An Act to create 39.535 and 115.28 (59) (am) of the statutes; Relating to: academic and career planning services provided to pupils and requiring the reporting of certain data on college student costs and outcomes. (FE)
AB166 would require Wisconsin higher education institutions, including University of Wisconsin System schools, technical colleges, and private nonprofit colleges, to collect and report standardized information about undergraduate degree programs. The required data includes graduates’ average salaries six months after graduation and, every fifth year, five years after graduation; average student debt at completion; graduation rates; annual cost of attendance; average net cost; available financial aid; and the 10 most popular degree programs. The bill also directs the Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) to compile these reports into an electronic comparison document and, with the Department of Workforce Development, to publish a list of the 50 most in-demand jobs in Wisconsin with starting salaries and education requirements.
The bill also changes academic and career planning services in public schools. Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, the Department of Public Instruction would have to provide the HEAB comparison document to school boards, and school boards would have to give it to high school juniors and seniors as part of required academic and career planning services. The goal is to give students and families more direct, comparable information about college costs, debt, earnings, and job-market demand when making postsecondary decisions.
If enacted, AB166 would create new reporting duties in state law for higher education institutions and new coordination duties for HEAB and DPI. It would add a new statutory section requiring annual data collection and public-facing comparison materials, and it would amend the school board academic and career planning statute to include distribution of that information to 11th and 12th graders. The bill affects colleges, students, school districts, HEAB, DPI, and DWD, and it relies in part on federal student-aid reporting concepts while allowing reasonable alternative methods such as alumni surveys when needed.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears favorable, at least in the Assembly, where it passed 56-39. The bill’s stated purpose suggests a consumer-information and workforce-alignment approach that is likely attractive to supporters who want students to make more informed choices about college and careers. However, the final status indicates it ultimately failed to become law after a gubernatorial veto override effort, showing that it was politically contested even though it advanced through the Assembly.
The main points of contention are likely the burden and feasibility of the reporting requirements, the reliability of salary and employment data by major, and whether the state should mandate this level of disclosure from public and private institutions. Institutions may also object to the cost of collecting and standardizing data, especially where information is not already available under federal reporting rules. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize transparency, student debt awareness, and better alignment between education pathways and labor-market demand.
AB166 would create s. 39.535 to impose annual reporting requirements on Wisconsin higher education institutions and would require HEAB to aggregate those reports into a comparison tool for students. It would also amend s. 115.28 to require school boards to provide that information to 11th and 12th graders starting in the 2027-28 school year. The bill would affect UW institutions, technical colleges, private nonprofit colleges, HEAB, DPI, DWD, school districts, and students by expanding state-level data collection and disclosure on college costs, debt, graduation outcomes, and workforce demand.
The bill appears to have had generally positive support among Assembly members, as shown by its 56-39 passage, and its policy framing suggests it was viewed as a student-information and workforce-readiness measure. At the same time, the fact that it did not ultimately become law indicates meaningful opposition remained. Overall, the sentiment seems supportive but divided, with proponents favoring transparency and opponents likely concerned about mandates and implementation.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope and burden of the reporting requirements, especially for private and technical institutions, and the accuracy or comparability of salary, debt, and employment outcomes by major. Critics may also question whether institutions can reliably track five-year outcomes and whether alumni surveys are sufficient. Supporters likely include lawmakers focused on college affordability, student debt, and career planning, while opponents likely include higher education institutions concerned about administrative costs, data quality, and compliance complexity.