¶13. UWS asserts first that Wis. Stat. § 118.52 applies only if the student enjoys all the rights and privileges of the institution, but that concurrent enrollment students enjoy only some UWS rights and privileges. See Wis. Stat. § 118.52(9). A course remains within the ambit of Wis. Stat. § 118.52 even if the educational institution provides the student with less that the full panoply of college benefits associated with the status of a fulltime college student, such as access to student health services. A sensible reading of Wis. Stat. § 118.52(9) is that it guarantees “all of the rights and privileges of other pupils attending the education institution” to the extent that a particular right or privilege might apply to a particular student under the specific circumstances. ¶14. UWS similarly argues that Wis. Stat. § 118.52 applies only if the concurrent enrollment student is subject to the entire universe of rules and regulations in force at the educational institution. It assumes that concurrent enrollment students, physically located in their high schools, will be disciplined exclusively by and according to the rules of their high schools. In UWS’s view, this situation is inconsistent with Wis. Stat. § 118.52(9), which provides that “[a] pupil attending a course at an educational institution under this section . . . is subject to the same rules and regulations as” other pupils attending the educational institution.
I conclude that, like the “right or privilege” language in Wis. Stat. § 118.52(8), this provision should be applied reasonably to impose the educational institution’s rules and regulations on the concurrent enrollment student to the extent they relate to the student’s coursework within that institution. ¶15. The hybrid nature of a concurrent enrollment course warrants a hybrid system of discipline. On the one hand, given the physical location of these classes in a public high school, it is reasonable to assume that a student’s physical misconduct (talking or disruptive behavior,
for example) would be disciplined by the public school, which has physical control over the student. On the other hand, any form of academic misconduct (cheating or plagiarism,
for example) would be subject to the disciplinary apparatus of the UWS institution, as it would be for any other special student. That disciplinary apparatus is described in Wis. Admin. Code
§ UWS ch. 14. Under the Code, a “‘[s]tudent’ means any person who is registered for study in an institution for the academic period in which the misconduct occurred.” Id. at
§ UWS 14.02(13). Because a concurrent enrollment student is enrolled as a special student of UWS and receives a grade from UWS recorded on a UWS transcript, the student is “registered for study in [a UWS] institution.” Thus, she is subject to the UWS sanctions for academic misconduct to the extent they relate to her participation in the concurrent enrollment course. ¶16. On a related note, Wis. Stat. § 118.52(10) provides that the “resident school board shall provide to the educational institution . . . upon request . . . a copy of any expulsion findings” or “disciplinary proceedings.” Presumably, these records would be as available to the UWS as any other “educational institution” subject to Wis. Stat. § 118.52. Significantly, DPI’s “Course Options Application Form” (revised in February 2014), includes a signature box labeled “II. PARENT SIGNATURE AND RELEASE OF RECORDS.” The parent is instructed as follows: “s. 118.52(10), Wis. Stats., authorizes the educational institution to request any student records relating to expulsion.” There is no suggestion that the parent’s release of records is applicable to all educational institutions participating in the course options program except UWS institutions. ¶17. Lastly, UWS asserts that the transportation provision, which gives a student’s parent the responsibility for transporting the pupil to and from a course options class, indicates that the statute cannot possibly apply to a class that is physically located inside a student’s high school building. See Wis. Stat. § 118.52(11)(a). This transportation rule applies to all educational institutions embraced by the statute. While the statute is clear that parents are responsible for transporting students who do have transportation costs, it does not require all course options students to have such costs. Obviously, a student taking a concurrent enrollment course at her own high school needs no special transportation to get there. As to that student, the provision is superfluous. However, the fact that the rule is irrelevant for concurrent enrollment courses does not mean that such courses are therefore exempt from the rest of Wis. Stat.
§ 118.52. ¶18. My conclusion that concurrent enrollment courses come within the ambit of
Wis. Stat. § 118.52 “course options” is consistent with legislative intent. See State ex rel. Kalal v.
Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶51, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (“legislative history is sometimes consulted to confirm or verify a plain-meaning interpretation”). Governor Walker recommended the changes to Wis. Stat. § 118.52 that were ultimately adopted. His intent was to “[e]xpand the part-time open enrollment program to create a course options program.” Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Exec. Budget & Fin., State of Wisconsin Executive Budget (Scott Walker, Governor) (February 2013) at 601 (emphasis added). The Legislative Fiscal Bureau prepared an analysis of this expansion plan that it submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance. In that analysis, the Bureau summarized the types of programs that would come under the course options umbrella. Among those programs was the concurrent enrollment program: In addition to the statutory [part-time open enrollment] programs, the UW System and WTCS [Wisconsin Technical College System] have established by policy additional programs under which pupils can take courses at their high school for postsecondary credit. Under the UW System’s College Credit in High School programs, offered by UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay, students can earn high school and college credit provided they pay for the cost of the college credit, which is currently set at half the per credit tuition rate. DPI and UW Colleges have also entered in the memorandum of understanding to begin a statewide dual enrollment partnership.
Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Report to Joint Committee on Finance: Expand Part-Time Open Enrollment Program to Course Options Program, Paper 523 (May 29, 2013) at 3-4 [hereinafter, “LFB Report”]. Governor Walker’s original proposal was enacted into law virtually unchanged.
¶19. I understand that the foregoing interpretation of the statute has a definable financial impact. Before the revision of Wis. Stat. § 118.52, a student taking a concurrent enrollment course for college credit paid tuition (at a reduced rate) to UWS, either directly or indirectly. LFB Report at 30. Under the revised statute, which (as I have concluded) embraces concurrent enrollment courses, the student will pay no tuition to UWS either directly or indirectly. Instead, “[t]he resident school board shall pay to the educational institution, for each resident pupil attending a course at the educational institution under this section, an amount equal to the cost of providing the course to the pupil, calculated in a manner determined by the department [of public instruction].” Wis. Stat. § 118.52(12). Under this language, the financial impact on UWS (the payments it will receive) and the resident school district (the payments it will make) will be decided by DPI. Not only does the student no longer pay any tuition for a concurrent enrollment course, his application to attend a concurrent enrollment course cannot be denied on the ground that it might impose “an undue financial burden” on his resident school district. Wis. Stat. § 118.52(6)(b). ¶20. Providing concurrent enrollment courses to high school students at no cost to the students is consistent with the legislative intent in revising Wis. Stat. § 118.52. In its report to the Joint Finance Committee, the Fiscal Bureau alerted the Committee to several fiscal implications of the plan: The options would be provided at no cost to students, because the educational institutions would not be able to charge any additional payment beyond the DPI-determined amount to pupils participating in the program.
. . . .
To the extent that school districts would be paying for courses that pupils would pay for under current programs, it could be viewed as an additional mandate on districts, especially since the ability to reject an application on the basis of undue financial burden would be removed under the bill.
LFB Report at 5-6. Directly confronted with these financial questions, the legislature enacted the Governor’s course options proposal without significant amendment.
¶21. I conclude that the new course options provision of Wis. Stat. § 118.52 applies to concurrent enrollment classes. Sincerely,
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General
JBVH:MFW:mlk
