121.57 shall be paid by the school district in which they reside,
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
13
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
and no part of such cost may be charged to the pupils or their parents or guardians. (b) At the end of the school term, every union high school district shall submit to each of its underlying school districts operating only elementary grades a certified statement of the actual cost for the school year, less the amount to be paid for such pupils for that school year under s. 121.58 (2), of transporting the private school pupils residing in the underlying school district under sub. (2) (b). On or before June 30 in each year each underlying school district shall reimburse the union high school district for the net cost of transporting its resident private school pupils as so reported in the statement. (9) TRANSPORTATION IN AREAS OF UNUSUAL HAZARDS. (a) In school districts in which unusual hazards exist for pupils in walking to and from the school where they are enrolled, the school board shall develop a plan which shall show by map and explanation the nature of the unusual hazards to pupil travel and propose a plan of transportation if such transportation is necessary, which will provide proper safeguards for the school attendance of such pupils. Copies of the plan shall be filed with the sheriff of the county in which the principal office of the school district is located. The sheriff shall review the plan and may make suggestions for revision deemed appropriate. The sheriff shall investigate the site and plan and make a determination as to whether unusual hazards exist which cannot be corrected by local government and shall report the findings in writing to the state superintendent and the school board concerned. Within 60, but not less than 30, days from the day on which the state superintendent receives the sheriff’s report, the state superintendent shall determine whether unusual hazards to pupil travel exist and whether the plan provides proper safeguards for such pupils. If the state superintendent makes findings which support the plan and the determination that unusual hazards exist which seriously jeopardize the safety of the pupils in their travel to and from school, the school board shall put the plan into effect and state aid shall be paid under s. 121.58 (2) (c) for any transportation of pupils under this subsection. Any city, village or town may reimburse, in whole or in part, a school district for costs incurred in providing transportation under this subsection for pupils who reside in the city, village or town. (am) Any person aggrieved by the failure of a school board to file a plan with the sheriff as provided in par. (a) may notify the school board in writing that an area of unusual hazard exists. The school board shall reply to the aggrieved person in writing within 30 days of receipt of the aggrieved person’s notice. The school board shall send a copy of the board’s reply to the sheriff of the county in which the principal office of the school district is located and to the state superintendent. Upon receipt of the school board’s reply, the aggrieved person may request a hearing before the state superintendent for a determination as to whether an area of unusual hazard exists. If the state superintendent determines that an area of unusual hazard exists, the state superintendent shall direct the school board to proceed as provided in par. (a). (b) Within 30 days after the sheriff’s report is received by the state superintendent, any aggrieved person may request a hearing before the state superintendent on the determination by the sheriff and on the plan. After such hearing, the state superintendent shall proceed as provided in par. (a). (c) The state superintendent and the department of transportation shall establish a definition of “unusual hazards” and “area of unusual hazards” for the implementation of this subsection. Such definition shall be promulgated, as a rule, by the state superintendent. Cross-reference: See also ch. PI 7, Wis. adm. code.
(10) ATTENDANCE IN NONRESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. Subject to s. 118.51 (14) (a) 2., a school board may elect to provide
SCHOOL FINANCE
121.545
transportation, including transportation to and from summer classes, for nonresident pupils who are attending public school in the school district under s. 118.51 or 121.84 (4), or its resident pupils who are attending public school in another school district under s. 118.51 or 121.84 (4), or both, except that a school board may not provide transportation under this subsection for a nonresident pupil to or from a location within the boundaries of the school district in which the pupil resides unless the school board of that school district approves. History: 1971 c. 162; 1973 c. 89, 107, 333; 1975 c. 60, 392, 421; 1977 c. 227, 252, 418; 1981 c. 20 s. 2202 (51) (e); 1983 a. 27, 175; 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (43); 1985 a. 218, 225, 240; 1993 a. 399, 492; 1995 a. 27 s. 9145 (1); 1995 a. 439; 1997 a. 27, 113, 164; 1999 a. 9, 117; 1999 a. 150 s. 672; 2001 a. 57; 2005 a. 68, 224; 2009 a. 185; 2013 a. 20. Section 121.51 (4) [now s. 121.51 (1)] and sub. (2) (b) 1., as enacted in 1969, are constitutional. State ex rel. Vanko v. Kahl, 52 Wis. 2d 206, 188 N.W.2d 460 (1971). Exceptions to the mandatory provision of transportation should be narrowly construed. The exception for children who “reside in cities” should be confined to its common and approved usage. Morrissette v. DeZonia, 63 Wis. 2d 429, 217 N.W.2d 377 (1974). Although a private school was only 127 feet beyond the five-mile limit of sub. (2) (b) 1., statutory construction was not available to extend the limit. Young v. Board of Education, 74 Wis. 2d 144, 246 N.W.2d 230 (1976). A public school board’s refusal to transport parochial pupils during a public school vacation violated sub. (2) (b) 1. Hahner v. Board of Education, 89 Wis. 2d 180, 278 N.W.2d 474 (Ct. App. 1979). Common carrier passenger service need not be available to all city pupils for a school board to possess the option under sub. (1). The “reasonable uniformity” requirement was directed at the distance that pupils are transported, not at the means of transportation that is chosen. St. John Vianney School v. Board of Education, 114 Wis. 2d 140, 336 N.W.2d 387 (Ct. App. 1983). Students within a private school’s attendance area under s. 121.51 (1) were entitled to transportation under sub. (2) (b) 1. although the campus they attended was not within the public school’s five-mile transportation radius, but another campus to which they could be transported was. Providence Catholic School v. Bristol School District No. 1, 231 Wis. 2d 159, 605 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3390. Reading sub. (2) (b) 2. with s. 121.55, elementary schools are not restricted to providing transportation vehicles owned, operated, or contracted for by the district, but they also have the alternatives available under s. 121.55. Providence Catholic School v. Bristol School District No. 1, 231 Wis. 2d 159, 605 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3390. Transportation must be on a reasonably uniform basis to all children attending either public or private schools. 61 Atty. Gen. 240. Students may have bus riding privileges suspended without being suspended or expelled from school. However, both public and private school students must be afforded due process under s. 120.13 (1) before such a suspension can take place. 63 Atty. Gen. 526. A public school district did not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to bus the students of a charter school created under s. 118.40 (2r) located within its geographical boundaries. Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified School District, 424 F.3d 677 (2005). Under sub. (1) (b), the Milwaukee Public School District offered free transportation to public school students who attended certain schools outside of their neighborhoods. All other students—including private school students—were only eligible if they lived farther than one mile from the nearest public transportation stop. That restriction did not violate the equal protection clause. St. Joan Antida High School Inc. v. Milwaukee Public School District, 919 F.3d 1003 (2019). City school busing policies adopted pursuant to subs. (1) and (2) (b) 1. were without rational basis and violated the equal protection rights of city resident private school students who resided more than two miles from the school but were denied transportation solely because the school was located 400 feet outside the city and school district boundaries. Deutsch v. Teel, 400 F. Supp. 598 (1975). Sub. (2) (b) 1. does not deny equal protection to students attending parochial schools beyond the five-mile limit. O’Connell v. Kniskern, 484 F. Supp. 896 (1980).