Public Comments

I am a Communities In Schools Site Coordinator in public school.   We have many children in our schools, and it is our job to assist our students in overcoming barriers to learning.   Part of that includes coordinating access to basic needs such as food, clothing, community linkages, etc.     To the best of my knowledge, it is not our job to determine the immigration status of parents prior to enrolling their children.  So if we assist a a student’s parent who happens to be illegal, are we going to jail for 10 years?  And if so, by what method will a parent’s immigration status officially be disclosed us?   It is not my area of expertise to review such documentation.    Once a child is enrolled, we are expected to do our job indiscriminately.  This may include providing food, linkages to free charitable resources such as healthcare, etc. Please consider public schools and all human services professionals whose ethical obligation it is to help the people presented to us before voting on this bill. Thank You!

There are existing issues with the Special Education camera law that this was copied from. Legislation will be presented to change that law very soon and I would urge that this not be passed as it is currently written.

Maybe legalizing it would help with the opioid addiction issues we are facing everyday. I know it would also come with it's own set of problems.  I feel the benefits would outweigh the risks.

• Currently, non-relatives/non-kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents by child placing agencies (CPA), with whom the state has contracts.  Child placing agencies are throughout the state and serve various geographies/footprints of the state given their business models.  When a family is certified as a non-relative, that family is visited and supported during a child's placement, by both department (BSS) workers and child placing agency (CPA) workers.
• Relatives/kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents (if they choose to certify), by the homefinding department of BSS.  Homefinders at BSS and workers at the CPA's perform very similar duties in the process of certifying families to the foster care level.  Relatives/kin can be held to slightly different (reduced) standards due to the waivers available relating to the certification requirements.
• Regardless of whether a CPA worker or a BSS homefinding worker undertakes certifying a family, the time it takes depends not only on the worker but also, and greatly, on the family's responsiveness to requests for information or documentation.  Time to certification relates to a shared process.
• Relatives/kin can be supported, particularly early in the placement journey, by a service called Kinship Navigator.  Each family can be supported, for months or as needed, by a KN who is an employee of one of the state's key contractors, Mission West Virginia.  Kinship Navigators provide resources, advocacy, support, advice, products, etc. so that new relative/kin families can have support services, whether they are choosing to be certified or not.  KNs do not stay involved however, for the entire pendency of the case (which differs from CPA visiting workers, who do).  An ongoing issue has been that the referral process to ensure that ALL relative/kin families are referred to the Mission West Virginia KN service is not consistently performed (by responsible BSS personnel).  The reasons for that are beyond this message content.

• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker and needs placement, first  is attempted but if non are available or safe, the CPS worker makes a request to the CPA's to locate a certified, prepared foster home.
• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker, needs placement, and relatives/kin ARE available, the CPS worker conducts a safety screen and notifies the homefinding unit, so that additional vetting can occur as needed and certification processes can begin.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014), the police generally cannot search the contents of a cell phone seized during a traffic stop or arrest without a warrant, even if the person is a registered sex offender. This would also apply to a sex offender who is visiting the state police to update the registry. There could be exceptions for persons who are on probation or parole, but as for sex offenders who are not, they are still covered under the Fourth Amendment. For these reasons, HB-4135 is clearly unconstitutional and should be rejected.

Is it possible to focus efforts for education on things that will actually help students? The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled via Stone v. Graham (1980) that it is unconstitutional, a direct violation of the First Amendment to post the 10 Commandments or any other religious texts in public schools. All this will lead to is lawsuits that eat away state funds and time in court. It's already been struck down in states that have tried to do this in the courts as recently as 2025. We the people are tired of seeing the same bills that violate our constitutional rights be introduced session after session. Unless you are going to also post religious texts of the 4,000 other recognized religions in this world, which would still violate the religious rights of those who are agnostic or atheist because you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, then you have no constitutional right or authority to post the 10 Commandments in public schools. Would it make you comfortable if schools posted texts for the Quran? Pagan or Wiccan texts? Beliefs of L Ron Hubbard for Scientology?

I am writing to express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed legislation that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public schools. While I respect the religious and historical significance that these texts hold for many people, this bill represents a clear violation of the separation of church and state and an erosion of religious freedom, principles that are foundational to our democracy.

Public schools are not places of worship; they are spaces for learning, inclusion, and respect for students of all faiths and of no faith at all. Mandating a religious display endorsed by the state sends a chilling message to students and families whose beliefs differ. It risks alienating non-Christian students, undermining their sense of belonging and safety in schools that are meant to serve everyone equally.

This bill is not about history or morality, it is about government endorsement of a specific religious doctrine, which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing such a measure would invite costly legal challenges, divert public funds from classrooms, and sow division among communities.

If the goal is to promote character, ethics, and respect, there are inclusive ways to do so without elevating one faith tradition above others. We can teach civic values, empathy, and critical thinking through shared democratic principles, not religious mandates.

I urge lawmakers to reject this bill in defense of religious liberty, constitutional integrity, and the inclusive spirit of public education. Our students deserve schools that unite rather than divide, and legislation like this moves us dangerously in the opposite direction.

I am writing to express my strong opposition and grave concern regarding any proposal to eliminate standardized testing in West Virginia’s public schools. While conversations about assessment reform are valid and necessary, removing standardized testing entirely would have devastating financial and educational consequences for our state.

Federal law, specifically the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires states to administer annual assessments in reading, math, and science as a condition of receiving federal education funding. If West Virginia were to eliminate these tests, we would immediately forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds that support critical programs for students, including Title I services for low-income schools, special education supports, teacher development, and afterschool programs.

These funds are not optional or easily replaced. West Virginia’s state budget simply cannot absorb such a financial loss without catastrophic impacts on classrooms, staffing, and student services. The result would be larger class sizes, fewer resources, and diminished opportunities, especially for our most vulnerable students who rely most on federally supported programs.

While there is room for improvement in how assessments are designed and used, completely eliminating standardized testing is neither practical nor responsible. Instead, our focus should be on using assessment data more effectively in order to identify gaps, improve instruction, and ensure accountability while continuing to advocate for fairer, more meaningful ways to measure student learning.

I urge lawmakers to reject any proposal that jeopardizes our state’s compliance with federal education requirements. The long-term cost to our students and schools far outweighs any short-term political gain. West Virginia cannot afford to lose this essential funding or the educational safeguards that come with it.

I am writing to express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed legislation that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public schools. While I respect the religious and historical significance that these texts hold for many people, this bill represents a clear violation of the separation of church and state and an erosion of religious freedom, principles that are foundational to our democracy.

Public schools are not places of worship; they are spaces for learning, inclusion, and respect for students of all faiths and of no faith at all. Mandating a religious display endorsed by the state sends a chilling message to students and families whose beliefs differ. It risks alienating non-Christian students, undermining their sense of belonging and safety in schools that are meant to serve everyone equally.

This bill is not about history or morality, it is about government endorsement of a specific religious doctrine, which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing such a measure would invite costly legal challenges, divert public funds from classrooms, and sow division among communities.

If the goal is to promote character, ethics, and respect, there are inclusive ways to do so without elevating one faith tradition above others. We can teach civic values, empathy, and critical thinking through shared democratic principles, not religious mandates.

I urge lawmakers to reject this bill in defense of religious liberty, constitutional integrity, and the inclusive spirit of public education. Our students deserve schools that unite rather than divide, and legislation like this moves us dangerously in the opposite direction.

I am writing to express my deep and unequivocal concern regarding the proposed legislation that would establish a registry of individuals with disabilities. While I understand that such measures are often presented under the guise of improving services or coordination, this proposal raises serious ethical, legal, and human rights concerns that cannot be overlooked.

Creating a registry of disabled individuals fundamentally undermines the principles of privacy, dignity, and autonomy that every person deserves. History has shown, repeatedly and painfully, that tracking or labeling people based on disability status can lead to stigmatization, discrimination, and even abuse. The very existence of such a registry could discourage individuals from seeking needed supports or disclosing disabilities for fear of being cataloged or targeted.

Moreover, the bill risks violating federal protections, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which were enacted to ensure equality and prevent systemic discrimination. This registry would move our state backward, reintroducing segregation-era thinking under a new label of “data collection.”

If the true goal is to improve access to services or streamline support, there are safer, more ethical pathways—ones that empower individuals with disabilities rather than surveil them. We should be investing in inclusive policy design, community partnerships, and consent-based data systems that respect individuals’ rights and voices.

I urge legislators to reject this bill outright and instead consult with the disability community to craft solutions that uplift rather than marginalize. Our society must never normalize the idea of tracking people for the simple fact of being disabled.

This is a devastating step in the wrong direction for West Virginians, who not only pride themselves on their sense of community but the right to follow their conscience on issues related to immigrant community members. The use of “illegal alien” is dehumanizing of all individuals who have basic human rights and must have access to due process. When you dehumanize “the other,” you risk the whole of humanity and invite further abuses to one another that violate cultural norms. Truly, this is terrible. Not only is violation of the right to due process unconstitutional for these individuals, but you dare to make citizens complicit in this violation of basic human rights. How will I be protected in the future from legal action for FAILURE to assist in situations involving threat of or active violent harm to immigrant families, as is so widely seen in places like Minneapolis as of January 2026. You have to understand that many simply MORALLY will be unable to comply with this proposed “law.”

I agree that this bill needs to be passed.  It's a waste of time to take vichicles to shop to get inspected. If you look at the cars and trucks on the roads, who actually keeps up with the ones that have issues.  I see carsase and trucks driving around with several violations so the sticker seems to be a waste of time to get, just another way to collect money from the already poor people of West Virginia.  Please pass this bill. Sincerely Jarrett Riffle

While I agree that moral responsibility ultimately rests with the individual, family, and community, not the government or schools, I am concerned that this bill embeds ideological premises into the public education curriculum under the guise of “education.”

The bill’s own text affirms that parents, families, and communities bear the primary responsibility for moral and family life education. Yet it then mandates that public schools provide specific instruction tied to pregnancy options — including adoption — in health settings. This approach conflates personal beliefs about morality and family responsibility with state-mandated educational content.

Public education should inform, not indoctrinate, and parents should have the freedom to guide their children’s moral development without prescriptive instruction from the state. Requiring teachers and schools to deliver content framed in a particular ideological context risks alienating families whose beliefs differ and may chill open, evidence-based discussion in the classroom.

If West Virginia wants students and young adults to understand adoption, that information can be made voluntarily available through optional resources, counseling services, and partnership with community organizations — rather than through a requirement that inserts specific messaging into every local district’s sex-education program.

I urge you to reconsider HB 4105’s mandate and instead respect a parent-centered, choice-driven approach to moral and family life education. Public schools should support families, not substitute for them.