Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 117.15 (2026)
Criteria for school district reorganizations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
117.15117.15 Criteria for school district reorganizations. In making any decision under ss. 117.08 to 117.132, a school board, the board and an appeal panel shall consider the following factors as they affect the educational welfare of all of the children residing in all of the affected school districts, and may consider other appropriate factors:
117.15(1)(1) The geographical and topographical characteristics of the affected school districts, including the estimated travel time to and from school for pupils in the school districts.
117.15(2)(2) The educational needs of all of the children residing in the affected school districts, the educational programs currently offered by each affected school district and the ability and commitment of each school district to meet those needs and continue to offer those educational programs.
117.15(2m)(2m) If territory is proposed to be detached from one school district and attached to an adjoining school district or proposed to be included in a new school district under s. 117.105, whether the proposed detachment will have any adverse effect on the program currently offered by the school district from which the territory is proposed to be detached, including both curricular and extracurricular aspects of that program.
117.15(3)(3) The testimony of and written statements filed by the residents of the affected school districts.
117.15(4)(4) The estimated fiscal effect of the proposed reorganization on the affected school districts, including the effect of the apportionment of assets and liabilities.
117.15(5)(5) Whether the proposed reorganization will make any part of a school district’s territory noncontiguous.
117.15(6)(6) The socioeconomic level and racial composition of the pupils who reside or will reside in territory proposed to be detached from one school district and attached to an adjoining school district, in territory proposed to be included in a new school district under s. 117.105 or in school districts proposed to be consolidated or in a school district proposed to be dissolved; the proportion of the pupils who reside in such territory who are children at risk, as defined under s. 118.153 (1) (a); and the effect that the pupils described in this paragraph will have on the present and future socioeconomic level and racial composition of the affected school districts and on the proportion of the affected school districts’ enrollments that will be children at risk.
117.15 AnnotationOn review of a decision under this section, the only issues to be considered are whether the reorganization authority acted within its jurisdiction and whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious. While an authority is bound to consider all the factors enumerated in this section, it may consider information from other sources, including matters within its knowledge and expertise. School District of Waukesha v. School District Boundary Appeal Board, 201 Wis. 2d 109, 548 N.W.2d 122 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0905.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 550 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. 1996).
Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 550 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. 1996). “For example, both the court of appeals and the Board point to the language of Wis. Stat. § 117.15 (5) as providing significant guidance on the question of whether § 117.”
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 624 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" See § 117.15, STATS. One of these criteria is "[w]hether the proposed reorganization will make any part of a school district's territory noncontiguous.”
Torin Misko v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 117.15,3 which delineates eight, nonexclusive criteria that a school board 3 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Sch. Dist. v. Evers, 2010 WI App 144 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. § 117.15 (2), (4). Therefore, while we appreciate the School District's financial concerns, the *95 denial of open enrollment applications is not a statutorily authorized means of allaying them.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(1): 1 case
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(2): 1 case
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(2m): 1 case
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(3): 1 case
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(4): 1 case
Torin Misko v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 117.15,3 which delineates eight, nonexclusive criteria that a school board 3 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(5): 4 cases
Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 550 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. 1996). “For example, both the court of appeals and the Board point to the language of Wis. Stat. § 117.15 (5) as providing significant guidance on the question of whether § 117.”
Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 624 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" See § 117.15, STATS. One of these criteria is "[w]hether the proposed reorganization will make any part of a school district's territory noncontiguous.”
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Torin Misko v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 117.15,3 which delineates eight, nonexclusive criteria that a school board 3 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Wis. Stat. § 117.15(6): 2 cases
Sch. Dist. of Waukesha v. Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 548 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The school district argues that the enactment of § 117.15, Stats., with its mandated con *114 siderations, has specifically circumscribed the power and actions of the appeal board.”
Torin Misko v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 117.15,3 which delineates eight, nonexclusive criteria that a school board 3 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.