Wisconsin Assembly Bill 795 and Senate Bill 785, introduced during the 2025-26 legislative session, would significantly expand the scope of information that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must make publicly available regarding investigations of educator license holders. The legislation is a response to heightened public and legislative scrutiny concerning educator discipline and transparency. Recently, questions have been raised about the transparency of DPI investigations involving licensed educators, particularly in cases involving serious professional misconduct. Legislators have explained that the bills are intended to ensure that the public has access not only to the fact that an investigation has been initiated, but also to the ultimate resolution of that investigation.
Presently, Wis. Stat. § 115.31 requires DPI to maintain information regarding certain educator license holder disciplinary matters in a publicly accessible manner. Specifically, DPI is required to post the names of educator license holders who are under investigation and the names of individuals whose licenses have been revoked as the result of an investigation. The law ensures that the public is notified when an investigation is pending and when the most severe form of discipline—revocation—has occurred. However, DPI is not expressly required to publish the disposition of all investigations or when a license holder voluntarily surrenders a license during an investigation, even when that surrender effectively terminates the proceeding. Consequently, the public may be aware that an investigation was initiated without being informed whether the allegations were substantiated, dismissed, resolved through negotiated agreement, or closed for insufficient evidence.
Assembly Bill 795 and Senate Bill 785 seek to address an “informational gap” within the existing statutory framework. The changes to Wis. Stat. §115.31 would require DPI to maintain a searchable online licensing portal that includes the name of each license holder under investigation and the outcome of the investigation. The legislation expressly requires disclosure of information regarding investigations that conclude because the educator license holder voluntarily surrendered their license. In practical effect, the bills would transform the statutory focus from disclosure of investigative status to disclosure of investigative results. The shift is not merely procedural; it reflects a substantive recalibration of the legislature’s assessment of what information the public is entitled to access concerning licensed educators.
The proposed expansion of disclosure obligations implicates competing legal and policy considerations. On one hand, professional licensing regimes exist to protect the public, and transparency in disciplinary proceedings may enhance public trust in regulatory oversight. Particularly in the educational context—where licensed professionals interact with minors and occupy positions of public trust—the legislature may reasonably conclude that greater transparency promotes informed decision-making by parents and school districts. Public access to investigative outcomes may also deter misconduct and reinforce accountability mechanisms within the profession.
On the other hand, mandatory publication of investigative outcomes raises concerns grounded in due process and reputational harm. Unlike final revocation orders, investigations that conclude without discipline—or that are resolved through voluntary surrender—may involve disputed allegations, evidentiary ambiguities, or negotiated resolutions that do not include formal findings of misconduct. Public dissemination of investigative outcomes, especially where allegations are unsubstantiated, risks imposing reputational consequences that exceed the formal sanction imposed by the regulatory body. Although licensure is a privilege subject to regulatory oversight, license holders retain protected interests in their professional reputation and future employment prospects. The expansion of public reporting requirements therefore requires careful statutory drafting and administrative implementation to ensure clarity, accuracy, and fairness in how investigative outcomes are characterized.
If enacted, DPI would need to develop standardized classifications of investigative outcomes, ensure consistency in language used to describe dispositions, and implement review procedures to minimize the risk of erroneous or misleading postings. Additionally, DPI would need to consider how expanded disclosure interacts with existing public records laws, confidentiality provisions, and any contractual or negotiated settlement agreements previously entered into under a more limited disclosure regime.
For school districts and other educational institutions, the practical effect of the legislation would be the availability of more detailed publicly accessible information when evaluating current or prospective employees. Access to such information would certainly create additional communications, requests, and demands from the public in a variety of contexts, including, but not limited to personnel investigations, employee terminations, and hiring decisions.
If enacted, Assembly Bill 795 and Senate Bill 785 would represent a meaningful shift in Wisconsin’s regulatory approach to educator discipline, expanding the public-facing dimensions of administrative enforcement. The legislation illustrates the continuing evolution of professional licensing frameworks in response to demands for transparency and accountability, while simultaneously enduring tensions between public disclosure and individual reputational interests. Whether the expanded reporting regime ultimately enhances public confidence without imposing disproportionate collateral consequences on license holders will depend not only on the statutory text but also on its implementation by DPI.
At this time, Assembly Bill 795 and Senate Bill 785 are still in the respective committees in the Legislature. We will keep you posted on further developments concerning this legislation.
