To implement trauma-informed practices in schools
House Bill 5115 would require the West Virginia State Board of Education, beginning July 1, 2026, to implement trauma-informed practices in K-12 schools. The bill directs the board to provide training for teachers, school leaders, paraprofessionals, and specialized instructional support personnel on how trauma can affect student learning, behavior, and relationships, and on how schools can respond in ways that support student success.
The bill defines trauma-informed practices broadly to include evidence-based professional development, school-wide planning, and disciplinary approaches that emphasize holistic assessment, positive behavioral interventions and supports, restorative practices, and a welcoming school climate. It also requires that these practices be implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner consistent with federal civil rights and disability laws, and authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt legislative rules, including emergency rules if needed, to carry out the new section.
HB5115 would add a new section to West Virginia Code §18-2-47 and place a new statewide mandate on the State Board of Education to develop and implement trauma-informed practices in public schools serving kindergarten through grade 12. It would affect school discipline policies, staff professional development, student support services, and school climate initiatives, while also tying implementation to existing federal protections under civil rights, disability, and education laws. The bill would likely require rulemaking, training resources, and administrative coordination across school systems.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and policy-focused. The bill is framed as a student-support and school-climate measure, emphasizing safety, inclusion, and evidence-based practices rather than punishment. No opposition is documented in the available context, but the proposal’s emphasis on changing disciplinary practices suggests it could draw scrutiny from those concerned about local control, implementation costs, or limits on exclusionary discipline.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s impact on school discipline and the scope of state-mandated training and rulemaking. Supporters are likely to favor the shift toward restorative and trauma-informed approaches, while critics may question whether the bill could reduce flexibility for school administrators to use traditional disciplinary tools. There may also be concern about the administrative burden of training all relevant school personnel and the costs of implementing new statewide practices.