Skip to content
Bills from the 2021–22 session

Assembly Bill 970

Eliminating income limits for parental choice programs; eliminating pupil participation limits for the statewide parental choice program; private school tuition charged to a pupil participating in a parental choice program; and creating an education expense reimbursement program for the 2022-23 school year and the summer of 2023. (FE)

Vetoed by the governor

Both chambers passed it, and the governor vetoed it on Apr 15, 2022. Lawmakers did not ⁠, so it stands.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 8, 2022

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 59 to 34

  4. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 20 to 11

  5. Governor, stopped here

    Vetoed Apr 15, 2022.

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, May 17, 2022: “Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82”

Read the governor's veto message · All vetoes this session

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill 1) eliminates the income limits in the statewide parental choice program (also known as the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program), Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and the Racine Parental Choice Program (parental choice program); 2) eliminates the pupil participation limits in the WPCP; 3) increases the family income threshold amount that determines whether a private school may charge additional tuition to a pupil attending the private school under a parental choice program; and 4) creates a temporary education expense reimbursement program for public school pupils.

Income limits for parental choice programs Under current law, a pupil is not eligible to participate in the MPCP or the RPCP if the pupil's family income is greater than 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Similarly, under current law, a pupil is not eligible to participate in the WPCP if the pupil's family income is greater than 220 percent of the federal poverty level.

Read the full summary

Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, the bill eliminates the family income requirements in each of the parental choice programs. In other words, under the bill, a pupil may participate in a parental choice program regardless of the pupil's family income.

Pupil participation limits in the WPCP Current law limits the number of pupils who reside in a school district that may attend a private school under the WPCP. For the 2021-22 school year, the limit is set at no more than 6 percent of a school district's membership in the previous school year. The limit increases by one percent each year until the limit reaches 10 percent, and then, beginning in the 2026-27 school year, there is no participation limit in the WPCP. The bill eliminates the pupil participation limits in the WPCP on the date the bill becomes law.

Current law provides specific WPCP application procedures that apply while the pupil participation limits are in place. For example, while the limits are in place, pupil applications may be submitted to private schools participating in the WPCP only during the period beginning on the first weekday in February and ending on the third Thursday in April. The bill eliminates the application procedures that apply while the pupil participation limits are in place.

Additional tuition charged to pupils participating in parental choice programs Under current law, a private school participating in a parental choice program may not charge a pupil participating in a parental choice program tuition, in addition to the payments the private school receives under the parental choice program, unless the pupil is enrolled in a grade from 9 to 12 and the pupil's family income exceeds 220 percent of the federal poverty level. Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, the bill increases that threshold to 300 percent of the federal poverty level.

Education expense reimbursement program Under the bill, in the 2022-23 school year and in the summer semester or session in 2023, a pupil enrolled in a public school, including a charter school, may attend a course or purchase educational materials, and DPI must reimburse up to $1,000 of the cost of attendance or purchase price for up to two courses or purchases of educational materials.

A pupil that wants to attend a course for reimbursement under the bill must apply to the educational institution or provider that offers the course. Public schools, other than charter schools, institutions within the University of Wisconsin System, technical colleges, tribally controlled colleges, and private, nonprofit institutions of higher education located in this state are required to participate in the education expense reimbursement program created in the bill. Charter schools, private schools, tribal schools, and other educational providers DPI approves may choose whether to participate. If an educational institution or provider participates in the program (approved educational provider), the approved educational provider must accept a pupil's application to attend a course if space is available in the course unless certain conditions apply, and, if the approved educational provider receives more applications than available spaces, the approved educational provider must accept pupils on a random basis.

The parent of a pupil who wants to purchase educational materials for reimbursement under the bill must, prior to purchasing the materials, submit a notice to DPI describing the materials, listing what is included in the materials, and specifying the materials' cost. DPI generally must approve such a request.

Under the bill, DPI must pay reimbursements in the 2023-24 school year. The bill does not appropriate moneys in the current biennium to pay reimbursements under the program. The bill provides that, if the amount available to DPI is insufficient to pay the full reimbursement amounts, DPI must prorate the payments among those eligible for reimbursement.

Who's behind it

11 representatives are its ⁠. All 11 are Republicans.

8 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 19 names

Authors (11)

Signed on in support (8)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 6 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Education vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 6 · Feb 17, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 7, Noes 6”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 60 to 33 · Feb 22, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 60, Noes 33”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 59 to 34 · Feb 22, 2022 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 97 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (59)

Official motion: “PASSAGE”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Education vote to recommend it

Passed, 4 to 3 · Mar 4, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 4, Noes 3”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote

Passed, 3 to 2 · Mar 4, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 20 to 11 · Mar 8, 2022 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “CONCURRENCE”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. May 17, 2022

    The veto stood. Lawmakers didn't override it.

  2. Apr 15, 2022

    The governor vetoed it.

  3. Apr 13, 2022

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Mar 8, 2022

    The Senate passed it too, 20 to 11.

  5. Mar 4, 2022

    “Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2” (the official wording)

  6. Mar 4, 2022

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 3.

  7. Feb 24, 2022

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Education.

  8. Feb 22, 2022

    The Senate received it.

  9. Feb 22, 2022

    The Assembly passed it, 59 to 34.

  10. Feb 21, 2022

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  11. Feb 17, 2022

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  12. Feb 17, 2022

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 6.

  13. Feb 16, 2022

    The committee held a public hearing.

  14. Feb 16, 2022

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  15. Feb 11, 2022

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  16. Feb 8, 2022

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Education.

  17. Feb 8, 2022

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 8, 2022 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Wittke, Thiesfeldt, Dittrich, Murphy, Penterman, Moses, Rozar, Brandtjen, Macco, Knodl and Magnafici; cosponsored by Senators Roth, Darling, Nass, Wanggaard, Stroebel and Jagler

  2. Feb 8, 2022 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Education

  3. Feb 11, 2022 · Assembly

    Representative Wichgers added as a coauthor

  4. Feb 16, 2022 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Feb 16, 2022 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  6. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 7, Noes 6

  8. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 2-22-2022 by Committee on Rules

  10. Feb 21, 2022 · Assembly

    Representative Steffen added as a coauthor

  11. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  12. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  13. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Rules suspended to return to amendable stage

  14. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Emerson, Anderson, Andraca, Baldeh, Billings, Brostoff, Conley, Considine, Doyle, Goyke, Hebl, Hong, McGuire, B. Meyers, Moore Omokunde, Neubauer, Ohnstad, Pope, S. Rodriguez, Shankland, Shelton, Sinicki, Snodgrass, Spreitzer, Subeck, Vining, Vruwink and Haywood

  15. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 60, Noes 33

  16. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  17. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  18. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 59, Noes 34, Paired 2

  19. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  20. Feb 22, 2022 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  21. Feb 24, 2022 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Education

  22. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  23. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 4, Noes 3

  24. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  25. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2

  26. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-8-2022 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  27. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Read a second time

  28. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  29. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  30. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 20, Noes 11

  31. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  32. Mar 9, 2022 · Assembly

    Received from Senate concurred in

  33. Mar 10, 2022 · Assembly

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-10-2022

  34. Apr 13, 2022 · Assembly

    Presented to the Governor on 4-13-2022

  35. Apr 15, 2022 · Assembly

    Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-15-2022

  36. May 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 5-17-2022 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)

  37. May 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

Terms on this page

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote