(The Center Square) – If Wisconsin Democrats want to avoid having kings, one Republican senator thinks they should be big proponents of a constitutional amendment to limit the power of a governor.
A joint resolution to limit Wisconsin’s governors from using their veto power to delete words, letters or characters from appropriations will be heard next Wednesday in the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development.
Senate Joint Resolution 11 would need to be approved in two separate legislative sessions before reaching the ballot statewide as early as 2017.
The proposed constitutional amendment comes after Gov. Tony Evers used the current veto power to erase numbers and a hyphen to change the year “2024-25” to “2425” in a school appropriation in the budget bill.
That meant a $325 per student per year funding increase for the next 400 years was allowed and later upheld in a 4-3 ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
“For a guy who’s popular with the ‘No Kings’ crowd, Gov. Evers sure loves playing monarch,” Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin, told The Center Square. “With one royal flick of his veto pen, he taxed homeowners for the next 400 years.
“This amendment restores the balance our founders intended: government of the people, not by decree.”
The constitutional amendment would limit the veto power to sections of an appropriations bill rather than allowing for words and numbers to be deleted individually.
The amendment was originally introduced in February in both the Senate and Assembly but is now seeing its first committee action in the Senate with the scheduled public hearing. A public hearing was held in the Assembly Committee on State Affairs in June.
Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha, described the proposal as a “once and for all” measure to rein in the powers of a governor in the state and “restore balance.”
He explained that the current veto power can allow a governor to write laws that the public never had a voice in creating and the Legislature didn’t have a say in allowing, calling the current veto power a “quirk that makes our state an outlier in America.”
Allen said that both Evers and former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, stretched the veto power beyond what he believes the public would approve, citing Walker ending a levy limit exemption for school energy efficient projects.

(The Center Square) — Wisconsin’s race for attorney general could end up being a rematch.
Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney on Tuesday launched another bid to become the state’s attorney general.
“After seven years of broken promises and political spin in the Attorney General’s office, it’s time for change,” Toney said in his announcement.
Toney ran against current Attorney General Josh Kaul in 2020, losing by about 35,000 votes.
Kaul announced his re-election bid earlier this month.
In that 2020 race, Toney made an issue of what he called Kaul’s mismanagement of the state’s crime labs. He is going back to message this year as well.
“As your Top Cop, I will stand up for every Wisconsinite, enforce the law, and bring conservative, common-sense leadership back to the DOJ,” Toney added. “That’s what Wisconsinites expect and deserve.”
In fact, his first priority is “fixing misguided policies, providing transparency and leadership, with clear timelines, and public metrics to cut backlogs and delays.”
Toney also says he wants to deal with Wisconsin’s “drug crisis,” and “target violent crime in Milwaukee.”
“Wisconsin needs an Attorney General who protects our people, not our politics,” Toney said. “Let’s put public safety first, restore competence to the labs, take on crime in Milwaukee, and protect all of Wisconsin.”
As of now, there are no other Republicans in the race. If Toney does draw an opponent, voters will have until August before they’d have to decide in the 2026 primary.

(The Center Square) – Milwaukee voters would rather consolidate schools in the district than see a future referendum for additional property taxes, according to a new poll.
The voters, across parties and demographics, also preferred the state opt in to a $1,700-per-person school choice federal tax credit that Gov. Tony Evers has said that he will reject.
Embold Research asked 535 likely Milwaukee voters in 2026 the questions between Oct. 6-10 on behalf of City Forward Collective and CFC Action Fund.
“We at City Forward Collective have been on the record for some time that right-sizing is inevitable, it’s necessary and it’s part of the reason that we opposed the 2024 referendum,” CFC Executive Director Colleston Morgan Jr. told The Center Square. “We said the district didn’t have a financial plan or an academic plan.”
Morgan said that “affordability” showed up as a large concern for voters in the poll.
Milwaukee schools will receive $105 million more in state aid this year than last despite having 1,700 less students all while property taxes went up nearly 30% last year, Morgan said. Milwaukee public schools saw a total enrollment drop of nearly 30,000 students (32.8%) between 2006 and 2024.
Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Brenda Cassellius has said that the school will need to close “more than five” schools in the coming years. The district is currently working on that consolidation plan.
Milwaukee passed a $252 million referendum in April 2024 and it was later revealed that Milwaukee Public Schools had not filed the paperwork with the Department of Public Instruction. The district missed the deadlines by eight months and had $42 million withheld.
Legislators are currently discussing a bill that would require districts to file the required paperwork before being eligible for a referendum.
The poll first asked voters if they supported consolidating schools in the district, with 58% for and 27% against. After hearing the pro and con arguments on the topic, voters then were 68% in favor and 22% against consolidation.
They were then asked if they would prefer consolidation or a funding measure in a future referendum and 57% favored consolidation over another referendum.
“This question of MPS living within its means absolutely matters for taxpayers in Milwaukee, families in Milwaukee, for the broader community in Milwaukee,” Morgan said. “But it’s also a question of statewide concern. I think you’ve seen a number of state legislators and now you start to hear some districts talk about this sort of cumulative impact. Milwaukee is obviously the sort of 600-pound gorilla in the conversation.”

(The Center Square) – A pair of Wisconsin lawmakers have introduced a bill to create a $25 per diem payment to nonprofits or non-governmental entities that house homeless veterans.
Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, said the bills are in response to Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers electing to close veterans homes in Chippewa Falls and Green Bay, citing budgetary issues.
But Wimberger said that Evers chose to not use $1.9 million in appropriated funds, what he said was a 15% increase in funding for the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program.
Wimberger and Rep. Benjamin Franklin, R-De Pere, are looking for co-sponsors for the legislation through Friday afternoon.
“This legislation will do what Governor Evers has failed to do: spend the money we already set aside to house homeless veterans,” Wimberger said in a statement. “Increased funding was appropriated in the budget to support the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program, yet Gov. Evers chose to shutter these facilities.
“If the Governor’s Administration won’t do this work, the Legislature will move to do what’s right and work with nonprofits and other organizations to house veterans in need across our state.”
The VHRP recipients are also receiving federal per diem payments for homeless veterans.
“I am proud to introduce this legislation,” Franklin said in a statement. “This proposal works, and will support our homeless veterans and those at risk of homelessness. Earlier this year, the bipartisan budget included a 15 percent increase to the VHRP program, and this legislation takes that commitment a step further.”

(The Center Square) – A bill looking to assure free speech is upheld at campus in the University of Wisconsin system and Wisconsin Technical Colleges would carry a punishment of two academic years of frozen tuition if a school violates any of the requirements of the bill multiple times in a five-year period.
The UW system said that its largest issue with Senate Bill 498 is the potential financial penalties for not following the rules.
“We have a concern with SB 498 and it really centers around some of the penalties prescribed in the bill that we believe would adversely impact our universities financially,” UW Vice President for University Relations Chris Patton told the Senate Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges. “Freezing state funding to our universities that put our financially health potentially at risk and really compromise the very mission and the efforts that we’re all attempting to undertake.
Lawmakers, however, are looking to have important enforcement behind the bill rather than having the bill pass and be only aspirational.
“It’s not to punish any of our institutions,” said Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Fox Crossing. “It’s to ensure that they’re following what’s already in the Bill of Rights.”
Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, cited several studies and surveys including a UW System survey showing that UW Madison students and students across the country felt less comfortable speaking out if they are conservative, a Foundation for Individual Rights in Education survey showing that 35% of UW-Madison students believe it’s acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker on campus and data from The College Fix showing that more than 99% of donations from UW system professors went to Democrats, not Republicans.
“That (FIRE) number is disturbing on its own but it’s clearly even more chilling in light of the recent political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus,” Nedweski said. “When we accept the false premise that speech is equivalent to violence, we allow violence to replace speech as a means of debate.”
Nedweski also cited UW-Eau Claire professor José Felipe Alvergue for throwing a table of the College Republicans on its side and storming off.
The bill requires that the colleges not restrict free speech if the speaker is lawful or restict the time, place or manner of free speech on campus. The school cannot create a “free speech zone” and limit speech to that area, require a permit to limit expression or require a security fee be paid.
The school also cannot “sanction individuals or groups 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,” the bill states.
There are exceptions for the permit and security but “if a permit is required, the permitting process and any security fee must be content and viewpoint neutral.”

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Senator says there’s no need to continue the government shutdown, but he’s not predicting a quick end.
Sen. Ron Johnson told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber that Democrats have “had plenty of time to do what makes sense.”
“This is spending a Biden-levels, this is what they voted for. Chuck Schumer has voted for continuing resolutions all the time,” Johnson.
Johnson said the Senate will vote again on a “clean CR” on Monday. The shutdown is now in its third week, and no one is guessing when it may end.
But Johnson said Democrats continue to believe they are winning.
“They think they’ve got the high ground because premiums because of Obamacare are going to continue to sky rocket,” Johnson said.
“They’re trying to [mislead] the American public that the reason premiums are sky rocketing is because [the Democrats’] temporary enhanced subsidies are expiring.”
Johnson said Congress can deal with the rising costs of health insurance, but not until after Democrats vote to reopen the government.
He also said he hopes that any deal on health care will not simply continue the unaffordable subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
“We’ll talk about how to fix your horribly broken Obamacare,” Johnson added. “We’re happy to do that. We’ll fix the damage that’s already been done.”
Democrats in Congress continue to say the end of COVID-era Affordable Care Act subsidies will spike health care costs and could potentially leave hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin without access to care.
Wisconsin Democratic Ssen. Tammy Baldwin on Sunday put the blame for the shutdown on Johnson and the Republicans.
“The only way to get us out of this mess is for Democrats and Republicans to sit down together and negotiate a solution. So why, on Day #19 of Trump’s shutdown, are Republicans still refusing to do that?” Baldwin wrote on X.

(The Center Square) — Washington has become synonymous with polarization between Republicans and Democrats.Yet, legislation that would bar elected officials from owning stocks reveals an additional fault line: supporters tend to be affluent white-collar professionals, while opponents made their millions by founding businesses and/or making investments on Wall Street, an investigation by The Center Square found.
The divide contrasts with near uniformity among ordinary Americans for a ban on politicians trading stocks. They believe lawmakers use information gleaned behind closed doors to enrich themselves, such as members of Congress who bought or sold stock at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 or before President Donald Trump’s announcement about the putative risk for pregnant mothers to take Tylenol.Capitol Hill lawmakers are required to report their trades within 30- or 45 days. As The Center Square has reported, many violate the deadline with little if any fine or punishment.This summer, 16 House members signed up as co-sponsors of draft legislation to ban lawmakers from trading stock. Half were Republicans. Half were Democrats. While their partisan affiliations differed, their income status did not. All but one were in the bottom half of the economic scale among 535 lawmakers, according to Quiver Quantitative, a website that tracks lawmaker’s wealth. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, the bill’s lead sponsor, is a former attorney, investment banking analyst, and congressional staffer. Despite his white-collar credentials, the 53-year-old has a net worth of $1.3 million, a figure that puts him as the 300th wealthiest lawmaker.
Roy’s main Democratic co-sponsor, U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner, of Rhode Island, has a similar professional background. Forty-two, Magaziner has a lower net worth, $651,000, a sum that puts him as Congress’ 373rd richest member.
Other notable co-sponsors include U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, a New York Democrat, whose net worth of $49,000 makes her the 475th wealthiest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, while Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, is worth $41,500, a sum that puts him at the 477th wealthiest.
U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said the bill would reign in wealthy investors on Capitol Hill. “No one sent to Congress should be enriching themselves through Wall Street while writing the very laws that regulates our markets,” Paulina Luna said at a press conference on Sept. 4. Her net worth, at $590,000, puts her as Congress’ 384th wealthiest member.In July 30, the 15 members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs met to vote on legislation to ban the President, Vice President, and members of Congress from owning stock. The outcome was partisan. Only the bill’s sponsor, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, joined all seven Democrats on the panel to vote to advance the legislation. Yet the bill’s most outspoken opponents were among Congress’ richest members.
One was U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican. A former co-founder of a plastics manufacturing firm, the 70-year-old Johnson has a net worth of $67.3 million, a figure good enough for 22nd place in Congress. At the committee hearing on July 30, Johnson said the legislation should be re-named “the career politician-protection act because it would make it so unattractive for people … to run for office and … give up their business and sell it unless some ethics committee said it won’t be a conflict of interest.”Another opponent was U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican. Scott, 72, is the third wealthiest member of Congress, with an estimated net worth of $507.1 million.
At the July 30 hearing, he suggested his route to riches was different from white-collar professionals on the committee. Instead of attending “some elite university,” he worked his way up from growing up in public housing to founding and running businesses, including HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest hospital chains. He was then elected governor of Florida and then Congress.
“Somehow, I’m suspect because I made money. Do any of you want to be poor?” Scott asked. “I don’t…It’s disgusting what’s going on here.”
By contrast, U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, graduated from an elite university, Harvard, and after serving in the Iraq War, was a political aide and state lawmaker. Gallego noted, correctly, he is one of the Senate’s poorest members, with a net worth of $121,500. “If we don’t put guardrails in,” Gallego, 45, said at the July 30 committee hearing, “there will be members of Congress that are going to benefit from this, without a doubt, and there will be a further erosion in trust, among Democrats and Republicans, in government.”
Craig Holman, lobbyist for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, told The Center Square he was not surprised by a class divide over the stock ban. “Wealthier members of Congress are the ones who would make the most by exploiting stock trading and have the wealth to take those types of risks,” he told The Center Square. “Less wealthy members invest their savings in something more long-term.”
Calls to restrict lawmakers from owning stock began as least as far back as 2012 when President Obama in his State of the Union Address said, “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.” No members of Congress stood up or applauded Obama’s plan, but lawmakers have warmed to proposals in the face of overwhelming public support for a stock ban.According to a 2023 University of Maryland poll, 86 percent of registered voters said they supported prohibiting members of Congress from trading stocks.
Lawmakers have sponsored numerous legislative proposals since 2020. Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to sign on as co-sponsors. But getting a true reading on the partisan divide has not been possible. Neither the House nor the Senate has ever voted on legislation to prohibit or restrict lawmakers from buying and selling stock.
In 2022, stock ban proponents thought their time had come. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and a former opponent of a stock ban, expressed openness to scheduling a vote on the bill. But six weeks away from the congressional mid-term elections, a time when Democrats could have sought to protect their majority by voting on a strongly popular bill, Pelosi scuttled the measure.
Pelosi, 85, is among Capitol Hill’s wealthiest lawmakers. According to Quiver Quantitative, her net worth, at $269.6 million, ranked fifth. Her husband, Paul, is a venture capitalist who invests in real estate and technology stocks.
One issue does unite many elected officials regardless of their economic circumstances: They show few if any signs of wanting a stock ban applied to them.
Three years ago, President Trump announced his support for a ban on lawmakers buying and selling stocks. “We want a ban on members of Congress getting rich by trading stocks with insider information,” he said at the announcement for his third presidential bid at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. “And many of our great members agree with that.”
One member who did was U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican. Hawley is the main legislative sponsor of a measure that would ban stock trades not only by lawmakers but also the President and Vice President. When Trump learned that the bill would apply to him, he denounced Hawley as a “pawn” of Democrats and “a second-tier senator.” After Hawley amended the bill to exclude Trump, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt clarified that the President “supports the idea of ensuring that members of Congress and United States senators who are here for public service cannot enrich themselves.”
Members of Congress who support a ban would likely not be subject to one for more subtle reasons. They are running for statewide office.
The month before his press conference at the Capitol on Sept. 3, Roy, the bill’s sponsor, announced he was running for Attorney General of Texas next year. U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican and the bill’s wealthiest original co-sponsor, had also announced, in July, he was running for governor of the Palmetto State.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, sponsored a House version of the bill from 2020 until she stepped down from Congress in January. Now she is the Democrats’ nominee for governor of the Old Dominion State.
John Feehery, a lobbyist, columnist, and former spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, said lawmakers’ runs for higher office show that a stock ban is a bad idea.
“It’s popular and populist, but it reinforces the idea that members are corrupt,” Feehery told The Center Square. “How much do they want to prostrate themselves at the altar of the American people? It hurts the institution.”
Then again, Feehery said a ban could become law. “Some of these populist bills take on a life of their own, and they could pass.”

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s top education official has claimed that a story about how her department conducts investigations is inaccurate and demanded a public correction on an article claiming that the Department of Public Instruction has hidden its investigation into 200 cases of sexual misconduct and grooming from school staff.
“The reporting is not only incomplete and misleading – it is dangerously irresponsible,” Superintendent Jill Underly wrote. “It distorts the nature of the DPI’s work in this area, omits crucial legal and procedural facts, and undermines public trust in the very systems designed to protect Wisconsin students.”
The story claimed that 200 investigations from 2018 to 2023 into teachers for sexual misconduct and grooming were shielded from the public.
“We stand by our reporting and expect to have a more complete response Monday,” Capital Times Editor Mark Treinen told The Center Square late Friday afternoon.
Senate Committee on Education Chairman John Jagler and Vice Chairman Romaine Quinn asked a series of 12 questions of Underly and demanded to get a response within 24 hours on if she will be willing to testify before the committee.
Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, scheduled a hearing for 11 a.m. on Thursday to address her concerns.
Underly said in the letter that the investigations followed state law and the results of investigations are released “as soon as practicable and upon request” through open records requests.
The story said that the investigations, which previously were not public, were obtained through open records requests and quoted experts who said the transparency and process Department of Public Instruction goes through is “inadequately protecting students.”
“The licensure status of every educator in Wisconsin, including those who are under investigation, revoked, or surrendered, is publicly accessible on the DPI’s website,” Underly wrote. “Suggesting otherwise is not only misleading; it is a blatant mischaracterization of fact.”
The story said that the licensure status of a teacher is available on the website but that the reason the credential was surrendered is not divulged and quoted an expert saying that not providing the reason “contributes to a culture of secrecy around educator grooming and sexual misconduct.”
Nedweski has proposed bills that will create a crime of grooming along with provide guidelines for communication between teachers and students.
Underly’s letter indicates that the department is open to further law changes that will increase the department’s authority to investigate.
“The statutory definition of ‘immoral conduct’ does not currently include grooming or professional boundary violations, limiting our agency’s ability to obtain critical pieces of information,” Underly wrote. “Despite these constraints, DPI investigators work tirelessly within the bounds of law to remove unfit educators from classrooms and prevent further harm.
“I welcome a long overdue discussion about the need to both modernize our licensing systems, and update existing statutes to clarify, broaden and deepen the limited statutory authority the DPI has in these serious matters.”

(The Center Square) – A group of Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a law that would allow mobile sports wagering across the state through the state’s current tribal operators.
The law would allow for a similar sports wagering model as Florida where the state’s sportsbook operators have servers on federally recognized tribal lands while users can be in the state of Wisconsin.
The proposal cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision not to hear a challenge to the sports wagering pact between Florida and the Seminole tribe of the hub-and-spoke sports wagering model.
Legal sports wagering is currently only allowed on tribal lands in Wisconsin while prediction markets such as Kalshi are now legal across the U.S.
The Ho-Chunk Nation currently has a lawsuit filed against Kalshi for operating in the state.
The bill is being proposed by Reps. Tyler August, R-Walworth, and Kalan Haywood, D-Milwaukee, along with Sens. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, and Kristin Dassler-Alfheim, D-Appleton.
“This legislation is an important step to bring Wisconsin in alignment with the majority of the country in regards to sports wagering,” Haywood said in a statement. “For too long, illegal, offshore entities have profited from consumers through unregulated sports wagering, without generating revenue for local economies.
“By regulating this multi-billion-dollar industry, we can provide a safer mobile wagering experience for Wisconsin consumers, and generate much needed revenue to invest into our communities.”
Wisconsin receives payments that are a portion of the net win from tribal casinos but does not separately reports sports wagering payments.
In 2024, the state received more than $66 million in shared revenue payments with nearly $66 million in 2023 and nearly $57 million in 2022.
Sports wagering is legal in 39 states with 31 allowing mobile sports wagering.
Sponsors sent out the proposed legislation to fellow lawmakers this week asking for co-sponsors before Oct. 22.
“This bill does not authorize gambling on its own; it only is one part in a multi-step process to create the legal framework necessary for Wisconsin to participate in mobile sports wagering under tribal compacts,” the proposal said. “Gaming compacts between states and tribes need to be federally approved by the U.S. Department of Interior before going into effect.”
Making a sports bet in the state is currently a misdemeanor offense and the bill would exclude from the legal term “bet” any mobile sports wager with an approved sportsbook with servers located on tribal lands.
The bill estimates it will bring hundreds of millions of illegal bets into legal sportsbooks in the state, stating the change “generates new revenue through tribal gaming compacts and reduces consumer risk from offshore operators.”

(The Center Square) – A hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. on Thursday to address concerns about sexual misconduct and grooming in schools.
Committee on Government Operations, Accountability and Operations Chair Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, scheduled the hearing and invited State School Superintendent Jill Underly, along with law enforcement.
Nedweski announced Thursday night she would be introducing three bills related to the case including a grooming law, standards for communication between students and faculty and to end a “loophole” where educators can surrender their teaching license rather than facing further investigation.
She had previously been working on the grooming law and bill on communications standards after the case of Kenosha teacher Christian Enwright, who pleaded guilty to 12 misdemeanors for his conduct sending hundreds of Snapchat messages to a student that resulted in a sentence of 450 days in jail and three years of probation.
“Since the Kenosha County Eye exposed Christian Enwright’s predatory behavior toward a student, I have been working on anti-grooming legislation that will establish harsh penalties for any adult convicted of grooming a minor for sexual activity,” Nedweski said in a statement. “This proposal will be modeled after comprehensive laws passed in other states and will give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools they need to keep children safe.”
Senate Committee on Education Chair John Jagler and Vice Chair Romaine Quinn asked a series of 12 questions of Underly and demanded to get a response within 24 hours of the Thursday afternoon letter on if she will be willing to testify before the committee.
The Senate committee leaders had not heard back from Underly or her office as of 11:30 a.m. on Friday.
The Capital Times report showed that 200 investigations into teachers for sexual misconduct and grooming were shielded from the public by DPI and that accused teachers were able to forfeit their teaching license to avoid further investigation into alleged grooming.
The Center Square was unable to get comment from Underly or Gov. Tony Evers before publication.

(The Center Square) – Some students in Wisconsin will soon see different grades on their report cards, and there are some worries that those grades may not be enough.
Eau Claire Area Schools last week became the latest school district in the state to shift to standards based grading.
The district’s director of secondary programming and post secondary readiness, Michelle Radtke, said standards based grading is a shift away from traditional A.B,C,D, and F grades and a shift toward a new scale to better measure “when learning occurs.”
“Standards based grading is about teacher practices and feedback and student goal-setting,” she said at last week’s school board meeting.
Standards based grading uses a 4-point scale to measure student learning. And things like attendance and class participation are not included.
That’s what worries Cory Brewer with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
She told News Talk 1130 WISN that a simple point scale could be useful for children in younger grades. But standards based grading may not be as useful for older students, particularly when you are looking to measure reading, writing, or math proficiency.
“On a scale of one-to-three, what is a three? Is that a 90% or a 98%? Is my child excelling, or is she just meeting the minimum expectations? What does that cover? How are parents supposed to know,” Brewer asked. “Another issue we see with this is grade inflation.”
Brewer said parents can very easily get the wrong idea about how well their kids are doing in school.
“If it’s going to be used, it should be used in the very early grades,” Brewer added. “But when you get into the higher grades, I think it’s not the best option. And it can tend to lower the bar.”
WILL has been vocal about the concerns of lowering the bar in Wisconsin public schools.
WILL has opposed changes to Wisconsin’s state tests, and the reworked state standards that its says has made it impossible for parents to compare how their kids are reading, writing and doing math to years past.
“I don’t want to say that all standards based grading is a terrible, woke idea. I don’t think that would be accurate,” Brewer added. “But one of the things that we are seeing is the recommendation that teachers never give a zero. Ever. Even if something isn’t turned in.”
Brewer said doing the work, paying attention to detail, and finishing assignments is just as important in school as learning the core subjects.
Eau Claire Schools are one of several that have adopted standards based grading either this year, or in recent years.

(The Center Square) – A Wisconsin legal group is fighting against a transmission line being placed on a Saukville property to serve a new mega data center in Port Washington.
The Port Washington data center has been the subject of public backlash as the $8 billion data center is planned to use the same amount of electricity as the city of Los Angeles, becoming the largest energy user in Wisconsin history with Vantage asking for 1.3 gigawatts of energy to be available by 2027 and ultimately 3.5 gigawatts of power.
The data center is approved to be part of a tax increment district that exceeds the state’s 12% limit on the amount of taxable property in a municipality allowed to be part of a TID.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is arguing that American Transmission Co. does not have the right to use eminent domain to take the property of Tom and Mary Uttech because there are other options on where to build the transmission line or using on-site power generation and eminent domain should only be used as a “last resort,” WILL Deputy Counsel Lucas Vebber said in a statement.
Vebber argued that “even then, (it) should be used only when the public need is so absolute there are no alternatives. This is not such a case. We will do all we can to protect the Uttech family’s private property rights.”
The Uttech family has a 52-acre property that includes Tom Uttech’s artistic studio and WILL believes the transmission line will lead to “irreparable damage to the natural beauty and wildlife” there.
“This land is our home, and my wife and I have spent decades cultivating and caring for its natural beauty,” Uttech said in a statement. “As an artist, this land continues to be my inspiration for all that I do. My wife and I do not want to sell and certainly do not want this land stolen from us just to benefit a privately owned data center.”
WILL argues that the data center is a private company and does not fall under the “public use” stipulations in both the Fifth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution.
“Many alternatives exist, from different and less impactful routes, to allowing the data center to generate power on site,” WILL wrote. “Taking land from our friends and neighbors to benefit private business is not why the eminent domain power exists.”