7 Ways Wisconsin Could Address Educator Misconduct Like Other States

After the Cap Times revealed the state Department of Public Instruction had investigated more than 200 educators from 2018 through 2023 following allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming, public officials proposed new legislation, pledged greater transparency and ordered a wide-ranging audit.

Yet, Wisconsin’s laws and the Department of Public Instruction’s policies to prevent educator misconduct continue to fall short of efforts by other states and what advocates say are best practices.

Clear state laws on employee screenings, staff and student training, and disclosing misconduct to future employers are all key to stopping sexual abuse of children, said Jetta Bernier, executive director of the national advocacy group Enough Abuse.

---

As a nonprofit journalism organization, we depend on your support to fund more than 170 reporting projects every year on critical global and local issues. Donate any amount today to become a Pulitzer Center Champion and receive exclusive benefits!

---

“Not every school leader or school department or education leader is aware of the extent and scope of the problem. … You need to institutionalize policies. Otherwise, you’re running in place,” Bernier said.

Compared to other states, including its Midwestern neighbors, Wisconsin lacks laws mandating more transparency on educator misconduct, such as banning confidentiality agreements between school districts and former employees.

Here are seven ways Wisconsin’s laws and policies could change to mirror practices in other states or more closely follow advocate recommendations to strengthen educator sexual misconduct prevention:

1. Prohibit school confidentiality agreements

School administrators in Wisconsin are allowed to sign confidentiality agreements with educators barring the school from disclosing misconduct to a future employer.

For example, the Janesville School District in 2021 investigated a teacher accused of grooming a student while she was in high school and starting a sexual relationship with the student immediately after she graduated. Administrators entered into an agreement with the teacher where he received a letter of reference in exchange for his resignation, according to district records obtained by the Cap Times under open records laws.

The agreement also included a confidentiality clause prohibiting district administrators or the teacher from disclosing its existence unless legally required to — such as following an open records law request.

Confidentiality agreements like these are “extremely dangerous,” said Billie-Jo Grant, the CEO of McGrath Training Solutions, which provides instruction on educator misconduct prevention. “It allows someone to have a clean record. They essentially get like a start over button,” she said.

Through dozens of open records requests for misconduct investigation files, the Cap Times has found similar confidentiality agreements in use by school districts across Wisconsin, like the Kenosha Unified School District, following allegations of sexual misconduct or other behavior.

Creating state laws prohibiting confidentiality agreements is recommended by child sexual abuse prevention advocates at Enough Abuse and the National Center to Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct & Exploitation, also known as SESAME.

Michigan, Illinois and Iowa are among 10 other states that ban confidentiality clauses in employment contracts or separation agreements, according to Enough Abuse.

2. Limit school liability for disclosing misconduct

No laws in Wisconsin protect school districts from legal liability for providing information to other schools about a current or former employee’s sexual misconduct, according to Enough Abuse.

Michigan, Illinois and Iowa grant schools these kinds of protections so administrators can provide comprehensive references about an employee’s past behavior. These states are among seven others and the District of Columbia that also provide these protections.

Another 11 states and the District of Columbia require applicants for school-based jobs to sign a waiver allowing their previous employers to share information with the hiring school. Applicants must release their previous employers from liability claims for providing accurate disciplinary histories.

SESAME has written model legislation that would require schools to disclose substantiated allegations or findings of sexual misconduct when contacted by a prospective employer.

3. Create universal school employee screening requirements

Wisconsin lacks laws standardizing the screening requirements for hiring school employees. Criminal background checks, while necessary, aren’t sufficient for detecting previous instances of educator sexual misconduct, Bernier said.

For every 1,000 sexual assaults across all ages, 50 reports lead to an arrest, according to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network estimates.

Michigan, along with seven other states, have adopted universal school employee screening tools such as requiring applicants to disclose whether they were ever disciplined, terminated or resigned amid a sexual misconduct investigation.

Illinois, Iowa and Michigan laws require school administrators to contact an applicant’s current and former employers about the applicant’s behavior history if the person was in a position directly involved with children. Those three states are among 13 with similar laws, according to Enough Abuse.

SESAME’s model legislation for preventing educator sexual misconduct includes mandating a review of personnel files and prior investigations for any employee who will have contact with students.

4. Allow multiple types of discipline for educators

Current Wisconsin laws and administrative rules give state Department of Public Instruction officials only one form of license discipline for educator misconduct: revoking their teaching license.

Other forms of discipline, such as having an educator complete a course on appropriate boundaries, are voluntary.

Other states — including Iowa, Florida and Pennsylvania — allow other forms of discipline for licensed educators like public reprimands or license probation.

Allowing other forms of discipline is a tool Department of Public Instruction officials have said would be helpful for their misconduct investigations.

In 2017, then-state Superintendent Tony Evers drafted administrative rule changes that would have expanded the types of discipline to include reprimands and suspensions. But Evers scrapped the changes, citing negative feedback from stakeholders.

Current state Superintendent Jill Underly published a scope statement in February 2024 — the first step in the Department of Public Instruction’s rulemaking process — that signaled the agency was working again on a new rule to expand the types of discipline for misconduct.

The Department of Public Instruction has yet to publish the draft rule, however.

5. Publish why an educator lost their license or was disciplined

While the Department of Public Instruction allows the public to check the status of any educator’s license on its website, the website contains no information about why licenses were surrendered or revoked.

Following the Cap Times’ reporting on educator misconduct this fall, Underly announced the Department of Public Instruction would work to publish that information on its website. So far, the agency has only published a new list of surrendered or revoked licenses.

The department has stated no plans to publish information about cases involving other voluntary forms of discipline, such as when an educator keeps their license but must complete a training course.

SESAME recommends making all educator misconduct complaints and findings available to the public.

States like Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas publicly post the reasons why educators were disciplined or lost their licenses — giving the public greater access to the allegations and the outcome of misconduct investigations than in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s Department of Safety and Professional Services, which oversees hundreds of other state-licensed professions, similarly publishes why a professional lost their credentials.

6. Compile annual state reports on educator misconduct

After the Cap Times reported Department of Public Instruction officials weren’t tracking how often they investigated educators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming, the state Legislature ordered an audit of the department’s license investigations.

Part of the audit aims to produce data on the allegations the department has received and investigated. In other states, education agencies routinely produce this kind of statistical information about license investigations in annual reports.

Education agencies in Arizona, Idaho and Pennsylvania publish data each year on how many investigations were conducted, the types of conduct investigated and investigation outcomes.

Arizona’s report includes a decade’s worth of misconduct data broken down by educator gender, license type, the source of the misconduct complaint and discipline type — providing the public and policymakers with more information on the scope of educator misconduct and potential ways to respond.

7. Require sexual abuse prevention training for all grade levels

While Wisconsin law has required school boards to provide sexual abuse prevention education to students in public elementary schools since the 1980s, advocates advise expanding this training.

Enough Abuse recommends mandated prevention education for all grade levels as well as an option for parents. SESAME advises that prevention education include age-appropriate instruction on grooming and boundary violations.

A bipartisan bill in the Wisconsin Legislature this session would expand required child sexual abuse prevention education to all grades and mandate education on personal boundaries. The bill passed the Assembly in November and is awaiting a committee hearing in the Senate.