Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Board briefed on HB 2499 training requirements and Policy 2419 special-education provisions

August 29, 2025 | CABELL COUNTY SCHOOLS, School Districts, West Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board briefed on HB 2499 training requirements and Policy 2419 special-education provisions
Miss Stevens presented an overview of House Bill 2,499 and related federal and state special-education requirements, telling the board the bill became effective July 1, 2025 and that counties must complete required training by Dec. 31, 2025.

"House Bill 2,499 became effective on 07/01/2025," Stevens said, and she described allowable rollout options: in-person administrator and teacher presentations, use of Strive teams developed by the West Virginia Department of Education, and in‑district training sessions. Stevens said Cabell County had already sent two elementary teams for STRIVE training in the spring and planned to send two secondary teams in the fall; trained teams are intended to support other school teams within the district.

Stevens placed HB 2499 in the context of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and West Virginia State Board rule Policy 24‑19. She told the board, "The purpose of IDEA is to ensure free appropriate public education or what we call FAPE, to students with disabilities," and reviewed Part B (school‑age services), Part C (early intervention), and the federal regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 300 that govern state monitoring and local‑agency responsibilities.

Stevens said the state’s recent desk audit and independent monitoring flagged the district’s least‑restrictive‑environment (LRE) indicators for improvement; the district will focus LRE work in its targeted systemic improvement plan (TSIP) this year. She explained that LRE is a principle, not a place, and that the IEP team determines placement based on student needs. She summarized placement and staffing limits by service level (examples provided by Stevens): level‑1 elementary settings may be 12 students with a minimum staffing ratio of 1 adult per 6 students for early learning; level‑3 (most intensive) settings were described as 8 students with a 1:4 adult ratio in several grade spans. Stevens also said some caseloads (speech therapists) may include up to 50 students while other case managers are limited to lower counts; the district tries not to maximize caseloads.

Stevens reviewed discipline and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities. She said administrators must use DAR forms for suspensions and that a manifestation determination meeting is required before removing a student beyond 10 days (day 11 trigger) to determine whether the behavior is related to the disability or a failure to implement the IEP or 504 plan. Stevens said parents must receive verbal explanations of rights at IEP meetings and that the state produced an explanation sheet counties must use; she said the state will publish a consolidated list of advocacy contacts for families.

Teacher protections and rights under the changes were described: teachers must receive training in person (counties set methods) and be given signed copies of a placed student’s IEP; the district reported a new "read IEP" tab in its system (referred to in the presentation as Weavus 2) that allows teachers to view IEPs. Stevens said previous requirements for routine accommodation logs were removed; teachers must attest at the end of grading periods that accommodations were provided unless a parent requests a log.

On class‑size compliance, Stevens said the district can apply for waivers to the State Board when schedules cannot meet the ratios; she described the waiver process and said the district applied for and received an extended waiver recently for an elementary classroom over the 30 percent threshold.

Board members asked clarifying questions about how STRIVE teams were chosen, how LRE indicators were identified in the desk audit, whether charter schools are subject to the same rules (Stevens said she would verify the charter question but believed charters are not bound in the same way), and who serves as a case manager (Stevens said the special-education teacher serves as case manager). The board thanked Stevens for the overview.

No formal action was taken; the presentation was informational and staff will continue TSIP LRE work and the HB 2499 training rollout.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee