Wisconsin Senate Bill SB496

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/2/25
• Refer: 10/2/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 118.60 (2) (a) 1. c. and d. and 119.23 (2) (a) 1. d.; to amend 118.60 (2) (a) 1. a., 118.60 (2) (bm) and 119.23 (2) (a) 1. a. of the statutes; Relating to: verification of a pupil’s family income for participation in a parental choice program.

Impact

The bill impacts eligibility rules for parental choice programs by mandating annual verification of family income through the Department of Revenue, irrespective of prior participation. This introduces a more stringent structure for families, as income verification is now a repeated requirement for continued enrollment in these educational options. The enactment of this bill is aimed at ensuring that only those families who meet the fiscal criteria can access these programs, which may have broader implications on school funding and resource allocation.

Summary

Senate Bill 496 addresses the verification of a pupil's family income for participation in parental choice programs such as the Milwaukee and Racine Parental Choice Programs. Under existing law, a pupil's family income could exceed specified limits while still allowing continued participation in these programs. However, SB496 proposes that should a pupil's family income increase beyond the established thresholds, they would no longer qualify for the program, thus limiting the ability to remain in a private school under these provisions if their financial situation changes.

Contention

Debate surrounding SB496 may focus on the implications of such stringent income limitations and verification processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill ensures financial integrity within the parental choice programs, while opponents may express concerns that it could disproportionately affect families who experience income fluctuations, thereby reducing educational access. Additionally, the requirement of annual income checks may add an administrative burden on families and the Department of Revenue, raising logistical questions about implementation.