child in Wisconsin with a quality education. 

“Years of chronic underfunding from the state, combined with rising costs, have pushed too many districts into an unsustainable cycle, forcing communities to repeatedly turn to voters just to meet simple, basic needs like keeping schools staffed and the lights on,” Underly said. “This is unfair to students, educators, and taxpayers alike, and it is placing an increasing strain on communities across our state.”

Underly called on the state to reinvest in students and the state’s public schools to ensure districts can “deliver the high-quality education students deserve, without being forced to rely on repeated referendums to survive.”

School districts in Wisconsin go to referendum in order to exceed state-imposed revenue caps by getting approval from voters. The practice became a part of Wisconsin’s school funding equation in the 1990s when lawmakers put caps on school revenue as part of an effort to control local property taxes. School districts’ revenue limits used to be tied to inflation, but that ended in the 2009-11 state budget, instead leaving increases up to state lawmakers and the governor, who have not provided predictable increases budget to budget. 

As a result, school districts have increasingly gone to referendum to secure funding through local property tax increases.

There were 56 nonrecurring operational requests on the ballot in April, which are revenue limit increases with an end date. In addition, there were six recurring operational requests, which do not have an end date — totaling over $1 billion in requests.

Of the nonrecurring requests, 32 passed and 24 were rejected. Of the recurring requests, five were successful and only Sauk Prairie School District’s request was rejected. 

There were 12 capital funding requests this April. Nine passed, including Howard Suamico’s $147 million funding request, and three failed, including Whitefish Bay School District’s $135 million request. 

The passage rate is a slight increase from the last election year and comes as Wisconsinites have become more concerned about property taxes, according to recent polling. In the spring of 2024, there was a passage rate of 60.2% with 103 requests on ballots. A Wisconsin Policy Forum report notes that passage rates tend to be higher amid the higher voter turnout of presidential and midterm election years. 

Some districts’ results were decided by thin margins. Butternut School District’s $2 million nonrecurring referendum request passed by one vote. Lena School District’s $6 million nonrecurring request failed by 17 votes. The Hustisford School District sought a two-year nonrecurring referendum for $1.875 million each year. It failed by about 200 votes and now the district is looking at possibly dissolving. 

A third attempt for an operational referendum by Dodgeville School District, one of three districts the Examiner profiled before the election, was rejected in a 1,680 to 1,619 vote. 

District Administrator Ryan Bohnsack said in a Facebook post that the failed referendum is not the “end of the conversation.” He told the Examiner ahead of Election Day that the district was already looking at going to referendum in November if the April request was rejected, and the request then will likely be higher. 

“It is a continuation of our next steps together,” Bohnsack wrote. “The financial challenges we face remain, and we will need to continue working through them thoughtfully and responsibly. Our focus will be on developing a plan that prioritizes our students and our staff.” 

Bohnsack also encouraged community members to advocate at a statewide level as Dodgeville’s challenges aren’t unique. 

“I encourage you to stay in contact with our state legislators and continue to ask for clear communication, transparency and long-term solutions to how schools are funded in Wisconsin,” Bohnsack wrote.

In February, a group of Wisconsin teachers, parents, students and other stakeholders represented by progressive firm Law Forward and the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, sued the state Legislature over the school funding formula in Eau Claire County Circuit. The lawsuit argues that the current system is unconstitutional because it does not meet the state’s constitutional obligation to provide educational opportunities to all students.

Voters rejected the $5.8 million four-year nonrecurring request by Necedah Area School District, one of the parties to the lawsuit, that was aimed at replacing the district’s last nonrecurring referendum which was first approved in April 2022 and was expiring. The request would have allowed the district to access $1.2 million in the first year, $1.4 million in the second year and $1.6 million in the third and fourth year.

Tanya Kotlowski, who has served as superintendent of the district for nine years, told the Examiner that the district has been “blessed” to pass two referendums in the past, but the recent result is “disheartening.” 

“To have this one fail after that kind of devotion we’ve tried to create, it’s hard, it’s heartbreaking, but I also am very aware of the burden that we’re placing on our taxpayers because of how schools are funded,” Kotlowski said. 

Kotlowski said the school board has not had a conversation about whether they will try again, but that cuts are likely.

“We do not have enough fund balance or enough savings to offset the costs that we’re going to have the next two years, so if, you know, if our board doesn’t have that, and we can’t run a deficit budget because we don’t have enough money in our savings account to run a deficit budget, it forces them to have to make decisions, so they will be in that position, for sure,” Kotlowski said. “Certainly we will have that conversation in April and beyond when we’re talking reductions and what the next game plan will be.”

Kotlowski said her district’s previous referendum was helping cover the full costs of special education, which are federally mandated services. The state currently picks up a little over a third of special education costs for public schools, despite promises during the state budget cycle to cover 42% this school year.

Even with the referendum, Kotlowski said her district will need to pull some money from savings to balance the budget. Now that the referendum has failed, the district will be looking at cuts, including to staff and programming. 

“We’re going to come up with as much as we can,” Kotlowski said. “If we came up with $1.4 million in one year of reductions, it would be pretty devastating, so we will come up with what we can. We’ve had conversations already today… I can say with certainty, everybody’s going to be impacted in our community.”

Kotlowski said the referendum result and the school district’s circumstances are one example of why the state’s funding formula is unsustainable and why the lawsuit is needed. 

“We’re really trying to figure out a path to financial stability, where we can anticipate and plan and predict adequate funding for the needs that we have of children within our school district,” Kotlowski said.

Wisconsin has fallen to 26th in the nation in per pupil K-12 education spending and is spending 10% below the national average, according to 2023 census data. In 2002, the state was ranked 11th and spent 11% above the national average.

“For our Necedah School District, when you look at our revenue limit, which is the authorized revenue we can bring in annually based on state law, when you look at the percentage our local taxpayers pick up and what percentage the state picks up, we have a significant gap. Our taxpayers are picking up almost 80% and the state’s picking up 20[%],” Kotlowski said. “Is it a state responsibility or local taxpayer responsibility?”

Kotlowski said that since the announcement of the lawsuit, a group of about 40 residents in the county have formed a taxpayer advocacy group. She said she thinks that the residents, who will show up to vote in November, will have a louder voice when it comes to advocating for a change in the way the state funds schools. In November, Wisconsin voters will decide who should fill the governor’s office as well as who should control the state Assembly and Senate.

“I had a taxpayer who said to me, ‘My first question for anybody who’s running for office is, How are you going to change the formula for how you fund public schools?’ That’s their first question, and depending on your answer, will decide if I vote for you,’” Kotlowski said. “We are at a breaking point, and if our community doesn’t represent that … I don’t think there’s any story that can express the lack of tolerance we have right now to fund schools the way that we have done it now for decades.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• High schoolers account for nearly half the student population at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh – the largest number of dual enrollment students in the state. 

• As the traditional college-age population shrinks, dual enrollment courses have surged in popularity, transforming UW-Oshkosh’s identity. 

• Few high schoolers who take college courses at UW-Oshkosh decide to attend the university for their undergraduate studies, a trend officials are making efforts to change.

When University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh lecturer Paul Sager logs onto Zoom every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to teach his composition course, he asks his students to paste in the chat what emoji they feel like that day. 

If it’s cold outside, they might send a snowflake, or if they’re feeling motivated, a rocket ship. 

“They find that really fun and ice-breaking,” Sager said. “Feeling connected to your professor, I believe, is an extremely important part of being invested in a course, especially when it’s at the college level.”

That’s especially important for Sager, who has never met most of his students in the flesh, and likely never will.

At UW-Oshkosh, high schoolers make up nearly half of the student body. Many of them live hours away and never actually step foot on campus, instead taking the college courses from their high schools. 

It’s an increasingly popular dynamic as dual enrollment classes — where high schoolers simultaneously earn high school and college credit — soar in popularity and the typical college-aged population shrinks. But UW-Oshkosh enrolls more high schoolers than any university in the state, an endeavor that’s transforming the college’s identity.

The approach has helped UW-Oshkosh combat the big enrollment declines Wisconsin universities have seen in recent years. 

But as more colleges tap into the dual enrollment trend, the state’s fourth-largest UW campus is facing stiffer competition for these students. On top of that, few of them currently continue their education at UW-Oshkosh after high school. College leaders want that to change.

“As the competitive landscape that we operate in gets more competitive, and as the number of total high school students in Wisconsin continues to go down, it’s going to be more important that we get more and more of these students to choose UW-O as their four-year solution, as well,” said Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Edwin Martini. 

A service and a strategy

Dual enrollment is now rapidly taking root across the country, but UW-Oshkosh was ahead of the curve when it launched its program 50 years ago. 

Today, over 6,500 high schoolers get a jump start on college through the university’s Cooperative Academic Partnership Program, dubbed “CAPP.” In most cases, UW-Oshkosh authorizes qualified high school teachers — typically those with graduate degrees in their subject areas — to teach CAPP courses at their own schools. 

Just five UW-Oshkosh professors, Sager included, teach courses to high schoolers virtually. This allows them to reach more rural schools that otherwise lack access to dual enrollment courses, often because they don’t have qualified instructors or enough resources. 

“Given the opportunity to teach these courses, I jumped on it … It’s definitely a calling,” Sager said.

The university charges high schools about half the typical tuition costs for the classes. Students considered economically disadvantaged by the state get added discounts. Each school district decides how it passes the cost of books and tuition onto students. 

If students choose not to attend UW-Oshkosh after graduation, their credits can transfer to 200 other colleges.

Over the past decade, the number of students doing dual enrollment through UW-Oshkosh has nearly doubled. While that mirrors nationwide growth, UW-Oshkosh has leaned fully into the trend, hoping to attract as many students as possible across Wisconsin — and, in some cases, beyond.

“The simple truth is, if Oshkosh didn’t do it, somebody else would,” Sager said. “It’s something that I believe at Oshkosh they’ve really understood as not only a moneymaker, but just an opportunity.”

To attract students, program leaders call schools to tell them about the program and advertise at teacher conferences around the state. But largely, word of mouth and its status as the state’s oldest help win school leaders’ trust. CAPP is the only Wisconsin program accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships, an organization holding universities accountable to offering dual enrollment courses as rigorous as normal college courses.

“We’ve had, more than ever, people reaching out to us to get involved,” said CAPP Outreach Specialist Sarah Adelson. 

Today, 45% of UW-Oshkosh students are high schoolers, a phenomenon more common at community colleges than universities. Statewide, high schoolers are just 10% of university enrollment, compared to 1 in 3 community college students.

The dual enrollment growth has been, in many ways, a saving grace for the college. 

Like other Wisconsin universities, UW-Oshkosh has lost thousands of traditional college students — those enrolling after high school graduation — over the past decade. Dual enrollment has helped offset that loss. Overall enrollment is down 9%, but without the high school students, enrollment would be down closer to 36%.

“For us, in part, it is a service. It is something that we’re proud of doing and providing these opportunities to students,” Martini said. “But we do consider our dual enrollment portfolio very much part of our strategic enrollment management portfolio.”

A shifting college experience

Walking across the UW-Oshkosh campus, it’s not immediately obvious how much the student body has changed in recent years.

Classrooms are still filled with what many would consider “typical” college students. Sidewalks bustle with students walking to class. Finding parking can still be competitive.

But in recent years, as more students take classes without setting foot on campus, the university has undergone some noticeable changes: The campus-run bookstore closed. Satellite locations in Appleton and Fond du Lac shut down because of enrollment declines. During a budget crunch, leaders offered voluntary retirement to roughly 50 faculty. And three dorm buildings are slated for demolition, as they no longer need as much space to house students living on campus.  

Teagan Massey-Plamann, a senior at Menasha High School, takes UW-Oshkosh’s dual enrollment courses from about 20 minutes away but has visited campus only once.

“It may not be the experience of being on campus and everything, but I still kind of get to see what the curriculums will look like, and how much studying I’ll need to do,” Massey-Plamann said.

As dual enrollment continues to expand, it raises broader questions about what will define the college experience. While the typical experience most think of is by no means dead, Sager said, it seems pretty rare nowadays.

“All of them, I think, also seek that personal connection with faculty and wanting to have an on-campus experience in one way, shape or form … I don’t know if there is a ‘definition’ for what a college experience even is anymore,” Sager said.

For some, the experience of being a professor has shifted, too — teaching high schoolers is a different task than teaching students a few years older, Sager said. 

“It really is about trying to meet them at their level and understand that, and also apply a little bit of pedagogical changes, so that the assignments mean more to them, and they feel more invested in it,” Sager said.

Great colleges think alike?

When Massey-Plamann graduates from high school this spring, she’ll already have a head start on college, thanks to her UW-Oshkosh dual enrollment courses in statistics, calculus and biology.

“It’s just getting me in the mindset that I’m going to be doing more classes like this next year,” the aspiring art therapist said. “They’re not going to be just classes where I can just sit and do nothing because I get all my work done really quickly. It’s getting me prepared for that time management.” 

That head start will save her both money and stress as she heads to St. Cloud State University in Minnesota to play softball.

Like Massey-Plamann, most UW-Oshkosh dual enrollment students don’t continue their education there after high school. Only about 10% do. 

University leaders want to change that. 

While Adelson said students historically “just come to us,” that’s changing as other Wisconsin colleges try to ride the dual enrollment wave. At the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, high schoolers now make up about a third of enrollment. Just 20 miles away from UW-Oshkosh, half of the 8,000 students at Moraine Park Technical College are still in high school.

In response, UW-Oshkosh leaders are stepping up recruitment efforts — they’re offering classes other universities don’t, awarding at least $1,000 scholarships to those who enroll the following fall and funding more campus visits for high schoolers.

But UW-Oshkosh leaders acknowledge there don’t seem to be many students left to go after — the pool of college-bound students may already be tapped. CAPP Director Margaret Hostetler said their next push is for students who aren’t planning to attend college at all. They wonder if dual enrollment could change their mind. 

The university is also ramping up advising services, pointing students toward courses that will actually benefit them in the future.

“We don’t want students just taking every single dual enrollment credit they can because that’s not necessarily saving them time or money,” Hostetler said. “To save time and money, you have to have a class that is going to transfer as a course that you will need in your field of study.”

They’ve ramped up marketing efforts to remind dual enrollment students that “they are Titans,” Martini said, mailing them branded T-shirts, banners and posters for teachers to hang in their high school classrooms. 

“What we want is them to have a great experience, and then that builds their affinity with UW-O,” Martini said. “And then they say … ‘Now I want to go to Oshkosh. Now I want to be a Titan.’”

Miranda Dunlap reports on pathways to success in northeast Wisconsin, working in partnership with Open Campus. Email her at mdunlap@wisconsinwatch.org.

At one Wisconsin university, nearly half the students are still in high school is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Board of Regents voted unanimously to fire Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman on Tuesday evening following closed-door discussions.

The post UW regent calls fired president Rothman’s statements ‘deliberately one-sided’ appeared first on WPR.

More than 60 percent of school districts looking for additional local support from taxpayers won approval of ballot measures this week. But in an election that saw a landslide victory for the liberal-leaning candidate in the state Supreme Court race, many of the 75 school referendums on the ballot Tuesday were decided by close margins.

The post Wisconsinites voted on 75 school referendums Tuesday, most races decided by small margins appeared first on WPR.

Fired Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman told The Associated Press on Wednesday in his first interview since the ouster that he was “blindsided” by the move but has no hard feelings and is unlikely to sue.

The post Fired Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman tells AP he was ‘blindsided’ by his ouster appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The board that runs the Universities of Wisconsin voted unanimously Tuesday to fire the system’s president, drawing the ire of Republican lawmakers who called it a “partisan hatchet job.”

Jay Rothman had refused an offer from the board of regents to quietly resign, saying it never gave a clear reason why he should. Rothman has led the system that oversees the state’s four-year universities, including the flagship Madison campus, for nearly four years.

Rothman has had to tread carefully dealing with a Republican-controlled Legislature and a board of regents where all current members were appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. When Rothman was hired, the board also had a majority of Evers appointees.

Asked Monday about the move to oust Rothman, Evers didn’t take a side. “It’s their call,” he said of the board.

But Republican lawmakers were furious and threatened to fire regents who have yet to be confirmed by the state Senate.

“Make no mistake about it, the firing of UW President Rothman is a blatant partisan hatchet job,” Republican Senate President Patrick Testing said in a statement.

He said Rothman was fired for “not being liberal enough.”

“His only crime was his willingness to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to get things done,” Testin said.

The vote to fire Rothman came just five days after The Associated Press first reported that the regents asked Rothman to either resign or be fired. Rothman said in two letters to the regents that he would not leave voluntarily without knowing what he did wrong.

Regent President Amy Bogost said in a statement Monday that the board has shared results of a performance review with Rothman, with “direct conversations and clear feedback regarding leadership expectations.” She said the system needs “a clear vision” but did not elaborate on the review’s findings.

She repeated the statement Tuesday following a roughly 30-minute closed session regents meeting. No other regents spoke before the vote to fire Rothman, effective immediately.

Rothman said in an earlier statement Tuesday that regents repeatedly declined to cite a specific reason for finding no confidence in his leadership. No one ever indicated to him that an evaluation could lead to termination, he said, adding that Bogost called his review “overwhelmingly positive.”

“It is disappointing that the first I heard any sort of defense of their position was when they communicated with the media,” Rothman said. “I am left to conclude that, at best, this reflects an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that was previously made.”

Rothman declined to comment after the vote.

The state Senate’s committee that oversees higher education scheduled a hearing for Thursday for 10 regents whose appointments by Evers have yet to be confirmed. Testin called for the Senate to reject all 10, which would mean they could no longer serve as regents.

However, the Senate is not scheduled to be in session again this year.

Rothman has served as president of the 165,000-student, multicampus system since June 2022. The former chair and CEO of the Milwaukee-based Foley & Lardner law firm, Rothman had no prior experience administering higher education.

He has spent his tenure lobbying Republican legislators to increase state aid for the system in the face of federal cuts, navigating free speech issues surrounding pro-Palestinian protests, and grappling with declining enrollment that has forced eight branch campuses to close. Overall enrollment across the system has remained steady under his leadership.

Rothman brokered a deal with Republicans in 2023 that called for freezing diversity hires and creating a position at UW-Madison focused on conservative thought in exchange for the Legislature releasing money for UW employee raises and tens of millions of dollars for construction projects across the system.

The regents initially rejected the deal only to approve it in a second vote held just days later. Evers said at the time the deal left him disappointed and frustrated.

The fight over Rothman’s future comes as the flagship Madison campus is losing its chancellor. Jennifer Mnookin is leaving in May at the end of the current academic year to take the job as president of Columbia University.

Rothman makes $600,943 annually as UW president. He can be fired for no stated reason and he has no appeal rights, said Wisconsin employment law attorney Tamara Packard, who reviewed Rothman’s contract at the AP’s request.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Universities of Wisconsin board votes to fire system president is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents has voted to fire the leader of the state's public university system.

The post Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents fires President Jay Rothman appeared first on WPR.

Update: This story has been updated with new information. 

The University of Wisconsin system Board of Regents is planning to meet on Tuesday to consider terminating UW President Jay Rothman, who has refused to resign under pressure from regents.

In a statement on Monday provided by a UW spokesperson, Regent President Amy Bogost said the decision is “about the future.” She noted that the regent president is responsible for an annual performance review of the system president and over the last several months she met with UW stakeholders including, regents, chancellors and other members of UW communities. She said the results were shared with Rothman. 

“President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” Bogost said. “At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future. The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship, supports our comprehensive universities and ensures we are meeting the evolving needs of our students, workforce and communities across all 72 counties.”

The Board of Regents plans to meet on April 7 at 5 p.m. to consider terminating Rothman, according to a meeting notice. The regents will first meet in closed session and may then reconvene in open session regarding matters taken up in closed session, including voting where applicable.

Bogost said they would be meeting “to consider next steps with that responsibility firmly in mind.”

Rothman wrote in letters, first reported by the Associated Press last week, that the regents had lost confidence in his leadership and were telling him he needed to resign or be fired. He said he hasn’t been given any clear reasons for why they are pushing him out, but just that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.”

The Board last met in closed session on April 1 to discuss “ongoing personnel matters.” In a statement, Bogost said the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future” and that they “don’t comment on personnel matters.”

State leaders have responded to the news that the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is seeking to oust Rothman. 

Gov. Tony Evers, who previously sat on the Board when he served as state schools superintendent, did not take a position Monday morning on whether Rothman should be ousted.

“[Rothman] works for the board and if the board is dissatisfied, they have the right to do this,” he told reporters. “It’s their call.” 

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, have been critical of the lack of clarity around the effort.

Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), who chairs the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee, said in a statement on April 2 that he was troubled by the reports, saying that the “lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

“President Rothman deserves to know exactly why the Board has lost confidence in his leadership,” Murphy said. “I am concerned that the push to oust him may actually stem from his strong support for free speech and open inquiry on our campuses — core principles that must be defended in higher education. The Board owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students and families a full explanation. They should provide specific reasons or stand down from this effort.”

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Fox Crossing), who lead the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee, said in a statement on April 3 they were concerned the regents were trying to avoid public scrutiny and noted the news broke heading into the holiday weekend.

“If the Regents will not tell the public why they are making such a significant move, the public will be left to assume this is the latest example of backroom politics dictating how the Board of Regents is overseeing the UW System,” Hutton said. “Instead of secretive maneuvering, they should be focusing on reducing their bureaucracy, consolidating more of the struggling two-year campuses, instituting reforms that align with the needs of Wisconsin employers, and making higher education more affordable for all Wisconsin students.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was selected by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022 to be president. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years. In the position, he is responsible for overseeing the vice presidents and chancellors who run the systems campuses, including flagship UW-Madison. 

While it’s unclear what prompted the push to pressure Rothman to resign, he has once floated the idea of resigning in 2023 while working on a deal with Republican lawmakers. 

Rothman agreed to an anti-diversity deal lawmakers demanded in exchange for releasing previously allocated funds for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments. Under the terms of the deal, the UW system schools changed their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI). Regents initially rejected the deal, then reversed their decision. 

During his tenure, Rothman has worked to secure funding from the state Legislature, which has often been hostile to the UW system, worked to bring pro-Palestinian protests on campuses to an end, implemented a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students and has overseen the closure of campuses and brought in third-party advisors to address financial pressures facing campuses as well as rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin.

Rothman argued in his letter that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee's teacher union is calling out recently announced staff cuts at Milwaukee Public Schools.

The post Milwaukee teachers union calls on MPS to reverse cuts to staff  appeared first on WPR.

The new mobile model is designed to make those experiences more accessible to communities around the state.

The post Mobile program brings Wisconsin’s Ice Age past to schools and libraries appeared first on WPR.

Nearly one-third of people who complete teacher training never enter the classroom in Wisconsin, and nearly half of the people who do become teachers leave the profession within eight years.

The post DPI report highlights difficulties retaining teachers in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

The Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents will meet Tuesday to discuss whether to fire Jay Rothman from his job as president of the the university system.

The post UW Board of Regents to consider firing President Jay Rothman at Tuesday meeting appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — A federal court order last month to effectively axe a Biden-era student loan repayment plan capped years of chaos for more than 7 million student borrowers enrolled in the program.

The Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan marked a cornerstone of the Joe Biden administration’s loan forgiveness efforts but became mired in legal challenges from several GOP-led states. 

On July 1, federal loan servicers will start sending notices to borrowers instructing them to enter into a legal repayment plan within 90 days, the department said. Borrowers who do not switch within the 90-day window outlined by their servicer will be automatically placed into a new plan.

The agency issued guidance to borrowers in late March instructing them of the timeline and urging people to switch into a new plan. 

Here’s what borrowers need to know as they navigate next steps:

How did we get here? 

The program, introduced in 2023, sought to lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.

But millions of borrowers experienced chaos and confusion as they were forced to navigate complex court rulings, interest accrual on their debt and continued uncertainty over the plan’s fate.

Borrowers were placed in an interest-free forbearance in 2024 amid legal limbo, and the department resumed charging interest on the debt of those in the program in August 2025. 

President Donald Trump’s administration in December announced a proposed agreement to end the plan. 

The agreement stemmed from a legal challenge to the plan brought by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2024.

A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in late February, striking down the administration’s efforts to axe the plan. 

But a federal appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision in March, effectively putting an end to the SAVE plan. 

Was the SAVE plan already slated for elimination? 

Congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill signed into law by Trump in July 2025 includes a sweeping overhaul of the federal student loan system. 

Part of the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law phased out the SAVE plan by July 2028. 

I’m in SAVE. What are my new repayment options? 

Borrowers have several new repayment options, and can switch to a new plan prior to receiving the incoming notice from their federal loan servicer.

One option includes the Income-Based Repayment, or IBR, plan, which ties borrowers’ loan payment to their earnings. 

Borrowers also have the option to enter into two repayment plans stemming  from the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — which will both launch July 1. 

Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, noted that whether IBR or RAP is a better deal for borrowers depends on their particular circumstances.

“I would recommend that if you are kind of earlier in your repayment journey, and you have a lot more interest because your balance is higher, the Repayment Assistance Plan is going to be your best bet,” Cooper said.

“If you’re later in your repayment journey, you’re closer to that 20 or 25-year mark for forgiveness, Income-Based Repayment is probably going to be your better bet,” he added.

Borrowers could also opt into a handful of other repayment options, such as the Pay as You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment plans. 

However, those two plans will be eliminated by July 2028 under Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, meaning borrowers would have to switch plans again in two years. 

What other steps can I take in the meantime? 

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the best thing for a borrower to do is “just be proactive.” 

“Make sure, from a very base level, you can access your account, you know all the basics of where you stand, and then do some comparisons across what plan options you’re going to have,” said Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education.   

Zampini also pointed to Federal Student Aid’s loan simulator as a good resource for borrowers to get specific numbers to compare across plans. 

“If there’s a plan that you want to move into that’s already open and available, if it’s one of the older plans, start moving now, if you can afford it,” she said. “And then, if you want to wait for the new plan to open … know what that payment estimate is going to look like, and then set yourself a reminder for July to check back and look at the enrollment process once that plan opens.” 

Amid the “total dissonance and chaos” borrowers in SAVE have experienced, Zampini said the department “has really shirked its responsibility in at least keeping borrowers updated and giving them clear information on what’s happening, when it’s happening, and what the implications are going to be for their payments and kind of their budgets and what they have to do and when they have to do it.” 

What about the plan to eliminate the department?

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom she is “incredibly worried about borrowers not being able to figure out what to do, missing the deadline, getting put into a plan that they can’t afford, and then falling into default, which has, of course, incredibly onerous consequences.” 

The end of SAVE also comes as the Trump administration continues its efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

“The specifics of the plan with Treasury right now are about debt collection, but the overarching mission of dismantling the Department of Education at this moment means that there are not the people in place to oversee the servicers,” Yu said. 

Part of the administration’s efforts to do away with the agency included a reduction in force initiated in March 2025 that hit wide swaths of the department, including Federal Student Aid, or FSA. 

Yu also highlighted a March report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which found that staffing reductions at FSA affected the government’s ability to determine how well student loan servicers are doing their jobs. 

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman says that the Board of Regents is trying to oust him from his position — and he is refusing to go as he says he has not been given any clear reasons for their loss of confidence in him.

In a letter first obtained by the Associated Press dated March 26, Rothman said he met with Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Vice President Kyle Weatherly in a meeting they requested. Rothman wrote that he was “surprised” that during the meeting they “indicated for the first time and without any prior discussion or notice that an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence in my leadership despite all that my team and I along with our universities have accomplished to move the Universities of Wisconsin forward.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was hired by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years.

In the letter, Rothman said Bogost and Weatherly did not give reasons for the regents’ conclusion or the lack of confidence in him, but that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.” 

“You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination. It also appears that whatever conclusions were reached, the concerns were vetted without the benefit of any recent in-person or even virtual meeting of the entire Board,” Rothman wrote. “From a Board governance and leadership perspective, I find that to be extraordinarily difficult for the Board to defend; as a person who reports directly to the Board, I am profoundly disappointed.

Rothman wrote that he was given three options for his departure: announcing his resignation and retirement in the near future with an effective date at the end of this calendar year, which he said was the Board’s preferred path; resigning at any time with 120 days notice and the Board terminating his employment if he didn’t resign.

Bogost said in a statement that the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future.”

“We don’t comment on personnel matters,” Bogost said. 

In his letter, Rothman provided a list of 37 accomplishments throughout his tenure. The list includes obtaining the largest increase in funding from the state Legislature in the last 20 years; engaging with “third-party advisors to evaluate and assist the universities in addressing financial headwinds and improving operational efficiencies”; implementing a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students; continuing the tuition promise program by securing private funding; and rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin. 

“If the foregoing list is not sufficient evidence of my leadership in driving bold and transformative change, I really do not know what is. Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation. In light of the current circumstances, I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman wrote. 

During his tenure, Rothman has overseen the closure or dramatic downsizing of at least eight UW branch campuses and has also sought to work with the Republican-led Legislature, which has often appeared hostile towards the UW system. 

In 2023, Rothman negotiated a deal on university system diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and funding with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), both of whom are now retiring from the Legislature. Under the deal, which was initially rejected by regents, Rothman got funding for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments — which lawmakers had already approved but were holding back as a bargaining chip — while Republicans got cuts to UW DEI initiatives. 

In 2024, Rothman also responded to student pro-Palestinian protests by defending the actions of police officers on campus and saying encampments would be gone eventually.

While Rothman appears confident in his achievements, not all UW stakeholders have been happy with his leadership. AFT-Wisconsin President Jon Shelton said in a statement that even without the details of the reported “loss of confidence,” the union supports the Board’s action. 

“President Rothman’s tenure has been defined by his unwillingness to listen to the stakeholders that truly define our campuses: on everything from our faculty, staff, and students’ commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion to UW System Administration’s disastrous efforts to impose a general education curriculum on our campuses instead of simply implementing a universal credit transfer policy last December as required by Act 15,” Shelton said. 

“We are encouraged by the Board’s recent actions,” Shelton added. “We will gladly work with them moving forward to ensure any UW system president fights to uphold the values that has made the UW System great.”

Rothman wrote that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.” 

In a second letter to Regents Ashok Rai and Jack Salzwedel dated April 1, Rothman wrote that in a separate conversation, they also provided no reason for the request for his departure. 

“Similar to Regent President Bogost, you indicated that you could not offer any reason at this time. In fact, you said that topic would be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Board,” Rothman wrote. 

The Board of Regents met in a closed special meeting on April 1 in the evening to discuss personnel matters. 

“Unfortunately, I am left to conclude that any basis for a Board finding of no confidence in my leadership will be, at best, an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that clearly has already been made without the benefit of any recent meeting of the Regents and despite all the successes and transformative accomplishments during my tenure as President,” Rothman wrote in the letter to Rai and Salwedel. “I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation at this time.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The president of the 25-campus Universities of Wisconsin said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he’s been told to either resign or be fired, but has been given no reason and won’t step aside.

The post Universities of Wisconsin president refuses to leave after being told to resign or be fired appeared first on WPR.

In her campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced a child care plan Tuesday that includes capping families’ child care costs, raising wages for child care workers and investing to support child care services where they’re hard to come by.

“I’ve been to all 72 counties almost four times now, and everywhere I go, parents tell me the same thing: Child care costs more than their rent, more than their mortgage, more than groceries and utilities combined,” Rodriguez said at a news conference in her Madison campaign headquarters. “I’ve met parents paying $2,000 a month for child care, for one child. They’re being forced to make an impossible choice — Do I keep working or does it make more financial sense to stay at home?”

Her proposal includes establishing “reliable, long-term funding for child care,” Rodriguez said, with possible tax changes as well as partnerships with private businesses. “Investing in affordable, accessible child care is one of the smartest economic development strategies we can pursue,” Rodriguez said.

Every Democrat vying for the party’s nomination has included child care as a policy priority, and they all mention the subject on their campaign websites. Several have toured child care centers to emphasize their commitment to addressing child care access and affordability.

Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., was the first of the seven Democratic hopefuls to spell out details of her campaign’s child care proposal.

Hughes’ plan, released Feb. 26, frames child care affordability as part of a broader policy theme focusing on the Wisconsin economy. It includes provisions to expand child care subsidies to more families and raise child care wages as well.

“Making childcare affordable will not only help families, but it will unlock parts of the economy that are stalled because of workforce shortages,” Hughes said in announcing her proposal.

The Hughes plan includes expanding the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program so that all families up to Wisconsin’s median household income would be eligible in the first year, and to include households with up to twice the median income in the second year. (Wisconsin’s median household income in 2024 was $82,560, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)

The plan outlines a series of child care workforce proposals including raising wages and instituting training programs, as well as ideas to lower providers’ overhead costs.

Support widespread; details to come

Others in the race have painted in broader brushstrokes, with details yet to come. At a forum in January convened by Main Street Alliance, a small business organizing group that backs stronger government support for child care, all seven Democrats participating endorsed the concept.

In his December visit to a Waunakee child care center, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said child care and preschool should be universally available, likening them to public school for children age 6 and older. Barnes hasn’t yet fully rolled out his policy, according to his campaign.

On March 26 Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley announced his agenda for his first 30 days if he’s elected governor, which includes passing “universal Pre-K and childcare utilizing the existing providers already serving Wisconsin families.” Neither the agenda nor the campaign website laid out the details or the game plan for reaching that objective.

A feature in The Guardian published in January led off with a short anecdote about Rep. Francesca Hong, who has embraced universal child care as part of her platform. Hong’s campaign website cites plans in New Mexico and Vermont — both of which have enacted universal child care programs. She says her plan is for families “to access affordable, high-quality childcare with either no out-of-pocket costs, subsidies, or strictly capped prices.”

At a meeting with voters in Madison March 24, Joel Brennan listed child care costs, as well as housing costs and health care costs, as among top concerns for voters and his campaign, but didn’t go into details. State Sen. Kelda Roys has also endorsed child care support and headlined legislative proposals to boost Wisconsin’s investment in child care.

None of the Democratic hopefuls have outlined specifics of how their versions of state support for child care would be funded.

Rodriguez’s plan

Rodriguez said her plan calls for holding child care costs to 7% of a family’s income for all families with incomes up to $500,000 a year. The state would cover the rest through “child care affordability grants,” Rodriguez said.

According to calculations from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, fewer than 5% of Wisconsin households have incomes of more than $500,000.

In outlining her proposal for reporters Tuesday, Rodriguez enumerated its features but declined to offer an overall price tag.

“Right now we know that if we invest $1 in child care, we will get $7 to $13 back in economic return,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said her plan calls for letting families choose the child care setting of their preference — center, home-based providers and private and faith-based providers would all be eligible.

The plan also calls for child care providers that receive state support to pay their workers at least $18 an hour, “with clear pathways to higher wages and professional development,” she said. “When we treat early educators like the professionals that they are, we retain workers, stabilize programs, and open more slots for families.”

To bring child care services to areas of the state where they aren’t available, especially in rural communities, the plan includes a low-interest loan and grant program to expand, renovate and build new child care facilities.

Two child care providers, Heather Murray of Waunakee and Brooke Legler of New Glarus, joined Rodriguez’s press conference Tuesday and offered their endorsement of the plan.

“When I think about being able to pay my teachers what they actually deserve, enough that they can build careers here, not just work until something better comes along, that changes everything,” Murray said. “When I think about families being able to afford care without sacrificing everything else, that’s transformative.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

More than 30 groups representing Milwaukee School of Engineering students, faculty and staff, unions and politicians, are asking the college to stop cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which uses a leased building on campus.

The post More than 30 groups demand Milwaukee School of Engineering cut ties with ICE appeared first on WPR.

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican lawmakers’ bill that would have opted Wisconsin into a federal program rewarding taxpayers for contributions to private voucher schools and other educational organizations, saying he objected to the national expansion of private school choice and that public funds should go to public schools.

A provision in the federal tax and spending law signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025 will provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 to people who donate to qualifying “scholarship granting organizations.” Donations to organizations are used for educational expenses including tuition and board at private schools, tutoring and books. The provision created the first major federal program to allocate public money towards private school tuition in the form of tax incentives. 

Republican lawmakers, who hold the majority in Wisconsin’s state Legislature, as well as conservative and school choice advocacy groups have advocated for Wisconsin’s participation in the program — highlighting that the funds could be used for costs for public school students, including tutoring, as well as for private school students. However, governors are responsible for opting their states into the program by 2027, meaning they needed to convince Evers, a former state superintendent and public school teacher who had previously expressed skepticism about the program, to opt in. Without Evers’ approval, Wisconsin taxpayers can still reap the benefits of the federal tax credit, but the money they donate will support private school programs in other states.

AB 602 directed Evers to join the program on behalf of Wisconsin. In his veto message, Evers laid out a number of his concerns. 

“This nationwide voucher program has no student achievement metrics, no school accountability measures, no minimum or maximum scholarship size, no certain end date, and no cap on how much the federal government can spend,” Evers said. “Republicans in Washington have given private voucher expansion carte blanche to run roughshod over public education in this country — and a blank check to do so at taxpayer expense, clearly without any regard for whether it actually does what is best for kids.”

Evers also noted that the rulemaking process for the program has not been completed. 

According to an estimate by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the cost of the program could range to as high as $51 billion annually.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 23 states had opted into the program as of January. Those states, mostly led by Republican governors, include Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana and Texas. In February, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis became the first Democratic governor to opt into the program. Other Democratic governors have remained skeptical. 

Evers said in his veto message that Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to understand the effects of voucher expansion and disputed claims that the federal program would provide sufficient support to public school students.  

“As a former science teacher, principal, superintendent, state superintendent and a son of the state that created the nation’s first-ever private school voucher program, I have spent decades of my life watching the impacts that draining public funds from public schools to fund private voucher school programs instead has had on kids, schools and public education in Wisconsin,” Evers said. 

Wisconsin’s school voucher program — from the number of students and schools that participate to the amount of state money invested — has grown exponentially since its inception in Milwaukee in 1990. Growth is likely to accelerate dramatically in the next few years.  Participation caps, which limit the number of students in each district who can participate, have been lifted by 1% each year since 2017. Next year they will be phased out completely. 

“With each passing school year, public school districts continue to endure capped and prorated state funding, strict revenue limits and the need to go to referenda in many cases just to keep up with inflationary pressures to provide a quality education for their kids,” Evers said. “Even now, the Legislature has simultaneously failed to act on my calls to increase funding for special education to ensure the state meets the targets promised in our bipartisan budget.” 

In the most recent state budget, Wisconsin lawmakers provided increases to payments for the school voucher program, but did not provide any additional funding for general aid for public schools. The state’s investment in the special education reimbursement for public schools was not enough to cover the estimated  42% of costs in the first year of the budget and 45% in the second year. 

With funding from the state not keeping pace with inflation, public school districts have turned increasingly to property taxpayers for additional funding that must be approved by voters.

Next week, there will be 74 referendum requests on April ballots across the state — and the results will shape whether school districts can pay their bills, how much staff get paid and whether schools can open their doors next year. A lawsuit filed in February argues that the state isn’t fulfilling its constitutional duties and the current funding formula needs to be overhauled.

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek), who coauthored the school donation tax credit bill with Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), wrote in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that she was “disappointed, but not surprised” Evers vetoed the bill, saying he misunderstands the purpose of the bill. 

“AB 602 would have allowed Wisconsin students to be eligible for more scholarships to use towards the education style that works best for them, whether that be private school tuition or hiring a tutor outside of school time,” Rodriguez said. “This would have benefited K-12 students in all educational settings. For example, a scholarship could have been created to help low-income families send their 8th grade students on their class field trip to Washington, D.C.” 

“It’s just unfortunate, because opting in would have cost the state nothing, and by not opting in Wisconsin will sit idly by while our residents donate to scholarship granting organizations in other states and receive a federal tax benefit for doing so,” she said. “Sadly, we can’t just wait for a new governor in January.” 

Evers is not running for a third term in office this year, meaning the new governor could be a Republican or a Democrat, but will not take office until Jan. 4, 2027. The deadline for states to opt in to the federal program is Jan. 1, 2027. 

Felzkowski said in a statement that Evers was “putting politics over helping Wisconsin students.”

“Apparently, expanded educational opportunities for students in all schools, whether public, private, homeschool or charter, (at NO cost to the state and without the need for a single new bureaucrat!) makes too much sense for the governor. Wisconsin students and families deserve better,” Felzkowski said.

Evers addressed proponents’ argument that “the program will benefit public school students, families, and schools, too” in his veto message.

“Perhaps I am wrong and maybe it will. Nevertheless, right now, I have no such comfort, and my decades of experience in public education in the state with the first and oldest modern voucher program tell me the opposite will be true,” Evers said. “Therefore, I must veto this bill in its entirety. What’s best for our kids is what’s best for our state, and it remains unclear how this bill will do what’s best for the more than 800,000 Wisconsin public school kids for whom the state has a constitutional obligation to adequately provide and invest in public education.”

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, celebrated the veto in a statement. 

“More than 70 school districts in Wisconsin are going to referendum next week just to have enough money to continue operating because they have been abandoned by the state and federal government,” Wirtz-Olsen said. “Yet the Trump Administration and the Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature think this is a good time to pour tens of billions of dollars into a voucher program that has no standards and no accountability. A veto is the least of what this program deserves.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed legislation Monday that would have required Wisconsin to opt into a new federal expansion of a private voucher school program. 

The post Evers vetoes bill to join federal tax credit program, citing concerns over expansion of school vouchers appeared first on WPR.