Lincoln County Schools trains board and staff on HB 2499, SB 199 changes to special-education practice and elementary discipline

Lincoln County Schools special education staff briefed the Lincoln County Board of Education on new state laws and district procedures affecting services for students with disabilities, including training requirements under House Bill 2499 and discipline and behavior‑intervention changes in Senate Bill 199.

Matthew Miller, Lincoln County Schools’ special education director, told the board the West Virginia Department of Education assigned the district a determination of “meets the requirements” for implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and thanked staff and teachers for achieving compliance. “Lincoln County Schools meets the requirements related to the implementation of IDEA and has been assigned a determination that meets the requirements,” Miller said.

Miller outlined the core IDEA principles, the district’s responsibilities under Policy 24‑19 (Regulations for Education of Students with Exceptionalities), and specifics of HB 2499 training and teacher protections. He said HB 2499 requires in‑person training for newly employed personnel and for newly appointed or elected county board members within 30 days of employment or appointment, and that the training chain runs from superintendents and principals down through teachers. The training must cover the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process, evaluation timelines, procedural safeguards and parents’ rights.

Miller summarized IEP practice issues the district must continue to monitor: initial and re‑evaluations within the district’s 80‑day timeline, parent consent for services, the 13 disability eligibility categories used in West Virginia, IEP content (present levels, goals, accommodations and prior written notice), transition planning starting at age 14, and the district requirement to conduct annual reviews.

“Special education is considered a service, not a place,” Miller said, describing the least‑restrictive‑environment principle that students should be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.

Miller also described new protections and required disclosures for teachers in HB 2499: classroom teachers may assert procedural protections under West Virginia Code 18‑20‑1 and must not be disciplined for advocating for a student’s needs, and at every IEP meeting a school representative must explain identification and procedural rights to guardians and provide information on local advocacy resources (for example, Disability Rights of West Virginia, Legal Aid and the West Virginia Family Engagement Center).

On discipline, Miller reviewed SB 199, which took effect July 2 and adds new steps for elementary students (K–6). Under the law, after two classroom exclusions in the same semester the required conference will include the teacher, principal, and, if possible, the parent as well as a school counselor or social worker. The district must consider behavioral plans written and implemented by staff with behavioral expertise — for example, a school social worker, behavior specialist, board‑certified behavior analyst or school psychologist — and use evidence‑based interventions.

If an elementary student exhibits violent or intimidating behavior, staff must refer the student for a functional behavior assessment (FBA). Miller said the assessment and a two‑week behavior plan must be implemented and reevaluated after two weeks. If the student does not make adequate progress, the district must consider placement in a behavior intervention program with a licensed behavioral health provider or other alternative available under county arrangements. When no outside program is available, the law allows immediate removal from the classroom, parent pickup the same day and a short suspension (one to three days) while alternative arrangements are made. The district must perform a risk assessment before returning the student; repeated incidents after a provisional return can lead to expulsion subject to the statutory limits on duration.

Miller noted related operating details the board may need to address before the school year: whether the district will expand alternative learning center (ALC) capacity for younger students or contract with outside licensed providers, and ensuring sufficient behavioral staff and training before school starts. He said those staff will be trained on the new requirements before the school year begins.

Miller provided several district data points during the presentation: the district reported “north of 880” students served under special education programs (that figure includes speech and gifted services), the district achieved 100% compliance in transition planning this year, and the county employs three school psychologists who will support FBAs and risk assessments.

Votes at a glance: during the same meeting the board approved routine business items. The board approved the June 30 minutes (vote tally 5–0), approved consent items (which included a contracted services agreement to provide behavior services with Applied Behavior Learning Center), approved the 30‑day review policies including the electronic devices policy, approved unauthorized payments of bills, approved personnel recommendations, and adjourned the meeting.

Miller closed by offering the board copies of a redacted blank IEP and related documentation for board members to review by email. Board members thanked Miller and his staff for the presentation and for the reported compliance findings.