J.B. VAN HOLLEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Raymond P. Taffora
Deputy Attorney General
114 East, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
608/266-1221
TTY 1-800-947-3529
April 10, 2008 OAG—5—08
Mr. Anthony Evers
Deputy State Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
Dear Mr. Evers:
You have requested my opinion on three questions relating to the applicability of section 120.13(1)(f) of the Wisconsin Statutes to student expulsions that are ordered by an out‑of-state public school or by a private school either inside or outside of Wisconsin. The statute in question provides as follows:
No school board is required to enroll a pupil during the term of his or her expulsion from another school district. Notwithstanding s. 118.125(2) and (4), if a pupil who has been expelled from one school district seeks to enroll in another school district during the term of his or her expulsion, upon request the school board of the former school district shall provide the school board of the latter school district with a copy of the expulsion findings and order, a written explanation of the reasons why the pupil was expelled and the length of the term of the expulsion. Sec. 120.13(1)(f), Wis. Stats. According to your letter, the Department of Public Instruction (“DPI”) has consistently construed the above statute as authorizing a school board to deny enrollment only to a pupil who has been expelled from another Wisconsin public school district and as not authorizing a school board to deny enrollment to a pupil who has been expelled from an out‑of‑state public school district or from a private school.
You indicate that a major metropolitan school district in Wisconsin is now challenging DPI’s interpretation and contending that section 120.13(1)(f) allows a school board to deny enrollment to a pupil who has been expelled from an out-of-state public school district or from a private school, as long as the school board determines that the conduct for which the pupil was expelled would also be a valid ground for expulsion from a Wisconsin public school district and that there is prima facie evidence that the expelled pupil was afforded the same procedural rights that would have been required in a public school expulsion proceeding in Wisconsin.
Accordingly, you ask the following three questions:
1. May a Wisconsin school district rely upon Wis. Stat. § 120.13(1)(f) to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from an out-of-state public school? 2. May a Wisconsin school district rely upon Wis. Stat. § 120.13(1)(f) to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from an out-of-state public school because the pupil has been found to have violated the Gun Free Schools Act, 20 USC 7151? 3. May a Wisconsin school district rely upon Wis. Stat. § 120.13(1)(f) to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from a private school? For the reasons that follow, it is my opinion that DPI’s interpretation is correct and that section 120.13(1)(f) does not allow a school board to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled either from an out-of-state public school district or from a private school. The answer to each of the above questions, therefore, is no.
1. May a Wisconsin school district rely upon Wis. Stat. § 120.13(1)(f) to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from an out-of-state public school? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to determine whether the phrase “another school district,” as used in section 120.13(1)(f), can be read as including public school districts in other states, in addition to those in Wisconsin. When addressing such questions of statutory interpretation, the language of the statute must be construed according to its plain meaning, giving terms their common, ordinary, and accepted definitions, with the exception of technical or specially-defined words and phrases. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. In addition, statutory language is to be understood not in isolation, but with an eye to the structure of the statute as a whole and to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes. Id., ¶ 46. Here, both the applicable statutory definition of the term “school district” and the plain language of section 120.13(1)(f), when viewed in relation to its statutory structure and other related statutes, support the conclusion that, when the Legislature used that term in that statute, it was referring only to the individual territorial units that administer the public educational system of the State of Wisconsin. Although section 120.13(1)(f) does not itself expressly define the term “school district,” that term is defined in section 115.01(3), which provides that, throughout chapters 115 through 121 of the Wisconsin Statutes, “[t]he school district is the territorial unit for school administration.” Because the Wisconsin Statutes cannot define the territorial units for school administration in any state other than Wisconsin, this suggests that the term “school district,” as used in those chapters, is geographically limited to Wisconsin. The same statutory provision also classifies school districts as “common, union high, unified and 1st class city school districts.” Because that particular classification structure is unique to Wisconsin, it, too, suggests the same geographic limitation. I conclude, accordingly, that the statutory definition of “school district” applicable to section 120.13(1)(f) includes only Wisconsin school districts.
In addition to that statutory definition, the plain language of section 120.13(1)(f), when viewed with an eye to the overall structure of that statute and to the language of related statutes, likewise supports the same conclusion. First, the second sentence of section 120.13(1)(f) requires “the former school district”—i.e., the other district that has already expelled the pupil—to provide records and information related to the expulsion to “the latter school district”—i.e., the district currently being asked to enroll the pupil. Because the Wisconsin Legislature has no jurisdiction to impose such a requirement on out-of-state school districts, it is clear that the Legislature intended section 120.13(1)(f) to apply only to situations involving pupils who have been expelled from a Wisconsin public school district.
Second, as your letter rightly notes, the term “school district” is frequently used, throughout chapters 115 to 121, in ways that only make sense when viewed as referring to districts within this state. See, e.g., sec. 115.28(13), Wis. Stats. (requiring the state superintendent of public instruction to prescribe a uniform accounting system applicable to “all school districts”); sec. 115.366, Wis. Stats. (requiring DPI to award grants for alternative education programs “to school districts”); sec. 120.05(1), Wis. Stats. (defining the officers of a school district); ch. 117, Wis. Stats. (governing the reorganization of school districts); and ch. 121, Wis. Stats. (providing for state financial aid to school districts). Third, the Wisconsin Constitution expressly requires the Legislature to provide a system of public education for the state through “the establishment of district schools.” Wis. Const. art. X, § 3. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a school district “is an agent of the state for the purpose of administering the state’s system of public education.” Green Bay Met. S. Dist. v. Voc. T. & A. Ed. Dist. 13, 58 Wis. 2d 628, 638, 207 N.W.2d 623 (1973) (quoting Zawerschnik v. Joint County School Comm., 271 Wis. 416, 429, 73 N.W.2d 566 (1955)). The Legislature has likewise declared, as a state policy, that “education is a state function.” Sec. 121.01, Wis. Stats. The constitutional basis of the school district system in Wisconsin and the status of school districts as agents of the state also support the conclusion that the term “school district,” as used in the Wisconsin Statutes, is meant to refer only to public school districts within this state. Public policy reasons also support the same conclusion. As your letter correctly notes, the statutorily mandated procedures for a public school expulsion proceeding in Wisconsin under section 120.13(1)(a)-(e) afford pupils greater procedural protections than are mandated in such proceedings by the due process clause of the federal constitution, as construed in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). If section 120.13(1)(f) is construed as applying to a pupil expelled by a school district in another state, then it could authorize a Wisconsin school board to deny public‑school enrollment to a pupil who had been expelled in another state without having received all of the procedural protections that would have been mandated in a Wisconsin expulsion proceeding under subsections (a) through (e) of the same statute. The Legislature cannot be presumed to have intended such a counter-intuitive result. Nor can such a result be avoided by reading into section 120.13(1)(f) an unwritten requirement that a school board wishing to deny enrollment under that statute to an expelled pupil from another state must first determine that the pupil was afforded the same procedural rights in the out-of-state expulsion proceeding that would have been available under section 120.13(1)(a)-(e). In order to make such a determination, the Wisconsin school board would have to conduct an inquiry into the nature of the other state’s expulsion proceeding. As already noted, however, there is no requirement that an out-of-state school district provide any factual information about its expulsion proceedings to a Wisconsin school board. The Legislature cannot have intended to require school boards to make factual determinations about matters that they lack sufficient power to adequately investigate. Furthermore, it is axiomatic that school districts in Wisconsin have only such powers as are conferred upon them expressly or by necessary implication. Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis. 2d 550, 601, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976). Nothing in section 120.13(1)(f) expressly or by necessary implication gives Wisconsin school districts the power to investigate the adequacy of expulsion proceedings in other states. Finally, I note that, to the extent that DPI has been charged by the Legislature with the duty of itself administering or enforcing section 120.13(1)(f), DPI’s own long-standing interpretation of that statute could be entitled to judicial deference. See UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 284-87, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996); Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 659-60, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995). It is unclear from your letter whether DPI performs administrative or enforcement functions under section 120.13(1)(f). To the extent that it does so, however, a court would give DPI’s view of that statute either “great weight” or “due weight,” depending on the extent, if any, to which that view is based on specialized knowledge or expertise that places DPI in a better position than a court to make judgments about the statute’s meaning. Id. For all of the above reasons, it is my opinion that a Wisconsin school district may not rely upon section 120.13(1)(f) to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from an out-of-state public school.
