Madison Wisconsin – In early 2025, the Wisconsin State Legislature introduced Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 (SB 97). This law would require school districts and private/charter schools to inform parents when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct involving a student. The bill marks an important step toward greater transparency and accountability in K–12 education. But its success depends on the passage of broader child anti-grooming laws. These laws are needed to close legal loopholes that schools exploit to avoid reporting.
Reload document 
Open in new tab Key Provisions of Wisconsin Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill 97 proposes the creation of Section 118.07(6) to Wisconsin’s statutes, requiring the following from educational institutions:
- Mandatory Parental Notification. School officials are required to notify a student’s parent or guardian when a school employee is accused of sexual misconduct involving that student.
- Timeliness and Transparency. School officials must act no later than the end of the day upon receiving a credible report alleging sexual misconduct.
- Applicability. The bill applies to public school boards, private school governing bodies, and independent charter school operators.
Why Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 Alone Is Not Enough
SB 97 addresses the critical issue of parental notification. However, its enforcement is undermined due to the absence of companion legislation targeting grooming behaviors in schools.
Presently, Wisconsin lacks a clearly defined anti-grooming statute. Certain predatory behaviors, like inappropriate touching and inappropriate relationships, may not meet the threshold of criminal conduct. Other boundary violations might not reach this threshold either. As a result, these behaviors will go unreported.
In some cases, school districts have labeled such conduct as “policy violations”. They have also referred to it as “inappropriate communication” instead of misconduct. Without stronger laws defining and criminalizing grooming behavior, schools may:
- Choose not to investigate or report under SB 97 if they decide the behavior doesn’t qualify as “misconduct.”
- Avoid notifying parents to shield staff from scrutiny or reputational harm.
- Allow staff accused of repeated boundary violations to resign quietly and find employment in other districts—a practice sometimes referred to as “passing the trash.”
Passing Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 without concurrently enacting anti-grooming legislation creates a dangerous loophole: it places the responsibility on administrators to decide what forms “misconduct,” often without legal clarity or oversight. Wisconsin must adopt laws that clearly define grooming behaviors. Schools must be compelled to treat them as serious offenses to protect children.
Mukwonago Area School District: Real World Example
In March 2024, a student at Mukwonago High School filed a formal complaint against a teacher, alleging inappropriate touching and other forms of grooming behavior. Over the course of two months, from March through May, two separate investigations were conducted by the Mukwonago Area School District (MASD). The first focused on the allegations of misconduct, while the second examined claims that the teacher repeatedly violated a district-issued no-contact order by continuing to interact with the student.
After the first investigation, the teacher received a letter of reprimand. But, the letter minimized the nature of the student’s allegations, not thoroughly detailing the student’s claims. During the second investigation, the teacher chose to resign, prompting MASD to close the inquiry. Additionally, the resignation agreement stipulated that all disciplinary actions would be removed from the teacher’s personnel file. Only basic employment information would be provided to future prospective employers.
MASD also decided not to report the investigations or the teacher’s resignation to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI). This oversight allowed the educator to secure a new position with the Kenosha Unified School District (KUSD). When questioned about the district’s decision not to inform the state, Superintendent Joe Koch stated, “At the time of [teacher’s name redacted] resignation, the District did not have any reasonable suspicion that his resignation related to his engagement in immoral conduct.”
Flaws in Wisconsin Senate Bill 97
This case highlights a critical flaw in Wisconsin Senate Bill 97—its reliance on school administrators to interpret what defines “immoral conduct” and decide whether it warrants reporting. While the bill mandates that parents be notified when a school employee is accused of sexual misconduct involving their child, it does not clearly define thresholds for reporting. As a result, administrators are left with broad discretion, which can lead to inconsistent responses—or no action at all.
In this instance, MASD leadership chose not to report serious allegations, disciplinary action, or a resignation tied to ongoing investigations. Critics of SB 97 argue that this administrative subjectivity creates dangerous loopholes. These loopholes allow educators with troubling histories to quietly move between school districts.
Supporters of stronger legislation say that Wisconsin must pass comprehensive anti-grooming laws with clearer definitions. They also call for mandatory reporting requirements. Until then, children stay at risk. Parents stay in the dark.
Why Wisconsin Legislators are Wrong
Some claim that “grooming” is too difficult to define and thus too complex to legislate—but that’s simply not true. As of April 2025, several U.S. states have enacted laws specifically targeting grooming behaviors by educators in school settings. These laws aim to prevent inappropriate conduct. Such conduct does not meet the threshold of criminal sexual assault but still violates professional boundaries. It also breaches student trust.
States With Anti-Grooming Laws
- Nebraska: In 2020, Nebraska passed Legislative Bill 1080, mandating that all school districts implement policies explicitly prohibiting grooming behaviors. The law defines grooming as building trust with a student to gain access and time alone with them, with the ultimate goal of engaging in sexual contact, regardless of when the contact occurs. It also requires training for school employees to recognize and prevent such behaviors.1
- Illinois: Illinois enacted “Faith’s Law” in 2021, which expanded the definition of grooming in the state’s criminal code and required schools to develop and post employee codes of professional conduct. The law also mandates that any reasonable cause to believe a license holder has committed an act of sexual misconduct must be reported to the state superintendent of education.2
- Ohio: In 2024, Ohio passed House Bill 322, creating the offense of grooming. This legislation allows prosecutors to pursue criminal penalties against individuals who demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards minors, even if it doesn’t culminate in sexual contact. The law also imposes penalties on mandatory reporters who fail to report child abuse. 3
- Iowa: The Iowa House approved House File 2487 in 2024, requiring school districts to report to the state board if they take disciplinary action against licensed employees for grooming or abusing a student. The bill defines grooming behavior as attempting to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a student to participate in a sexual act or engage in unlawful sexual conduct.4
Importance of Anti-Grooming Laws
Anti-grooming laws are crucial because they handle the early stages of predatory behavior, allowing for intervention before any physical abuse occurs. Signs of grooming can include inappropriate touching, excessive attention, gift-giving, isolation from peers, and many other acts. By legally defining and prohibiting such behaviors, these laws empower schools and law enforcement to act promptly, protecting students from potential harm.
Incorporating anti-grooming provisions into legislation like Wisconsin’s Senate Bill 97 would strengthen the state’s ability to safeguard students. It would guarantee that educators exhibiting worrisome behaviors are identified and addressed before any escalation, thereby closing gaps that allow misconduct to go unreported or unpunished.
Wisconsin Senate Bill 97: The Path Ahead
Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 is now under review by the Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and Families. Lawmakers, child advocacy organizations, and concerned parents have expressed support for the bill, but many are also urging the legislature to go further.
Combining SB 97 with comprehensive child anti-grooming legislation would send a powerful message: that Wisconsin will no longer tolerate silence, cover-ups, or ambiguity when it comes to the safety of students.
Until then, Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 serves as a vital first step—but not a full solution.
Please contact your State Legislators and urge them to pass Anti-Grooming law to accompany and strengthen this bill: Contact Your Legislators When you contact them, reference this article and ask them to consider this information.
Full text and legislative tracking of Wisconsin Senate Bill 97: Wisconsin Senate Bill 97 Proposal
If you have been a victim of sexual abuse, help is available. Speak with someone today.
Connect at: https://rainn.org/ or call 1-800-656-4673
Discover more from Waukesha County Watch
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
None of the cited laws in other states, though they do a decent attempt to define “Grooming”, they don’t make it any easier to PROVE. Since the definitions require intent to engage in sexual conduct, how would any school administrator be able to discern the staff member’s INTENT when early levels of “grooming’ are exactly the same as concern and caring for the future of the student… Imagine a case where a genuinely concerned teacher gets REPORTED for ‘grooming’. and now…. imagine the Teacher’s Union litigating that issue. I suspect that the disposition with case of the teacher who resigned and got a different job with Kenosha had some degree of Union involvement.
I hear what you’re saying. However, if a teacher (or you and I) break clearly stated law or policy, then intent doesn’t matter so much. The intent can be argued later. If illegal actions aren’t clearly defined, school administrations will always minimize it to avoid bad press and teacher unions.
They can easily be defined to differentiate between grooming and “care and concern”. There are certain touches and actions that go outside acceptable thresholds of caring for students.