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? The federal Gun-Free Schools Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7151, provides, in part, as follows:
Each State receiving Federal funds under any subchapter of this chapter shall have in effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than 1 year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school, or to have possessed a firearm at a school, under the jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State, except that such State law shall allow the chief administering officer of a local educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis if such modification is in writing.
20 U.S.C. § 7151(b)(1).
The State of Wisconsin has complied with the above requirement by enacting section 120.13(1)(c)2m., which requires a school board to commence expulsion proceedings against and to expel for at least one year any pupil found to have possessed a firearm while at school or under the supervision of a school authority. Furthermore, if a pupil who has been expelled from a Wisconsin school district under section 120.13(1)(c)2m., seeks to enroll in another Wisconsin school district during the term of the expulsion, then section 120.13(1)(f) allows the latter school district to deny the pupil’s enrollment request, thereby ensuring that the pupil remains expelled for one year, consistent with the federal law.
The federal law does not, however, require Wisconsin school districts to give effect to school expulsions from other states. On the contrary, the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 7151(b)(1) expressly applies only to a student who has brought a firearm to, or possessed a firearm in, a school that is “under the jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State” (emphasis added). It is, thus, clear that Congress did not intend the Gun-Free Schools Act to require states to expel (or recognize expulsions of) students based on the conduct of those students at schools in other states.
For these reasons, in addition to those already given in response to your first question, 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 because the pupil has been found to have violated the Gun-Free Schools Act.
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? The statutes of the State of Wisconsin do not provide for public regulation of pupil expulsions from private schools within this state. As I have already shown in response to your first question, however, the phrase “another school district,” as used in section 120.13(1)(f), must be understood as referring only to the individual territorial units that administer the public educational system of the State of Wisconsin. The same reasoning equally supports the conclusion that “another school district” also cannot be construed as including a private school.
Moreover, a pupil who has been expelled from a private school clearly has not been expelled from a “school district,” within the meaning of section 120.13(1)(f), for the simple reason that an individual “school” is not the same as a “school district.” Furthermore, because a “school district,” under Wisconsin law, is an agent of the state for the purpose of administering the state’s system of public education, it is an inherently public, rather than private, entity. If section 120.13(1)(f) were intended to apply to pupils expelled from private schools, it would expressly refer to “expulsion from another school,” rather than to “expulsion from another school district.”
Finally, the Missouri court of appeals, in Hamrick v. Affton School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 13 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000), construed a similar Missouri statute which allowed a school district in that state, under specified conditions, to give effect to “a suspension or expulsion from another school district.” Id. at 680 (emphasis in original) (quoting Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.171.4 (1998)). The court held, for reasons similar to those given in this opinion, that the statute did not apply to a parochial, non-public school. Id. at 681. Following that court decision, the Missouri Legislature amended the statute in question to expressly authorize school districts in that state to give effect to expulsions from out-of-state school districts or private schools. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.171.4 (2007); 2000 Mo. Laws S.B. No. 944, § A. Both the Hamrick decision and the legislative response to it reinforce my conclusion that section 120.13(1)(f), which does not contain the kind of express authorization that was added to the Missouri statute, does not allow a Wisconsin school board to deny enrollment to a pupil who is currently expelled from a private school.
Sincerely,
J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General
JBVH:TCB:rk
