1. Executive Summary
This bill changes West Virginia charter school law in several areas. It modifies virtual testing rules, removes certain application requirements and pre‑operation restrictions, changes conversion school governing board composition, creates a process for charter schools to seek unused public school property, and permits higher education institutions to apply for on‑campus microschools under Title 18, Chapter 5G of the Code of West Virginia.
2. What This Bill Would Do
[§18‑5G‑3(c)(6)] modifies the process for virtual standardized testing. Currently, virtual public charter schools were subject to unspecified testing restrictions. This provision permits virtual charter schools to administer required state assessments in a virtual setting using remote proctoring (monitoring student testing through video or online supervision). It allows a student‑to‑teacher ratio of up to 15:1 during remote proctoring and permits non‑certified teachers to proctor assessments if they complete annual training and the school maintains a list of staff who completed that training. Note: Implementation details of “remote proctoring” and annual training content are subject to agency rulemaking and require human review.
[§18‑5G‑3] removes the requirement that public charter schools consult with nationally recognized charter school organizations. Currently, the code required such consultation. This provision eliminates that requirement entirely.
[§18‑5G‑7(a)(2)] changes the composition of the governing board for a conversion school (an existing public school converted into a charter school). Currently, the board composition was not specified for such schools. This provision requires that the governing board include the five elected county board members plus two community members chosen by the county superintendent.
[§18‑5G‑8(d) and (e)] permits established public charter schools to submit proposed application amendments at any time and to apply to establish a second location or campus through an abbreviated application process. Currently, no such amendment or multi‑campus process existed. This provision authorizes an authorizer (the government entity approved to authorize charter schools) to approve or reject a proposed amendment at any time. It allows a charter school in good standing (term not defined in the bill) to apply for a second campus using only the information required under §18‑5G‑8(b)(13) (facilities), (b)(16) (insurance), and (b)(23) (start‑up plan). Expansion remains subject to authorizer approval and continued compliance status. Note: “Good standing” is not defined and is subject to authorizer interpretation.
[§18‑5G‑18] creates a program titled the “SOAR Act” establishing a right of first refusal process for certain unused or underutilized public school property. Currently, no such right existed. This provision requires a county board, after approving a school closure, to give a 90‑day window for a public charter school to submit an application to open a “SOAR Charter” (a charter school created through this property reuse process) in the closing school. The county board may not offload the property during that window. If multiple applications are submitted, the Public Charter School Board shall select and approve the “most appropriate and viable option” (criteria not defined). County boards are required to negotiate and attempt to enter into contracts with the approved applicant. Note: “Unused or underutilized,” “most appropriate and viable option,” and negotiation failure procedures are undefined and require human review. The bill does not specify additional transportation, staffing, or operational funding mechanisms for rural charter conversions.
[§18‑5G‑19(a)] permits an institution of higher education to apply to an authorizer to establish an on‑campus public charter microschool (a small‑enrollment school with flexible instruction) or blended program (in‑person or virtual instruction), but prohibits such schools from operating as full‑time virtual charter schools. Currently, no such authorization existed. This provision requires that such schools meet the microschool‑related requirements of §18‑8‑1 of the code.
3. Who is Affected
Affected Group | If Bill Passes | If Bill Does Not Pass | Governing Section |
|---|---|---|---|
Public charter schools | May administer virtual state assessments with remote proctoring; may apply to open second campuses via abbreviated application; may submit application amendments at any time; may claim right of first refusal for closing public school properties. Schools must maintain annual training records for assessment proctors. | Current virtual testing limitations remain; multi‑campus or amendment processes are not available; no right of first refusal for unused school property. | §18‑5G‑3(c)(6); §18‑5G‑8(d),(e); §18‑5G‑18 |
County boards of education (authorizers) | Must include five elected county board members plus two community members (chosen by county superintendent) on conversion school governing boards; must honor right of first refusal process before disposing of closed school property (delaying disposal or repurposing); must negotiate property transfer contracts with approved applicants; may receive applications from higher ed microschools. | Conversion school board composition remains under prior law; county boards may dispose of closed school property without a charter school right of first refusal. | §18‑5G‑7(a)(2); §18‑5G‑18; §18‑5G‑19 |
West Virginia Professional Charter School Board | May accept all types of applications and, in case of multiple SOAR Act applications, shall select and approve the “most appropriate and viable option.” | Application type restrictions (if any) remain; no role in selecting among competing property applications. | §18‑5G‑8(a); §18‑5G‑18(d)(1)(B) |
Rural communities | May establish a rural in‑person public charter school under sponsorship of an existing charter school or county board, using an abbreviated application; may keep a local school open as a SOAR Charter instead of facing consolidation or closure. (No transportation, staffing, or operational funding is specified for such conversions.) | No rural charter sponsorship pathway; school closure proceeds without a charter conversion option. | §18‑5G‑8(f); §18‑5G‑18 |
Institutions of higher education | May apply to operate an on‑campus microschool or blended program (not full‑time virtual) subject to §18‑8‑1 microschool requirements. | No authority to establish on‑campus charter microschools under this article. | §18‑5G‑19(a) |
Students with disabilities, English language learners, gifted students | Charter schools remain required to provide services per IEP and federal/state laws; no change to existing protections. | Existing protections continue unchanged. | §18‑5G‑3(b)(5); §18‑5G‑8(b)(20) |
Parents of students in a school proposed for closure | Have a 90‑day window for a charter school to apply to take over the facility; if approved, the school may continue operating as a charter rather than closing. | No such right of first refusal; school closure proceeds as originally planned. | §18‑5G‑18(d) |
Teachers / proctors | Non‑certified teachers may proctor state assessments after completing annual training; schools must maintain training completion lists. | Only certified or licensed teachers may proctor assessments (under prior interpretation). | §18‑5G‑3(c)(6) |
State education regulators (state board) | Must promulgate rules to guide SOAR Act implementation; must annually review authorizer funding formula. | No such rulemaking or review required. | §18‑5G‑18(j); §18‑5G‑5(d) |
4. Existing Law vs. What Would Change
Current Law or Condition | What This Bill Changes |
|---|---|
Virtual public charter schools had unspecified or more restrictive testing procedures; remote proctoring and teacher‑to‑student ratios were not addressed. | §18‑5G‑3(c)(6) permits virtual testing with remote proctoring, allows 15:1 student‑teacher ratio, and allows non‑certified teachers to proctor after annual training (schools must maintain training completion lists). |
Public charter schools were required to consult with nationally recognized charter school organizations. | No such consultation requirement (removed from the code). |
No statutory prohibition against a charter school beginning operation prior to the start of the proposed school year existed (or the prohibition is removed). | Removes the requirement that “no public charter school may begin operation prior to the beginning of the proposed school year.” |
Conversion school governing board composition was not defined to include county board members. | §18‑5G‑7(a)(2) mandates that the governing board include the five elected county board members plus two community members chosen by the county superintendent. |
The West Virginia Professional Charter School Board could accept only certain types of applications. | §18‑5G‑8(a) authorizes the board to “accept all types of applications.” |
No process for a charter school to submit an amendment to its application after initial approval. | §18‑5G‑8(d) permits a charter school to submit a proposed amendment at any time; the authorizer may approve or reject it. |
No provision for an existing charter school to establish a second location or campus via abbreviated application. | §18‑5G‑8(e) allows a charter school in good standing to apply to open a second campus using an abbreviated application (only items (b)(13), (16), and (23)), subject to authorizer approval. |
No statutory right of first refusal for charter schools to acquire unused or underutilized public school property. | §18‑5G‑18 creates the SOAR Act, giving charter schools a 90‑day right of first refusal process after a county board approves a school closure, with property transfer “as‑is.” |
No explicit authorization for higher education institutions to apply to operate on‑campus charter microschools. | §18‑5G‑19(a) permits such applications, but prohibits full‑time virtual charter schools and requires compliance with §18‑8‑1 microschool requirements. |
5. Fiscal Impact Summary
No CBO score or official fiscal note is currently available for this legislation. Fiscal impact cells are left blank pending official scoring.
6. Household Impact Matrix
(Household earning 35,000–35,000–100,000 annually — this range is an analytical assumption of LegisLedger for rural and working‑class coverage; it is not stated in the bill text or any accompanying fiscal document.)
Metric | If Bill Passes | If Bill Fails or Status Quo Continues |
|---|---|---|
Household Overhead | The bill does not modify household taxes, utility costs, insurance premiums, or direct consumer fees under current law. | The bill does not modify household taxes, utility costs, or direct consumer fees under current law. |
Market Stability | The bill creates a right of first refusal process for certain unused public school properties. No analysis of property value effects or local business competition is provided in the bill or accompanying documents. | No right of first refusal for public school properties; existing regulatory environment continues. |
Mobility Check | The bill does not modify income eligibility thresholds for any benefit. It creates a process that may keep a local school open as a charter rather than closing, potentially avoiding displacement for families in rural communities. No documented benefits cliff is addressed. | School closures would continue under existing law without the charter conversion process established in this bill. |
Local Government Impact | County boards must honor a 90‑day right of first refusal process before disposing of closed school property; must negotiate property transfer contracts with approved charter applicants. May face multiple applications requiring Public Charter School Board selection. No new state funding or mandate reimbursement is specified. | Current funding levels and regulatory authority remain; county boards may dispose of closed property without delay or charter priority. |
7. Provisions Requiring Review
§18‑5G‑3(c)(6) – Contains undefined term “remote proctoring” and delegates annual training content to the charter school without state specifications. Reason for review flag: Ambiguous implementation details; recommend verifying against Department of Education testing guidance before publication.
§18‑5G‑8(e) – Allows an established charter school “in good standing with its authorizer” to apply for a second campus via abbreviated application. Reason for review flag: “Good standing” is not defined in the bill nor cross‑referenced to any existing statutory definition. Subject to authorizer discretion.
§18‑5G‑8(f) – Allows a “rural in‑person public charter school” under sponsorship of a charter school or county board. Reason for review flag: “Rural” is not defined; no geographic or population criteria are provided.
§18‑5G‑18(c) – Requires a county board that closes a school to identify in an “impact statement” whether it will maintain the facility or offload the property. Reason for review flag: “Impact statement” is not defined; no existing statutory reference or required content is specified.
§18‑5G‑18(d)(1)(B) – When multiple SOAR Charter applications are submitted, the Public Charter School Board “shall select and approve the most appropriate and viable option.” Reason for review flag: “Most appropriate and viable” is not defined; no criteria, scoring rubric, or appeal process is provided.
§18‑5G‑18(d)(2) – Requires the county board to “negotiate and enter into a contract” with the approved applicant. Reason for review flag: No guidance on terms if negotiation fails; no dispute resolution mechanism is specified.
§18‑5G‑18(j) – Authorizes the state board to promulgate rules “to provide guidance on the implementation of this section.” Reason for review flag: Full implementation details are delegated to agency rulemaking without statutory parameters.
§18‑5G‑19(a) – Prohibits a higher education institution’s charter microschool from being a “full‑time virtual charter school.” Reason for review flag: “Full‑time virtual charter school” is not defined in this bill; cross‑reference to §18‑8‑1 may clarify but that section is not provided in the enrolled text.
8. What This Bill Does Not Do
The bill text does not contain provisions related to private school vouchers or tuition tax credits. Public discussion has referenced charter school expansion as a form of school choice, but no voucher, tax credit, or education savings account program is created or modified by Senate Bill 63 as enrolled.
The bill text does not authorize religious charter schools. The bill explicitly retains the prohibition in §18‑5G‑3(a)(4) that public charter schools “are not affiliated with or espouse any specific religious denomination, organization, sect, or belief” and may not promote religious practices.
The bill text does not eliminate existing student assessment or accountability requirements for charter schools. Charter schools remain subject to state assessment requirements under §18‑2E‑5(d) and (e), the Student Data Accessibility Act, and annual external audits. Only the method of virtual testing (remote proctoring) is modified.
The audit identified no material discrepancy between the bill text and primary public framing beyond the three points above.
9. Glossary of Key Terms
Term | Definition (inferred from bill context) |
|---|---|
Remote proctoring | Monitoring student testing through video or online supervision rather than in‑person observation. |
Conversion school | An existing public school converted into a charter school structure. |
Authorizer | The government entity (county board, state board, or Public Charter School Board) authorized to approve and oversee charter schools. |
Microschool | A small‑enrollment school model that typically uses flexible or individualized instruction (further defined by cross‑reference to §18‑8‑1). |
SOAR Charter | A charter school created through the property reuse process established in §18‑5G‑18 (Sustaining Opportunities for Academics in Rural Schools Act). |
The Ledger is Closed,
LegisLedger | Civic Intelligence. Clearly Delivered.
Legal Disclosures & Compliance Physical Address: LegisLedger Media LLC | [PO Box 284] | [Peebles, Ohio 45660]
Copyright: © 2026 LegisLedger. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without express written permission.
Trademark: LegisLedger is a trademark of LegisLedger Media LLC. Trademark registration pending.
DMCA Notice: To report intellectual property infringement, please contact our designated agent at [[email protected]].
Privacy & Transparency You are receiving this because you opted in at [thelegisledger.org].
We value your data privacy; review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
Keep the LegisLedger independent. We accept no lobbyist or corporate funding. If you value non-partisan data, consider supporting our mission: buymeacoffee.com/TheLegisLedger