Underly was invited by the committee to deliver testimony and answer questions last week, but she sent other representatives, including Deputy Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy, for the agency in her stead on Thursday. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Exmainer)

State Superintendent Jill Underly didn’t show up to answer questions from Wisconsin lawmakers about the process the Department of Public Instruction uses for investigating reports of sexual misconduct by educators and for determining licensing.

Underly was invited by the committee to deliver testimony and answer questions, after a report from The Capital Times last week found that DPI investigated over 200 cases of Wisconsin teachers, aides, substitutes and administrators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors toward students from 2018 to 2023. Underly sent other representatives for the agency in her stead on Thursday. According to WisPolitics, Underly was out of state to accept an alumni award from Indiana University. 

The conversation surrounding the agency’s handling of sexual misconduct and grooming allegations and licensure was sparked by the CapTimes report, which  detailed a number of questions related to the system the agency uses to track data on cases, suggested the agency wasn’t making information readily available to the public and noted the few resources that the agency has to investigate cases and track information. 

In a YouTube video posted Thursday, Underly said lawmakers, law enforcement, educators and families would need to come to the table to build a “stronger system that protects every child and respects the rule of law.”  

“Let me be absolutely clear: the safety, dignity, and well-being of Wisconsin’s children is — and will always be — our first and most important responsibility,” Underly said. “We investigate every single complaint we receive. These investigations are conducted thoroughly, professionally, and within the legal authority given to us. Licensure actions — whether it is a suspension, revocation, or voluntary surrender — are not made lightly. They are based on evidence, not speculation; on due process, not headlines.” 

Last week, Underly called the report “misleading” in a letter and requested a retraction or correction from the CapTimes. In response, CapTimes Editor Mark Treinen said the paper  stands by the reporting. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) announced that she is working on a set of bills in response to the article. 

One bill focuses on implementing a criminal penalty for “grooming” of children by sexual predators in state statute. Nedweski also said she is drafting a bill to require school districts to adopt clear policies outlining appropriate communication boundaries between staff and students and a bill to prohibit DPI  from allowing teachers under investigation for sexual misconduct to surrender their teaching license to avoid further scrutiny. 

Lawmakers expressed concern at Underly’s absence, noting the seriousness of the issue. 

At the start of the hearing, Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona) said he was “disappointed” by Underly’s absence. 

“I am deeply, deeply disappointed that Superintendent Underly could not bring herself to the meeting,” Nedweski, who chairs the committee, said. “These are very, very serious issues.” 

Nedweski said she had a meeting with DPI staff on Monday, but the Underly never reached out to her to ask to reschedule the hearing. She said she would have gladly accommodated a different date.

“I guess she just couldn’t find it important enough,” she added.  

At a press conference after the hearing, Nedweski, Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor in 2026, criticized Underly for her absence. 

“I would call on [Gov. Tony Evers] at this point… do you find this acceptable? Is this acceptable what has gone on here in the state of Wisconsin?” Tiffany asked. “I think it’s time for the governor to call on Jill Underly to either do her job or step aside.”

Tiffany said he would ensure proper investigations and create a public dashboard showing why teachers lose their licenses if he is elected governor. 

DPI representatives and law enforcement discuss lack of “grooming” statute

The hearing began with testimony from Kenosha Chief of Police Patrick Patton, Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Labatore and officer Kate Schaper, who addressed  the difference between investigations conducted by law enforcement and the role of the DPI. 

DPI Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy delivered testimony and answered questions on behalf of Underly and the agency. He was joined by Rich Judge, who serves as DPI’s assistant superintendent of government and public affairs, and Jennifer Kammerud, who serves as the educator licensing director. 

McCarthy began his testimony by laying out the role of the agency in handling sexual misconduct and grooming allegations. He said the agency’s main role is in the state’s licensing system, which is how they can draw attention to people who shouldn’t be in the classroom. 

“When we hear about allegations … we are deadly serious,” McCarthy said. “We use all of the tools that we have available. We do not have subpoena power, but we do attempt to get information from anybody that can support a license investigation case, and given how sensitive these things are, we try to work as thoroughly and quickly as possible.” 

McCarthy noted that DPI typically receives accusations from law enforcement agencies, required reporting from local school districts, complaints from members of the public and from news media reports, which McCarthy said the agency scans frequently. 

Both McCarthy and the law enforcement officers spoke to concerns about the lack of a definition for grooming in Wisconsin state statute.

According to RAINN, grooming is the “deliberate act of building trust with a child, teen, or at-risk adult (such as an adult with a cognitive impairment) for the purpose of exploiting them sexually.”

DPI recommended in its testimony that a definition for grooming should include patterns of flirtatious behavior, making any effort to gain unreasonable access to or time alone with any student with no discernable educational purpose, engaging in any behavior that can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate relationship with a student and engaging in any other special treatment not in compliance with generally accepted educational practices.

McCarthy said lawmakers should consider requiring an annual training should they adopt a definition of grooming.

“We need to be reminding folks of the types of behaviors and things that we expect from them. It doesn’t matter what type of school,” McCarthy said. 

Questioning by lawmakers was tense and combative at times. 

Nedweski said she was unclear about why there is confusion over whether grooming can be used to remove a teacher’s license.

Current state law says that a teacher’s license can be revoked due to “immoral conduct,” which is defined as “conduct or behavior that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare, or education of any pupil.” 

“Do we have to explicitly write the word ‘grooming’ in this law to spell out that grooming is not commonly accepted moral at ethical standards? I tend to believe that most Wisconsinites would think the law is comprehensive. Any kind of behavior that resembles grooming in any definition is already covered there,” Nedweski said. 

McCathy said the statute right now is “vague and ambiguous.” 

“When we find these things we go after them,” McCarthy said. “The department is using all of its authority to put its foot down in the spaces and revoke licenses. We’re doing that in a space right now where the authority doesn’t necessarily back us in every instance.” 

The Assembly Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee voted unanimously to approve a motion to request that Attorney General Josh Kaul provide an opinion on two questions: whether grooming is “contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards” and does grooming “endanger the health, safety, welfare or education” of a pupil. 

Voluntary revocations and information on license status

McCarthy also told lawmakers that they view voluntary surrenders as an important tool for them. He said they will ask educators under investigation to do so throughout the process. 

The agency has noted that it often gives several opportunities for teachers to voluntarily surrender their licenses.

McCarthy said that voluntary surrenders related to a sexual misconduct investigation are most often lifetime surrenders, meaning that in a legal agreement they won’t be able to apply for an educator’s license again.

Revocations and voluntary surrenders are also reported to the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) — a national database that state education agencies can access that includes information about the misconduct. That database is not accessible to the public. 

McCarthy noted that information is available on the DPI website on the status of a teacher’s license, though one needs to know a licensee’s name in order to check. The information will say whether an educator’s license is under investigation, has been revoked or voluntarily surrendered, though it doesn’t include information on why. He said the agency is working with old, rigid software that makes it difficult to add additional information. 

Nedweski said she didn’t “buy” the explanation that the agency was giving.

“It’s remarkable because the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services can show you the reason for a license revocation for anyone,” Nedweski said, including explanations for manicurists. “It’s easier for me as a member of the public to find out why a cosmetologist lost their license and why it was revoked than it is for me to find out why a teacher license was revoked… Why is it so hard for us to find out critical safety information?” 

The agency requested $600,000 in the most recent state budget process to modernize its online background checks and licensing platform — a request that was rejected by the Republican-led Legislature.

The agency also suggested that lawmakers consider increasing reporting requirements to all school types and all individuals who are present in schools. McCarthy noted that the agency doesn’t have the ability to revoke licenses of people that don’t have to be licensed — including paraprofessionals and teachers in taxpayer-supported private schools. 

Lawmakers said they plan to provide Underly with other opportunities to speak in public forums about the issue. 

Jagler said the Senate Education Committee, which he chairs, will have an informational hearing on Nov. 4 where Underly will be the only invited speaker.

The Joint Audit Committee also noticed a hearing on Nov. 5 to launch an audit of educational licensure revocation, suspension, restriction and investigation at DPI.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Bascom Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Ron Cogswell | used by permission of the photographer)

University of Wisconsin campuses could be limited in their ability to raise tuition under two Republican bills that received a hearing in the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee. One would leverage tuition freezes on campuses as a penalty for free speech violations, while the other would aim to help with affordability for students and families by capping tuition increases.

With the conclusion of the budget process over the summer and a $250 million investment in the UW system, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have recently turned their attention to potential policy changes that could be made to the higher education system in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers announced their own proposals for helping with higher education costs last week.

Implementing financial penalties on UW, technical colleges for free speech violations

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said her bill would enshrine the principle of current University of Wisconsin system policy in law to clarify and protect the First Amendment rights of students, staff and visitors. 

Current UW system policy includes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations. 

A similar bill passed the Assembly in 2023, but failed to receive a vote in the Senate. Earlier versions of the policy were introduced after a controversial survey of UW campuses that found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class. The survey had an average response rate of 12.5% across all UW System campuses. 

The latest iteration of the bill was introduced just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who has become a recurring point of discussion and debate. Lawmakers passed a resolution this week to honor his life.

Nedweski noted that another survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that found that 35% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable at least in rare cases. The survey included responses from 423 people. 

“It’s clearly even more chilling in light of the recent political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus. When we accept the false premise that speech is equivalent to violence, we allow violence to replace speech as a means of debate… We’ve seen many of our college campuses devolve into marketplaces of fear of certain viewpoints,” Nedweski said. “While Charlie Kirk’s assassination on the college campus is the most extreme example of this, it is not the first time conservatives on campus have been threatened or intimidated for their views.” 

Nedweski said the bill would help restore trust.

“The breakdown in public trust is real. It will only get worse unless our colleges and universities get serious about restoring intellectual diversity on campus, I believe,” Nedweski said. 

SB 498 would bar UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker if their conduct “is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the UW institution or technical college.” It would also restrict enforcement of time, place and manner restrictions on expressive activities in public forum spaces, designating any place a “free speech zone,” charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

If an institution is found to violate the provisions by a state or federal court, then it would receive a notice and a person whose expressive rights were violated would be able to bring action against the UW Board of Regents or a technical college board. A plaintiff could be awarded damages of at least $500 for the initial violation plus $50 for each day after the complaint was filed and the violation continues up to $100,000. A plaintiff could also be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

Students, employees and campus organizations would have a due process guarantee under the bill. If the due process provisions are violated more than once in a five-year period, a campus would be required to freeze tuition for all students for the following two academic years.

Nedweski said she hadn’t spoken with the UW system about the legislation this session, but she is open to conversations. 

“I’ve expressed it from the start of the session for the UW to come and work with us on this to get to a place where they can be a thumbs up, but I haven’t heard from anyone,” Nedweski said. “They will express some concerns about certain language in the bill and definitions, and I’d like to say today that, of course, the door is still open.”

UW Interim Vice President of University Relations Chris Patton that the system’s concerns with the bills center on the penalties. 

Patton said the penalty of freezing state funding would put the system’s financial health at risk — and potentially compromise the system’s ability to carry out its mission of being a “marketplace of ideas.” 

“Freedom of expression and free speech is not just a constitutional principle. It’s at the very core of what makes our universities thrive,” Patton said. “The First Amendment guarantees this right, and our institutions take seriously our responsibility to uphold it for all students, faculty, staff, visitors and stakeholders at the Universities of Wisconsin. We already have really robust policies and procedures in place.”

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a coauthor on the bill, urged lawmakers to “please understand” that the bill is “not to punish any of our institutions,” but is to “ensure that they’re following what’s already in the Bill of Rights.”

Sen. Chis Larson (D-Milwaukee), the top Democrat on the committee, expressed concern about the aims of the legislation, whether free speech was a top concern that was widespread on campuses and whether the bill could bolster harmful language. 

“I appreciate you guys coming up here to embrace DEI for Republican viewpoints, which this seems to be what this bill is all about — making sure that Republican viewpoints are more represented and encouraged and being inclusive to that,” Larson said. 

“You can call it DEI for conservatism, but there’s nothing in the bill that addresses anything specific to conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats,” Nedweski replied. “It’s free speech protections for everyone.”

Larson noted that he represents the UW-Milwaukee campus and often speaks with students about their concerns and free speech is typically low on the list. He said he hears concerns about affordability and safety more frequently. 

“Other concerns include safety, especially for students who are LGBTQ, students who are of a different race than Caucasian, of their safety on campus, of being targeted with hate crimes,” Larson said. 

Larson also brought up a recent Politico article, which exposed racist messages sent into a group chat of Young Republicans, to ask whether lawmakers thought their bill could encourage that type of speech. 

Larson said he wasn’t concerned with self-censorship that discouraged people from “saying these racist, homophobic, xenophobic, glorification of rape things out in the public, because that is something that in a free and open society should have consequences associated with it.”

“We do not have the exemption for hate speech in our laws and in the First Amendment. It does not exempt hate speech,” Larson said. “It seems to me that this [bill] would pave the way to be able to say, yes, that would be something that is not only allowed on campus, but encouraged.” 

Nedweski said she was not concerned that the bill would “further unhinge people.” 

“We’re all concerned about the political temperature that has risen so high in this country,” Nedweski said. “I don’t have concerns this bill is going to push anybody overboard. The intent is to protect people whether I agree with what their ideas… are or not. I have no association with the group that you’re talking about. I don’t agree with the things that they said. It’s unfortunate that that happened.”

Capping tuition increases

Under SB 399, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. 

The bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), was introduced this year after the UW system adopted its third consecutive tuition increase in July. The increases were a maximum of 5% for each campus and were implemented after the recent state budget did not reach the requests the system said would be needed to avoid a hike. 

“With the continued rising prices in almost every area of the economy, some increase in resident tuition is to be expected but we must set common sense guardrails so that any price increases are reasonable, ensuring the UW system remains a cost-effective option for Wisconsin families,” Jacque said. 

Jacque said the recent hike “might be the impetus for the timing this session” but he has seen it as a “reasonable policy” for a while, noting that versions of the bill have been proposed in previous years.

Murphy said he thought the legislation would make it so that lawmakers don’t “have to always be looking” at tuition.

“It’s just up and down and up and down and up and down,” Murphy said. The bill, he added, would help provide a semblance of predictability down the line. “If you have a youngster in the K-12 system and you’re looking at what college is going to cost in the future, you could probably have a good idea of where it is going to go.”

Larson said he found it “noble” what the Republican lawmakers were trying to accomplish with the bill, but asked about why there wasn’t any state contribution included in the bill.

He noted that the portion of state funding that makes up the UW system’s budget has been decreasing over many years. 

“It’s like the cost of groceries,” Larson said, comparing it to “shrinkflation,” a form of inflation where the price of a product stays the same but the size or quantity of a product is reduced. “We’re gonna freeze the cost of a loaf of bread, and then year after year, you’re going to get one slice less, one slice less, one slice less. It will still be the same cost, but you’re getting less. I worry… if you freeze it, we’re going to be getting the equivalent of one slice less every single year in terms of what the deliverable is from the University.” 

Murphy noted that the legislation would just cap increases, not freeze tuition. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill restricting referendum proposals comes as school districts continue to rely on funding raised from property taxes through referendum requests, requiring voter approval. A rally calling attention to schools' reliance on referendums in the Capitol in 2025. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Wisconsin Republicans want to restrict school districts’ ability to seek referendums if they haven’t turned in financial reports to the Department of Public Instruction on time. 

At a public hearing Thursday, the Assembly Education Committee Thursday heard testimony on a bill drafted in reaction to the historic referendum that voters approved for the Milwaukee Public Schools last year, and that was followed by the revelation that the district was months late in submitting financial documents to the state.

The school district’s tardiness has led to upheaval throughout the district, including the decision to replace the MPS superintendent and additional audits ordered by Gov. Tony Evers.

The education committee also took testimony on a bill that would allow education students to complete their student teacher requirements during the summer and a bill to change curriculum requirements for human development classes if districts offer them. 

Rich Judge,  assistant state superintendent in the Division of Government & Public Affairs for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), registered against each bill, but did not provide testimony. The agency has not yet responded to a request for comment from the Wisconsin Examiner about its opposition to the bills.

AB 457, coauthored by Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), would require DPI to certify schools are in compliance with all applicable requirements to submit financial information to DPI. 

If a district is not in compliance, the school board would be prohibited from adopting a resolution to hold  a referendum. A resolution adopted or a referendum passed without the certification would be void.

“If a district cannot even meet its minimal statutory reporting duties, how can voters trust them to be responsible?” Nedweski asked rhetorically during her testimony. “This bill places no additional cost or burdens on school districts. It simply reinforces accountability and transparency… Trust is the foundation of strong schools and strong communities, and AB 457 helps ensure that that trust is never taken for granted.” 

MPS sought a $252 million recurring operating referendum in April 2024 to assist with staff pay and educational programming costs. The measure passed narrowly, and by the end of May 2024, DPI announced that the district was months late in submitting required financial reports. 

The DPI was still withholding about $42 million from the district as of June of this year due to its late financial reports. 

Nedweski said she didn’t know how many other districts might be late in their financial reporting to DPI. School districts need to be in compliance before they seek a referendum so that voters have adequate information, she said 

“If you’re going to pass a $252 million dollar recurring referendum, I think you should be able to make an informed decision,” Nedweski said.

The legislation comes as school districts continue to rely on funding raised from property taxes through referendum requests, requiring voter approval.

Democratic lawmakers on the committee expressed concern about the potential barrier the legislation could pose.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) noted that there have been a record number of referendum requests t in recent years and that the state Legislature opted not to provide any additional general aid in the 2025-27 state budget. School district leaders have said the lack of state aid will put them in tough positions when it comes to funding, even with the additional aid that the state is providing for special education costs. 

“With the state Legislature putting zero dollars in state [general] aid forward in this last budget to local school districts, we’re going to see that pattern of referendum continuing,” Cruz said. “I’m just concerned that we are creating another barrier in terms of our local public school districts having access to choosing to… fill the gaps that the state is intentionally creating.”

Even with the recent referendum, MPS is still looking at a $100 million budget shortfall and newly hired Superintendent Brenda Cassellius is looking for ways to tighten its budget.

This is not the only bill lawmakers have introduced that would place additional barriers and limitations on school districts seeking referendums. A bill introduced in March would eliminate the ability for school districts to seek recurring referendums, which are ongoing into the future, in part due to Milwaukee’s referendum. 

“Are you saying that people shouldn’t have access to the financial data for school districts before they make a decision to raise their own taxes?” Nedweski replied. 

“Absolutely not,” Cruz said. “I’m seeking clarity in terms of are we trying to create an additional barrier for public school districts, local communities to fund their schools? [The financial reports are] already a requirement by law.” 

Changing human development requirements 

The committee also took testimony on AB 405, also authored by Nedweski, which would change requirements for school districts that offer human development education.

Wisconsin doesn’t require public schools to teach human growth and development, or sex education. If they opt to do so, the state makes recommendations for the curriculum and state law imposes some requirements. Those include presenting abstinence from sex as the preferred choice of behavior for unmarried students, providing instruction in parental responsibility and the socioeconomic benefits of marriage for adults and their children, and explaining pregnancy, prenatal development and childbirth. 

Nedweski’s bill would add to those requirements. If it is enacted, students would have to be shown a “high-definition ultrasound video that shows the development of the brain, heart, sex organs, and other vital organs in early fetal development” and a “high-quality, computer-generated rendering or animation that shows the process of fertilization and every stage of fetal development inside the uterus and that notes significant markers in cell growth and organ development for every week of pregnancy until birth.”

Nedweski said that allowing students to “actually see the real life process of fetal development in action will be more tangible to them than simply reading in a textbook or seeing it in the still diagram or drawing.” 

“We have the resources at our disposal to bring this science into the classrooms, and we should use it to our advantage to give students a stronger educational experience,” she added. 

Nedweski’s bill would also require schools to include a presentation on each trimester of pregnancy and the physical and emotional health of the mother if they opt into teaching on recommended topics. She said this would help address mental health concerns.

“This bill simply builds off of those existing requirements to incorporate more scientific resources, such as the ultrasound video as well as lessons pertaining to the mental and physical health of the mother,” Nedweski said. “This bill is not a mandate because school districts are not required by law to offer human growth and development instruction. It merely makes modern enhancements to the topics required of districts that choose to teach it.” 

Nedweski was the sole person to testify on the bill. 

Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) asked Nedweski whether she consulted public health officials, noting that the Wisconsin Public Health Association and Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards are registered against it, according to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission lobbying website.

Nedweski said she didn’t speak to any public health officials or either statewide group in the process of authoring the bill, but spoke to a member of one of the local health departments in her district. 

Cruz asked about how much the curriculum would potentially cost. 

“There are all kinds of free materials available to any school district that would be wanting to utilize the video portion or the high resolution animation,” Nedweski said. She added that the curriculum decisions would ultimately be made at the local level.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Assembly Republicans passed a handful of bills Thursday on an array of issues. Democrats argued the measures won’t solve the problems facing Wisconsinites and unveiled their own proposals. 

The Assembly floor session is the first since lawmakers broke for the summer after completing the state budget. The Senate does not plan to meet this month, and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told reporters during a press conference that it was a “shame” they wouldn’t. She said she has had conversations about meeting in October. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said Republicans’ agenda for Thursday was an example of “prioritizing culture wars” rather than “doing what’s right.” 

Democrats’ education bills

Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. 

“We would like to see our legislative Republican colleagues focus on the issues that are facing Wisconsinites — issues like cost of living, their public schools and their property taxes,” Neubauer said. “That’s why we’re bringing forward this package today, because we know from conversations with our constituents what they’re really concerned about.”

The Democrats’ education agenda  contrasts with the plan announced by Assembly Republicans earlier this week. Republican proposals include encouraging consolidation of schools, calling on Gov. Tony Evers to opt into a federal school choice program, banning drones over schools and improving math education.

One Democratic  bill would dedicate $325 in additional per pupil state aid to Wisconsin school districts. It would cost nearly $500 million for 2025-26 and nearly $700 million for 2026-27. 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) called it the “bare minimum” that school districts need and said it would help school districts avoid raising property taxes. 

“School districts will do better under this bill than current law,” Roys said. “We know every kid around the state deserves to go to a great school so that they can meet their potential, but to be clear, this bill is not everything that our kids need or deserve, not even close.” 

Wisconsin’s most recent state budget did not give school districts any increase in per pupil general aid, despite calls from education advocates, Gov. Tony Evers and other Democrats to provide additional funding.

Republican lawmakers said they would not increase state aid after  Evers used his partial veto power to extend a cap on the annual increase to limits on the revenue districts can raise from local taxpayer of $325 per pupil for the next 400 years. Without state funding, school districts only have the option of increasing property taxes to bring in the additional funds. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects that property taxes will increase by more than 7% on average over the next year.

Roys said the bill is a “test” to see if Republicans want to help keep property taxes stable, since providing no state aid to schools will drive those taxes up. She blamed Republicans for placing districts in a situation where they have to go to property taxpayers to keep up with costs. 

Roys also knocked a Republican bill that would encourage school districts to explore consolidation and sharing services. 

“They want to consolidate school districts. They want to close schools, and by the way, everything’s the governor’s fault. Give me a break,” Roys said. “They want to hold the line on property taxes? Prove it.” 

The bill also includes an additional $31 million to ensure no school districts receive less state aid in 2025-26 than they received in 2024-25. 

The Department of Public Instruction’s July 1 estimate found that 277 districts — or 65.8% — of school districts were going to receive less in general aid from the state in 2025. 

Another bill seeks to provide greater transparency on the costs of voucher schools to districts by requiring property tax bills to include information about the cost. The bill would expand on a push that public school advocates are making at a local level after the city of Green Bay was able to add the information. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said the bill would help inform residents who may be confused about where their tax dollars are going. 

“We can say, time and time again, that the state is underfunding our local public schools. That is true. What they also don’t understand, and there’s a really simple fix, is how much of that money is leaving their district to go to other voucher schools. In some cases, millions and tens of millions of dollars… It is a simple fix. It is very straightforward,” Andraca said.

Requiring in-person work for state employees 

AB 39 would require state employees to return to in-person work for at least 80% of their time — or four days a week for a full-time employee — starting this year. The bill passed 51-44 with all Democrats opposing it. 

The bill initially required state agency employees to be in person the whole week, but an amendment dropped the minimum to four days. 

Republican lawmakers have been calling for stricter limits on remote work for several years. The policies became normal for state employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Nedweski said she isn’t “anti-telework,” but said remote work needs to be managed and measured. She said agencies haven’t provided data to show it is working. During the Assembly Committee on Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency hearing on the bill, agency leaders said remote work policies have helped with recruitment and retention of employees.

“It’s time for state employees to return to the office and do the work that Wisconsin’s hard-working taxpayers are paying them to do to the best of their ability and in their most productive and efficient way,” Nedweski said. “We have a policy that allows for remote work agreements. We’re not saying the policy is ending, we’re saying, come back, have your performance evaluated and re-sign your remote work agreement.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona), the ranking member of the GOAT committee, pointed to the testimony they heard as he argued the bill wouldn’t help.

“A bill like this with a one-size-fits-all return to work policy will not make our state government better… Remote work policies were born from a crisis, and we all remember too well. They’ve  become a success for our state government. We now have state workers dispersed all across the state. We’ve achieved savings by consolidating physical workspace. We’ve stayed competitive with the private market by appealing to how employees want to work and then what they expect from their work environment.” 

Flag prohibition

AB 58 would prohibit flags, other than the United States flag, the state of Wisconsin flag and a few others on a list of exceptions, from being flown outside state and local buildings including the Wisconsin State Capitol. The bill passed 50-44, along party lines. 

Rep. Jerry O’Connor, the author of the bill, argued that flags are part of the reason for increasing divisiveness, and even political violence. Wisconsin leaders condemned political violence during the session after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday.

“It’s not the role of the government to pick the winners and losers on partisan and activist issues,” O’Connor said. 

Some of the exceptions would include local government flags, those commemorating veterans, prisoners of war or missing in action, those recognizing a foreign nation for special purposes and a flag of a unit of firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency medical technicians. 

He said these exceptions are “simply recognizing those flags that are efficiently recognized by all levels of government.”

“We should have a shared outlook as to what we do as elected officials in this building here to promote unity and not division… I think we all could agree that those are the flags that represent all of us,” O’Connor said. 

Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) spoke specifically about pride flags, which are a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, when explaining his support of the legislation. 

“You’re asking every Wisconsinite to sanction what that means,” Wichgers said in reference to the Progress Pride flag. The chevron portions of the flag include black and brown stripes to represent people of color who identify with the LGBTQ+ community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS. The light blue, pink and white stripes in the chevron represent transgender people.

“I can guarantee you when you ask the people that are in favor, they’re not going to know what that chevron means, so we’re endorsing, sanctioning something that is being flown above our flag that is probably divisive,” Wichgers said. 

Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said, however, that she views the bill as being divisive and as a violation of the First Amendment. 

“I think as a body we should be promoting inclusiveness. It’s not just the more morally right thing to do. It also strengthens our communities, promotes mutual respect, and actually leads to more civic engagement,” Sinicki said. “These symbolic acts do matter. They matter to me, and they matter to the majority of people across Wisconsin.” 

Prohibit health services funding for immigrants without legal status

AB 308, coauthored by Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan), passed 50-44 along party lines. The bill would prohibit state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the United States.

Dallman said at a press conference that the bill is meant to stop Wisconsin from expanding its Medicaid to cover immigrants without legal status. Wisconsin already doesn’t allow this. 

“This is going to take a step forward to say that we are going to again keep these funds available for our citizens who are paying in all these dollars,” Dallman said. 

Advocates expressed concerns to the Examiner earlier this week that the bill would lead to health service providers having to check everyone’s citizenship status before providing care.

Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) said the bill is “the kind of thing that makes people hate politics.”

“We don’t provide health care to undocumented immigrants. The reason we’re voting on this today is so that the majority party can go out and tell their voters that Democrats failed to stop giving health insurance to undocumented people, but we can’t stop something that isn’t happening. Why waste time and taxpayer money this way?” Stroud said. “If you don’t have affordable health care, they don’t want you to hold them accountable. Instead, they want you to blame someone else.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE