Wisconsin school funding lawsuit nears key deadline

Listen to this article

Days before the first deadline in a lawsuit aiming to dramatically shift Wisconsin’s school funding system, much remains unsaid.

In late February, several school districts, teachers unions and parents filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Legislature, alleging the state doesn’t provide enough funding for schools to meet constitutional requirements.

Defendant legislators had 45 days to respond, meaning the clock runs out April 13. As of April 8, legislators hadn’t filed a response.

State school funding lawsuits aren’t uncommon, experts say, but it’s difficult to determine what the outcome might look like. The most recent Wisconsin school funding case ruled the system constitutional but left the door open for this spring’s suit.

Here’s what to know ahead of the 45-day deadline.

What’s the status of the school funding lawsuit?

At this point, the case is still in the beginning stages. Several lawyers have filed papers to represent defendant legislators in the case, but Jeff Mandell, an attorney with Law Forward representing the plaintiffs, said they hadn’t heard much from legislators as of March 31.

Next, defendants will decide whether they’ll answer the allegations included in the lawsuit or try to get the case dismissed. Mandell said they expect a motion to dismiss but are confident such a motion would be denied. More filings are expected next week, according to a representative for defendant state Sen. LaTonya Johnson.

What has each side said?

Because there hasn’t been much forward motion, many involved – including most legislators named as defendants – have yet to say anything publicly.

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, said at a news conference on school referendums that when the state doesn’t meet its constitutional obligations, “then organizations like ours and schools across the state make decisions to compel them to release the funds.”

The Necedah School District, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, saw its referendum fail on April 7. It was the district’s third operational referendum in eight years, and Superintendent Tanya Kotlowski feels voters’ fatigue at regular referendums played a part in the failure. Necedah went to referendum because of the gap left by state funding, Kotlowski said; now there will have to be significant cuts.

Necedah taxpayers already cover about 78% of the district’s funding because of high property values, in part from lakefront property. But Kotlowski said those property values aren’t representative of the district’s student population, which is 58% economically disadvantaged and where 21% of students have special education needs, according to DPI.

“We need a funding solution, and we need policy that aligns to the needs of kids,” Kotlowski said. “If there has been any time in my time – and I’ve been in education 31 years – any time where that is more essential then now, I don’t know when it was.”

Some Democratic legislators who served on the state’s Joint Finance Committee have taken the opportunity to express their support for the lawsuit. State Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, said in a Facebook post that parents and advocates are “right to sue,” and State Rep. Deb Andraca, D-Whitefish Bay, posted a smiling photo with the papers she was served.

In a statement alongside Rep. Tip McGuire, D-Kenosha, Andraca said the two legislators couldn’t comment on ongoing legislation but said it was a consequence of Republican legislators ignoring schools’ funding needs. This can lead to increased property taxes, particularly when districts go to referendum.

“Our Republican colleagues knew the stakes and still declined to invest a single new dollar into these essential aids,” a portion of the statement reads.

Roys and State Sen. LaTonya Johnson, D-Milwaukee, who have their own legal team, said in a statement they’re participating separately because they support the suit.  Wisconsin’s school funding does not adequately fund schools, they said, and the only recourse schools have is to sue.

“We are happy to be sued and stand on the correct side of this lawsuit – with kids, parents, teachers, and schools – instead of the legislative Republicans who have undermined and underfunded them,” a portion of the statement reads.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, opposed the suit in a statement to USA TODAY-Wisconsin.

“This complaint is another meritless attempt by liberal activists to defund the State’s highly successful school-voucher program and interfere with the Legislature’s authority to fund public schools,” Vos’ statement reads. “We will vigorously defend against this suit and are confident that the courts will soundly reject it.”

USA TODAY-Wisconsin reached out to over a dozen legislators named as defendants, but only received responses from Johnson, representing herself and Roys, and Vos.

Have other school districts sued states? What happened?

It’s not uncommon for school districts, desperate for financial change, to file suit against their state legislature. School funding is complicated and contentious, and because it so often depends on property taxes, districts across the U.S. face revenue disparities based on property value and serve as a target for politicians aiming to decrease taxes.

Between 1968 and 2020, there were 205 school finance cases across 48 states decided in state courts, according to a paper by Eric Hanushek. Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna senior fellow in education at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, a public policy think tank, and a world leader in economic analysis of education.

Arguments come down to two factors: whether the state’s funding system is equitable, and whether it’s adequate to provide students a “sound basic education.” The adequacy argument is often based on how well students perform according to state standards, which is what Wisconsin’s case is in part based on.

There’s not a known relationship between the amount a district spends and whether it provides that “solid basic education,” Hanushek said.

But on average, plaintiffs have about a 50-50 shot of the court ruling in their favor, although cases in the 2010s were 61-39 for the defense. Some of that may come down to politics, which Hanushek suggested may be a factor given the liberal control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, established in 2025’s election. Mandell denied that politics played a role in the plaintiffs filing the suit when they did, saying the case was filed now because schools are “at a breaking point.”

In 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s funding formula was constitutional, despite plaintiffs arguing that funding wasn’t equalized among districts.

However, the court concluded that the state funding system was constitutional only as long as “the Legislature is providing sufficient resources so that school districts offer students the equal opportunity for a sound basic education as required by the constitution.” The 2026 case is based on that argument.

What school funding changes have been suggested?

It’s not clear what a new funding system might look like. As Hanushek said, there’s not a number attached to providing a “sound basic education,” which is what’s required by Wisconsin’s constitution.

The districts and plaintiffs didn’t include a specific ask in their lawsuit because the goal is to find a funding structure that would meet all students’ needs, said Mandell, from Law Forward.

“It’s not a cookie-cutter approach. It’s not that we figure out what would help the average student, and we offer that to all students and for those who it’s good enough, great and for those who it’s not, sorry,” Mandell said. “Schools are required to do what, intuitively I think, we all want them to do, which is meet each student where they are.”

The court could strike down specific concerns that lawyers brought up, Mandell said. His example was revenue limits: A court might say Wisconsin doesn’t need revenue limits, or that the state can have them, but they can’t be tied to what districts spent in 1992 like they are now.

Legislators have looked at changing Wisconsin’s school funding model before. In 2017, the Legislature established the Blue Ribbon Commission on School Funding, meant to improve the efficacy of Wisconsin’s school funding system.

Among other things, the commission recommended increasing the amount of revenue districts can bring in per student regularly and for inflation, adding or increasing aid for higher-need student groups and moving away from school levy tax credits in favor of increased general aid.

But few of the proposals gained long-term traction, said Ted Neitzke, CEO of educational agency CESA 6, who served on the commission. It’s hard to make a major state change, Neitzke said, because what helps one district might be neutral for another or hurt a third.

Wisconsin’s school funding system provides a consistent source of revenue, unlike some other states, he said. Still, because the system’s provisions are so closely tied to the state budget, they often become political and take away from what otherwise is a largely local control-based school system.

Ultimately, public schools are not funded to their costs, Neitzke said. While the amount of school aids increased by $1.4 billion in the most recent state budget, 71% of school districts are receiving less aid than in 2024-25, according to DPI. Schools’ costs are also rising, and many are harder to cut than legislators might think.