Wisconsin assesses buildings, not districts. Every school building regularly occupied by pupils gets an on-site look, done alongside local law enforcement, before any safety plan is written or updated.
THE REQUIREMENT
Wisconsin assesses buildings, not districts. Before creating or updating a school safety plan, a school board or the governing body of a private school must, in consultation with a local law enforcement agency, conduct an on-site safety assessment of each school building, site, and facility that is regularly occupied by pupils. Plans are reviewed and approved at least once every three years and filed annually with the Office of School Safety. The statute prescribes no exterior-door sweep, no locked-door condition, and no door-monitoring hardware.
Two features make Wisconsin stricter than its status label suggests. The assessment is on-site and it is per building, and it must be done in consultation with a local law enforcement agency rather than by the district alone.
The plan follows the same unit. Section 118.07(4)(bm)1 requires an individualized safety plan for each school building and facility regularly occupied by pupils, including the real property related to it.
Each row is quoted from Wis. Stat. § 118.07(4). The pattern is consistent: Wisconsin is specific about scope and cadence, and silent about equipment.
| Provision | What it requires | What it leaves open |
|---|---|---|
| (4)(b) the assessment | "conduct an on-site safety assessment of each school building, site, and facility that is regularly occupied by pupils", in consultation with a local law enforcement agency, before creating or updating a plan | No list of items the assessor must check. Door condition is observable, not prescribed |
| (4)(b) the reach | "shall include playgrounds, athletic facilities or fields, and any other property that is occupied by pupils on a regular basis" | Grounds are named explicitly; specific building features are not |
| (4)(bm)1 the plan | "An individualized safety plan for each school building and facility that is regularly occupied by pupils", including related real property | Individualized by building, but the contents are procedural rather than physical |
| (4)(d) the cycle | "review and approve the school safety plan at least once every 3 years after the plan goes into effect" | Nothing about the three years in between |
SCOPE OF THE RULE
An on-site assessment of every building, site, and facility regularly occupied by pupils, including playgrounds and athletic fields, done with a local law enforcement agency.
An individualized plan per building, reviewed and approved at least every three years, filed annually with the Office of School Safety along with drill dates and certifications.
No exterior-door sweep, no locked-door condition, no door log, and no monitoring hardware. The statute prescribes no checklist of physical items at all.
What gets looked at during an on-site assessment is a matter for the board and the law enforcement agency, not for the statute.
Each school board and private school governing body files a copy of its safety plan with the Office of School Safety annually, along with the date of the annual drill or drills and certification that a written evaluation of each drill was reviewed.
The statute specifies no penalty. Annual filing with the Office of School Safety is the mechanism.
2025 SB 41, a competitive school-safety grant funding bill, was signed into law and directs money through the Department of Justice Office of School Safety.
No exterior-door mandate introduced or enacted between 2024 and 2026 was located. The assessment-and-plan framework remains the operative requirement.
BETWEEN ASSESSMENTS
An assessment captures door condition on the day it happens. Continuous monitoring covers the days in between, which is where propped and held-open doors actually occur.
Wisconsin already sends a law enforcement agency into every building. Monitoring adds what a single visit cannot produce: continuous open-or-closed status on every monitored door, plus a time-stamped event log the next assessment can actually read.
A contact sensor proves that a door is closed. It never proves that the door is latched or locked.
Monitoring is not an on-site safety assessment and does not satisfy any part of Wis. Stat. § 118.07(4).
Learn about door monitoring, or return to the school door security guide.
These answers separate the on-site assessment, its per-building reach, the three-year cycle, and what the statute never addresses.
No. Wisconsin sets no statewide requirement that school exterior doors stay locked during the school day, and no duty to sweep, log, or monitor them. What it requires is an on-site safety assessment of each building regularly occupied by pupils, conducted with a local law enforcement agency, before a safety plan is created or updated.
Under Wis. Stat. 118.07(4)(b), the assessment covers each school building, site, and facility that is regularly occupied by pupils. The statute is explicit that it shall include playgrounds, athletic facilities or fields, and any other property that is occupied by pupils on a regular basis. Door condition is something an assessor may observe, but it is not a prescribed item.
At least once every three years. Wis. Stat. 118.07(4)(d) requires each school board and the governing body of each private school to review and approve the school safety plan at least once every three years after the plan goes into effect. Separately, plans are filed annually with the Office of School Safety along with drill dates and certifications.
Every building. The assessment duty attaches to each school building, site, and facility regularly occupied by pupils, and 118.07(4)(bm)1 requires an individualized safety plan for each school building and facility regularly occupied by pupils, including related real property. That is a stronger unit of analysis than states whose assessment duty runs only to the district.
No. Nothing in Wis. Stat. 118.07(4) requires door position sensors, propped-door alerts, or any continuous reporting of whether a door is open or closed. The assessment and the plan are the requirements; the equipment is a local decision.