Public Comments

We need a raise it’s hard to make it on what we make

I respectfully urge lawmakers to reconsider this bill’s approach to imposing additional oversight measures on homeschool families, particularly provisions aimed at verifying educational quality through government review of coursework, core subject performance, or concerns about so-called “manufactured grades.”

While ensuring that children receive a meaningful education is a goal everyone shares, this proposal risks creating broad, burdensome regulation based on the assumption that families cannot be trusted to educate their own children without intensive monitoring. The overwhelming majority of homeschool parents are deeply invested in their children’s academic growth and often exceed standard expectations through individualized instruction, flexible pacing, and real-world learning opportunities that do not always fit neatly into traditional grading systems.

A central concern is that this bill appears to equate educational quality with conventional grading and standardized structures. Homeschool education often uses alternative assessment methods such as portfolios, mastery-based progression, project-based learning, dual enrollment, apprenticeships, and online coursework. These approaches can be academically rigorous while looking very different from a public school report card. Labeling nontraditional evaluations as potentially “manufactured” risks misunderstanding legitimate educational models and penalizing innovation.

There is also the issue of government overreach into the home. Increased documentation requirements, grade audits, or subjective reviews of curriculum could place families under constant scrutiny without clear evidence that such measures improve student outcomes. This may create stress and administrative burden for compliant families while diverting state resources away from students who are truly struggling and in need of support.

Policies built on suspicion rather than partnership can damage trust between families and the state. Instead of presuming poor quality, lawmakers could focus on accessible resources, optional academic support, and clear, reasonable pathways for demonstrating progress that respect the diversity of homeschool methods.

Most importantly, educational policy should remain student-centered. A one-size-fits-all accountability model may unintentionally limit flexible learning environments that help many children thrive — including students with learning differences, medical needs, mental health challenges, or those who simply learn best outside a traditional classroom structure.

For these reasons, I encourage a more balanced approach that protects educational freedom while offering support where it is truly needed, rather than expanding regulatory control over families who are already working hard to provide strong, individualized educations.

WITHDRAW THE BILL. Decisions for our children are OUR right. Our children’s education is our right. We are the sole decision makers on a day to day basis, education is no different. School systems should never have the right nor the authority, even if it includes involving other entities to obtain said authority, to make such decisions on behalf of what we as parents decide. Government, State, nor anyone else for that matter, besides the parent should never have authority. Especially when the true baseline of their decision is affected by money and numbers. Grants and funding are issued based upon the “numbers” that are submitted. Public school systems are dropping those numbers daily and it affects their money. Never let the money blur the lines of any child’s wellbeing. This does exactly that. And it is not welcomed. Our children deserve better. They deserve the best that we as parents can provide. Public schools are not the best. That is clear and is supported by the lack of education in this state in comparison to the entire country. It’s supported by the bullying that goes on daily with little to nothing done. The statement “bullying is not tolerated” does nothing. Meaningless promises and words but no action. Only when it benefits the numbers AKA ..MONEY. This was not meant to be a formal style comment. This is a nicely put, straight to the facts comment. WITHDRAW THE BILL.

This bill is governmental overreach. This is in no way protecting the rights of kids and parents. It places unnecessary power into the hands of BOE members and other state officials who clearly aren’t handling their duties well with public school students

I am writing to ask that you oppose HB 5053. I am concerned that this bill places excessive power in the hands of county superintendents, allowing them to potentially force children to remain in systems that are detrimental to their well-being.   Furthermore, parents should not be required to justify their decision to homeschool. The bill is vague regarding the steps that could be taken against parents who choose this path. Current laws already allow superintendents to obtain court orders to delay homeschooling for students who may be in danger; superintendents should not act as both judge and jury in a parent's decision.   I urge you to oppose this bill, as it represents significant government overreach.  

Please withdraw HB 5053!!

I have not personally had to deal with leaving the public school system, as we have always homeschooled. However, I have so many friends with kids in the public school system, some of those friends have kids who are being bullied. They have spoken to the schools about it, with nothing being done to the bullies and no resolution to the issue. This has caused serious mental health issues. I have one friend, whose child become suicidal due to the bullying. With this bill, If they had decided to pull out of public school to homeschool, that would've been denied. This is not okay, there are legitimate reasons to pull out of public to homeschool quickly. It is NOT safe to ASSUME that everyone who has truancy issues is just trying to get an out. I do not believe in my heart that passing this would be going in the right direction. I do feel like this is only trying to discourage parents from doing what is best for their children.

My name is Karleigh Hale, and I serve as Vice President of Youth Development for the YMCA of Kanawha Valley, overseeing early learning, Pre-K, and school-age programs serving working families in our community.

I strongly support HB 5345, which would require child care subsidy payments to be based on monthly enrollment rather than daily attendance.

Child care programs operate with fixed costs. Staffing ratios must be maintained regardless of whether a child attends two hours, a full day, or is absent due to illness or other unforeseen circumstances. Employees must be paid. Facilities must remain open and operational. These costs do not fluctuate based on daily attendance.

Private-pay families are charged based on enrollment, not attendance. When a child is enrolled, that space is reserved and staffed accordingly. Subsidy reimbursement should follow the same enrollment-based structure to ensure fairness, equity, and operational consistency across all families.

Attendance-based reimbursement models create financial instability and unpredictability for providers. They make responsible budgeting nearly impossible and undermine our ability to retain qualified staff and maintain consistent, high-quality care for children across West Virginia.

Enrollment-based reimbursement provides stability for providers, protects access for families, and strengthens the overall sustainability of West Virginia’s child care system.

A sustainable child care system is essential to supporting West Virginia’s workforce and economic growth. HB 5345 is a practical and necessary step toward strengthening child care access and provider stability across our state.

I am writing in support of HB 5345, bipartisan legislation requiring enrollment-based childcare subsidy payments.

Childcare providers operate with fixed costs that do not change hour by hour. Staffing ratios must be maintained, employees must be paid, and facilities must remain open and operational whether a child attends two hours or a full day. The current attendance-based reimbursement structure relies on an outdated hourly conversion model that does not reflect the true cost of delivering care.

Enrollment-based payments provide stability and predictability, allowing providers to budget responsibly, retain qualified staff, and continue serving working families. Codifying this structure in state law also protects providers and families in the event federal policy changes in the future.

A sustainable childcare system is essential to supporting West Virginia’s workforce and economic growth. HB 5345 is a practical and necessary step toward strengthening childcare access and provider stability across our state.

The challenges our state's childcare system is facing don't just hurt working parents, they hurt our invaluable childcare providers, and our state's economy as a whole. Investing in childcare must be a priority for this state to move forward. I ask you to please support this bill. 

• WV Constitution, Article XII, §1 – “The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools.”
• WV Constitution, Article XII, §2 – Establishes a State Board of Education with general supervision of free schools.

• WV Code §18-2-1 – Grants the State Board of Education general supervision of public schools.
• WV Code Chapter 18 (Education) – Establishes funding formulas, accreditation, standards, and administrative functions.
• WV Code §18-9A-1 et seq. – Establishes the School Aid Formula.

• Administers state and federal funds.
• Ensures compliance with federal programs (Title I, IDEA, ESSA).
• Oversees accreditation and accountability.
• Provides independent reporting to the Legislature.

• Reduced independence in rule-making.
• Increased legislative micromanagement of funding distribution.
• Potential conflicts of interest when appropriating and administering funds are consolidated.

1. Appropriation authority, and
2. Administrative execution,

• Increase the risk of politically motivated reallocations.
• Weaken technical enforcement of formula compliance.
• Create instability in long-term county budget planning.

• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Title I and Title II programs

• Monitor compliance,
• Maintain reporting systems,
• Ensure equal access protections,
• Prevent misallocation.

• Federal audit findings,
• Loss or clawback of funds,
• Litigation exposure.

• The State Board operates with constitutional grounding.
• The Department serves as a professional administrative arm.
• Oversight commissions monitor performance.

• Rulemaking authority may become more volatile.
• Educational standards may fluctuate with election cycles.
• Long-term educational stability may decline.

• Bond ratings tied to educational funding stability,
• County-level financial planning,
• Teacher recruitment and retention.

• Predictable formula calculations,
• Professional guidance,
• Compliance interpretation,
• Special education administration.

• Accreditation,
• Transportation aid,
• Personnel allocation,
• Special education mandates.

• Weakening constitutional supervision,
• Politicizing educational administration,
• Centralizing fiscal control without independent oversight,
• Creating federal compliance vulnerability,
• Undermining long-term system stability.

1. No Added Due Process Protections The bill does not expand procedural safeguards for appellants. It does not clarify standards of review, evidentiary thresholds, or ensure heightened protections where professional certification or licensure is implicated.
2. Executive Branch Concentration The Office of Administrative Hearings remains within the executive branch structure. The bill does not establish additional independence measures for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), nor does it address appointment, removal, or oversight mechanisms to ensure impartiality.
3. No Transparency Enhancements HB 5450 does not require publication of appeal outcomes, reporting of reversal rates, or public access to decision data. Without transparency metrics, structural relocation alone does not guarantee improved fairness.
4. No Remedy for Potential Systemic Bias If concerns exist regarding investigative practices, referral standards, or internal enforcement discretion, those issues are not addressed by this bill. Changing jurisdiction does not resolve underlying structural inequities if they exist.
5. No Fiscal or Efficiency Justification Provided The bill does not clearly demonstrate that transferring appeals to OAH will reduce costs, improve timelines, or enhance consistency. Without measurable performance benchmarks, the Legislature cannot evaluate whether this change produces material improvement.

1. A public performance audit under W. Va. Code §4-2-5 (Legislative Auditor authority),
2. Clear standards for registration and certification under the Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification,
3. Transparent reporting requirements for any facility receiving state funds or court referrals, and
4. Enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance.

1. Lack of Clear Emergency Criteria: Current law allows emergency declarations when conditions are found to exist that “warrant” the proclamation. There is no objective standard in the statute or this bill requiring publicly accessible documentation justifying such declarations. Without clear benchmarks, emergency authority can be invoked unevenly or without sufficient empirical basis.
2. Transparency and Public Reporting: This bill restructures the emergency response commission but does not require regular public reporting of its actions, emergency triggers, or performance measures. Given West Virginia’s recent experiences with environmental and public health issues — including challenges in public communication of contamination risks — transparent reporting should be mandatory, not optional.
3. Potential for “Reactive” Rather Than “Preventative” Governance: Emergency declarations are inherently reactive. Without strengthening preventive oversight — e.g., requiring hazard risk assessments or public accessibility of monitoring data — there is a risk that emergencies will be used to address problems that could have been mitigated through stronger regulation and enforcement.
4. Interactions with Other Regulatory and Oversight Structures: This bill does not consider how emergency governance interacts with evolving state policies related to environmental regulation, corporate incentives, infrastructure oversight, or public disclosure. The absence of explicit connection points between emergency governance and other oversight bodies increases the likelihood of siloed decision-making and insufficient checks on authority.

• Objective criteria and documentation for emergency declarations (with a public record).
• Periodic reporting to the Legislature and citizens on emergency preparedness, declarations, and responses.
• Independent commissioners or public health/oversight representation on the State Emergency Response Commission.
• Clear public access to monitoring data and emergency response actions.