West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap for 21st Century Learners

i

Acknowledgements

The Office of Student Assessment Services wishes to acknowledge the help and support of the West Virginia Department of Education and the many participants who assisted with the creation of this document through research, writing, providing data, outlining the initiatives, editing, and reviewing for comments. The countless hours, shared insights, wisdom, and experiences of everyone who came together to make this report a reality, are greatly appreciated. Project Director Jan Barth, Ed.D. Editor-in-Chief Jorea Marple, Ed.D. Editors Jan Barth, Ed.D. Beth Cipoletti, Ed.D. Sandra Foster, M.A. Sandra Starr, M.A. Brenda West, M.A. Contributing Authors Jan Barth, Ed.D Sandra Starr, M.A. Research Assistance Sandra Starr, M.A. Lisa Youell, M.A. Data Aggregation Dennis Kennedy, M.S. Marshall Patton Jason Perdue, M.A. External Review Edvantia Inc. Cover Design Terri Myers

ii

Foreword

The West Virginia Department of Education is committed to closing the achievement gap among all student subgroups. In order to achieve this goal, it is essential to:

• disaggregate the data for the various racial and ethnic subgroups

• provide impact data to determine gains or losses

• determine successful programs and strategies for closing the achievement gaps

• develop findings based on the analyses of data

• offer recommendations for policies or programs

• implement a systems approach to professional development around scientifically research-based programs

The West Virginia Board of Education developed professional development goals based on a survey of needs with regard to student performance trend data, recommendations from the Regional Education Service Agencies, Office of Education Performance Audits, Center for Professional Development, and West Virginia Department of Education. As we move into the 21st century, the Board encourages entities that offer professional development to look at a successful 21st century learning skills and technology tools approach that is school embedded, continuous, and sustained within the local school system.

The Department established a Framework for High Performing School Systems which calls upon courageous local leadership to create student and school success. This framework addresses all of the elements that West Virginia educators believe to be necessary for effective and enduring educational reform.

This publication is the first West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap report prepared by the Division of Curriculum and Instructional Services, West Virginia Department of Education. It provides data and information to educators, parents, policymakers, and the general public to determine the progress of West Virginia subgroup populations based on a variety of indicators. These indicators include state and national assessments, advanced placement enrollment, advanced placement performance, attendance rate, graduation rate, college going rate, retention rate, Career/Technical Education (CTE) postsecondary placement data, and initiatives in West Virginia public schools.

These public school indicators are important considerations for the educational community as educators consider ways to select successful initiatives which support closing the achievement gap and bringing all children to mastery and beyond. “Failure Is Not an Option” (Blankstein, 2004).

Dr. Steven L. Paine State Superintendent of Schools

iii

Executive Summary

The goal of the West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap report is to update West Virginia educators as to the status and improvement of student achievement in West Virginia which may then be utilized as a basis for determining future educational decisions. In order to enhance the quality of performance, the following objectives were addressed 1) to review the literature and research factors that impact student performance; 2) to determine the status and progress of subgroup performance; 3) to review programs and strategies being used to close the achievement gap between subgroups in West Virginia public school initiatives; 4) to generate findings and conclusions as relates to student performance; and 5) to offer recommendations of considerations as a result of the findings identified.

The report, West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap, addresses the background, literature, data, and initiatives that are associated with student performance and the current concentrations on closing the achievement gap. The report is designed around the following ten sections:

Background

The background section addresses the history of the call for accountability from West Virginia to the federal level. It introduces the past and current federal and state legislation that drives the initiatives of student achievement and school improvement. This section reviews West Virginia Board policy, goals, and legislation addressing student performance and discusses the emerging organizational structures that address the 21st century skills gap of today’s students.

Introduction

The introduction addresses the challenges of closing the achievement gap in student performance at different operational levels. This section notes the accountability structures established by the West Virginia Board of Education through policy and initiatives, the West Virginia Legislature through code, West Virginia Department of Education through the design of the Framework for High Performing School Systems, and the plan for implementing 21st century skills.

Identified Achievement Gap Groupings and Performance Factors Impacting the Achievement Gap

This section reviews the current literature associated with factors that contribute to poor student achievement and/or the achievement gap. This section also reviews the subgroups, their associated achievement gaps, and the factors affecting performance which need to be improved by the collaborative efforts of national, state, and local leaders through the Partnership of 21st Century Skills.

iv

State Public Subgroup Impact Data (Assessment and Additional)

Data for assessments, including WESTEST, NAEP, ACT, ACT PLAN, ACT EXPLORE, SAT, CTE ACT WorkKeys, CTE End-of-Course Exams, and HSTW assessments are provided, as well as summaries and findings. Additional subgroup impact data included for review are Advanced Placement, Attendance Rate, Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, College Going Rate, Retention Rate, and CTE Placement in Employment or Postsecondary Education.

Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives in West Virginia

The West Virginia Board of Education and the West Virginia Department of Education have developed programs and strategies that are aimed at closing the achievement gap. This section provides a brief description of each program and/or strategy implemented to improve student achievement and close the gap for all students.

Conclusions

The section offers conclusions to review the changes in performance from the various state and national assessments discussed in the report. The conclusions drawn are based on State and National Public School Subgroup Impact Assessment Data, Additional Impact Data, and the Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives.

Recommendations

The recommendations are, respectively, based on the conclusions drawn in this report from each exam or area in which trend data have been collected, as well as for the Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives.

Appendix A

A copy of W. Va. State Code: Article 2E. High Quality Educational Programs. 18-2E-3g. Special demonstration professional development school projects for improving academic achievement

Appendix B

2004-2005 Second Month County Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity

Appendix C

A copy of the Framework for High Performing School Systems

v

Table of Contents

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Identified Achievement Gap Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Performance Factors Impacting the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 State Public School Subgroup Impact Assessment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 1: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Reading/Language Arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 1: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Reading/Language Arts Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Mastery for Grades 3-8 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 2: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 2: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Mastery for Grades 3-8 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 3: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Social Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 3: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Social Studies Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Mastery for Grades 3-8 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 4: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 4: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Mastery for Grades 3-8 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2003 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 5: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Reading Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 5: WV NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4 . . . . . . 41 Table 6: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Reading Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 6: National NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4. . . 43

Table 7: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Reading Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 7: WV NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8 . . . . . . 45 Table 8: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Reading Grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 8: National NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8 . . 47

Table 9: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 9: WV NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4 . . 49 Table 10: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 10: National NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

vi

Table 11: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 11: WV NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8. . 53 Table 12: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 12: National NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 13: 1996 and 2000 WV NAEP Science Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 13: WV NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4 . . . . 57 Table 14: 2000 National NAEP Science Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 14: National NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 15: 1996 and 2000 WV NAEP Science Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 15: WV NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8 . . . . 61 Table 16: 2000 National NAEP Science Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 16: National NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 17: 2000-2005 ACT Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 18: 2000-2005 ACT Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 19: 2000-2005 ACT Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 17: 2000-2005 ACT Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 18: 2000-2005 ACT Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 19: 2000-2005 ACT Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

ACT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 20: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 21: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 22: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 20: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 21: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 22: 2002-2005 ACT PLAN Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

ACT EXPLORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 23: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 24: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Table 25: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

vii

Figure 23: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Reading Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 24: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 25: 2000-2005 ACT EXPLORE Science Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 26: 2000-2005 SAT Verbal Mean Scale Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 27: 2000-2005 SAT Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 26: 2000-2005 SAT Verbal Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 27: 2000-2005 SAT Mathematics Mean Scale Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Career/Technical Education (CTE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 28: 2004-2005 CTE ACT WorkKeys: Academic Skills Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 29: 2004-2005 CTE End-of-Course Exams: Technical Skills Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 28: 2004-2005 CTE ACT WorkKeys: Academic Skills Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 29: 2004-2005 CTE End-of-Course Exams: Technical Skills Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

High Schools That Work (HSTW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 30: 2004-2005 High Schools That Work Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table 31: 2004-2005 High Schools That Work Mathematics Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 32: 2004-2005 High Schools That Work Science Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Additional State Public School Subgroup Impact Data Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 33: 2004-2005 Advanced Placement Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 34: 2004-2005 Advanced Placement Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 35: 2004-2005 Attendance Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 36: 2004-2005 Dropout Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 37: 2004-2005 Graduation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 38: 2004-2005 College Going Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 39: 2004-2005 Retention Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 40: 2004-2005 CTE Placement in Employment or Postsecondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . 99

viii

Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

9

Background

In 1994, Congress passed the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA, 1994) and broadened the accountability system under Chapter I (now renamed Title I). The companion law (2000), Goals 2000: Educate America Act, determined national educational goals and provided funds for state standards and assessment systems. All states were required to respond to the federal legislation within the legislatively mandated time frame; those who did not meet the time constraints were placed into a Compliance Agreement or on Time Line Waivers. This law was the first time that subgroup disaggregation became a requirement in the reporting of school, county, and state performance (Cowan, 2004).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) continues these requirements to provide assessment results in reading and mathematics for each school, county, and state. The results must be disaggregated by gender, each major racial and ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant status, student with disabilities as compared to non-disabled students, and economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged in State Report Cards as well as Accountability Reports. [Note: Gender and migrant status are only reported in the West Virginia Report Card data and are not used to calculate Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).]

Additionally, states may not use disaggregated data to report achievement if the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. Most states have chosen an “n” of 10 students or less and West Virginia is one of the states with a federally approved “n” of 10 or less for the reporting of data.

To determine this information, states must apply the Federal Educational Rights to Privacy Act requirements (FERPA, 1974). Each state is required to implement appropriate strategies to protect the privacy of individual students when reporting achievement results and determining if schools and districts are making AYP on the basis of subgroup data. The West Virginia Board of Education (2003) created, approved, and adopted Board Policy 4350, Procedures for Collection, Maintenance and Disclosure of Student Data, to address the federal FERPA requirement.

In 2003, the West Virginia Board of Education began work to establish the board mission and strategic goals through a yearlong process. A broad stakeholder subcommittee established objectives to achieve the goals and develop a strategic plan. The plan outlined timelines, activities, and responsibilities that would ensure 100 percent of the students in each subgroup would reach mastery level performance and beyond (proficient level according to federal language) by the year 2014, as per the NCLB legislation. Additionally, students must be taught by highly qualified teachers. The strategic goals are as follows:

• All students shall master or exceed grade level educational standards.

• All students shall receive a seamless pre-kindergarten through twenty curriculum designed and delivered with broad stakeholder involvement to promote lifelong learning.

• All students and school personnel shall develop and promote responsibility, citizenship, strong character, and healthful living.

10

• All students shall be educated in school systems that operate and deliver services efficiently and effectively.

• All students shall be educated by highly qualified personnel.

The Board also established a quarterly progress review based on increases in the following benchmarks:

• the percentage of students in each subgroup who score at or above mastery

• the number of students who achieve mastery or beyond on the writing assessment

• the approval of pre-K comprehensive plans

• the number of students in Advanced Placement classes

• the number of students completing college credit courses

• the number of students attending college

• the number of adults receiving literacy and job training

• health promotion initiatives

• distance learning courses

• participants in online professional development

• the number of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

• the number of National Board Certified Teachers and teachers with advanced degrees in the subject field

The Board of Education is committed to improving the educational proficiency of all students in West Virginia schools. These goals operationalize the Board’s legal authority to establish policies and rules, to ensure general supervision, and to provide general oversight and monitoring of a thorough and efficient educational system. The Board posted the strategic goals on June 11, 2004.

Schools and county school systems considered high performing, i.e., successful in bringing about learning for all, share many common characteristics. Among these characteristics are 1) a focus on developing instructional practices that are both consistent and pervasive with schools, and 2) the design of a curriculum management system that aligns instruction, curriculum, and assessment. These two broad research characteristics influenced revision and adoption of the 2004 West Virginia Board of Education Professional Development Goals.

The West Virginia Legislature required identification and adoption of annual professional development goals from the West Virginia Board of Education in W. Va. Code §18-2-23a. The Board developed goals based on a needs assessment of student performance impact data, recommendations from the Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs), Office of Education Performance Audits, Center for Professional Development, and West Virginia Department of Education.

The Board believes that education through sustained, continuous, and school embedded professional development models, local school districts will be provided professional development support and technical assistance to implement the following 2005-2006 professional development goals:

11

GOAL 1: Implement a standards-based curriculum model built on the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives. The model includes but is not limited to the following components:

• understanding the design elements of a standards-based curriculum

• use of effective processes for mapping and prioritizing the curriculum

• development and/or use of standards-based instructional units and standards-based lessons

• teaching focused on critical questions and enduring ideas

• alignment of instructional strategies, materials, resources, and evaluation method with instructional objectives

• use of performance descriptors, performance assessments, and rubrics in the evaluation of student mastery

• establishment of benchmarks and formative assessment to determine student progress and inform instruction

GOAL 2: Improve student achievement in reading and writing by implementing a research-based approach to the teaching of the West Virginia Reading/Language Arts Content Standards and Objectives that includes but is not limited to:

• development of reading comprehension, vocabulary development, and writing skills in all content areas

• development and use of consistent research-based reading and writing models in schools and school systems

• use of research-based instructional design and staffing models appropriate to the exceptionality of the special education students being addressed

GOAL 3: Improve student achievement in mathematics through a research-based approach to the teaching of the West Virginia Mathematics Content Standards and Objectives that includes but is not limited to:

• understanding the rationale and design of standards-based mathematics

• implementation of the district plan for improving mathematics competence

• development of teacher instructional skills in using a research-based, interactive problem-solving approach to teaching mathematics

GOAL 4: Ensure educators have the technological skills necessary to effectively perform their professional responsibilities and enhance student abilities to use 21st century tools. This work is accomplished through:

12

• use of appropriate technology tools, resources, and applications for teaching the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives

• development of student proficiency in the West Virginia Technology Content Standards and Objectives

• use of technology-based data systems to improve the instructional program and the teaching /learning process.

• use of technology management applications to increase efficiency and effectiveness of district, school, and classroom operations.

GOAL 5: Ensure that all students graduate from West Virginia public schools with 21st century knowledge and skills that include but are not limited to:

• information and communication skills

• thinking and problem-solving skills

• interpersonal and self-directional skills

• technology and communication tools

• learning tools

• global perspective based upon knowledge of culture and language

• civic/financial/personal responsibility

Through sustained, continuous, and school embedded professional development models, the Center for Professional Development will:

GOAL 6: Provide and expand Advanced Placement training for West Virginia’s educators.

GOAL 7: Provide the Beginning Teacher Mentor program for beginning teachers and their mentors in consultation with the West Virginia Department of Education Office of Professional Preparation and the state’s institutions of higher education.

GOAL 8: Provide additional professional development opportunities as approved by the State Board of Education in addendums to its Master Plan for Professional Development.

The Board encourages the delivery of the Professional Development Plan by offering options that enhance the ability of county school systems to impact widespread change to improve the learning and lives of all West Virginia students. The Board encourages entities that offer professional development to look at methods that are school embedded, continuous, and sustained within the local school system.

13

Furthermore, the 2004 West Virginia Legislature created House Bill 4669 (W.Va. Code §18-2E-3g); this bill became state code and mandates a special demonstration professional development school project to improve academic achievement as per Article 2E. High Quality Educational Programs. Article 2 states “achievement of all students can be dramatically improved when schools focus on factors within their control, such as the instructional day, curriculum, and teaching practices.” The bill defined the criteria for selection to participate in the demonstration project as, “(1) To select for participation in the demonstration project three public elementary or middle schools with significant enrollments of disadvantaged, minority and under-achieving students in each county in which the number of the African American students is five percent or more of the total second month enrollment; (2) To require cooperation from the county board of the county wherein a demonstration project school is located to facilitate program implementation and avoid any reallocation of resources for the schools that are disproportionate with those for other schools of the county of similar classification, accreditation status and federal Title I identification; and (3) To require specialized training and knowledge of the needs, learning styles and strategies that will most effectively improve the performance of disadvantaged, minority and under-achieving students in demonstration project schools” (W.Va. Code §18-2E-3g). The legislation also called for an “independent evaluation of the demonstration project, its various programs and their effectiveness on improving student academic achievement” (W.Va. Code §18-2E-3g). Please see Appendix A to review this section of W. Va. Code §18-2E-3g.

In November of 2005, West Virginia was the second state in the nation to enter into the Partnership of 21st Century Skills. The Partnership initiatives strives to implement those critical elements that support strategies, processes, programs, and activities to ensure West Virginia students have the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the 21st century world. Twenty- first century learning includes the six key elements: high rigor core subjects, 21st century learning skills, (information and communication, thinking and problem-solving, and interpersonal and self-directional skills), 21st century learning tools, 21st century assessment, 21st century learning through real world examples, 21st century content including global awareness, and financial, economic and civic literacy.

West Virginia, like many other states, has focused on improvement of student achievement and meeting NCLB requirements. This partnership focuses on enhancing the knowledge students learn in school with the knowledge and skills they will need in 21st century communities.

Under the leadership of the West Virginia State Superintendent, West Virginia Board of Education, and Legislature, the stage has been set for all students to reach mastery and beyond and to exceed the requirements of NCLB. Overall, goals have been set; infrastructures are being designed; legislation has been enacted; policies have been revised or developed; programs have been devised; new programs have been implemented; and professional development is being planned to accelerate the implementation of this broad sweeping reform initiative in West Virginia.

West Virginia is poised to create a world class educational system for the our young people. Future West Virginia graduates of 21st century schools will be the best prepared generation in our history. West Virginia educators, board members, legislators, and parents are up for the challenge. Learning for all—whatever it takes.

14

Introduction

Student achievement and/or school achievement and the factors that are related to achievement in West Virginia schools have become a major challenge for educational administrators and teachers over the past thirty years. The recurring theme and pressing challenge from the citizenry of West Virginia is how the school system can best provide a thorough and efficient education to all of the students who pass through the system (W.Va. Code §18-1-4; W.Va. Const. art XII, §2).

As a result of this challenge, the West Virginia Department of Education has placed deliberate thought, extensive research, and costly resources into fulfilling a court-mandated endeavor to create and implement a master plan of high quality educational standards throughout the West Virginia school system (1982). This master plan was completed in 1983 as a result of Pauley v. Kelly in 1979 (162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E. 2d 859), that included a state call for standards, assessment, accountability, and funding (Lewis & Hennen, 1991).

One of the highest profile measures of rigorous educational standards for school success is student achievement as measured nationwide for the purpose of accountability with a statistically defensible and readily available norm-referenced assessment and/or criteria- referenced assessment (Bidwell & Kasarda, 1975; Madaus, Airasian, & Kelleghan, 1980; Popham & Stanley, (n.d.)). In West Virginia, these assessments yield achievement data by subgroups which are regularly measured and reported to the educational community. Student performance is aggregated by subgroup into school, county, and state achievement results for 1) reporting purposes (West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320; W.Va. Code §18-2E-8b; W.Va. Code §18-2E-4; NCLB, 2001) in the West Virginia Report Card data and 2) accountability purposes used to determine school, county, and state status (West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320; NCLB, 2001) in the accountability reports.

Accountability and reporting of student performance are the major reasons student achievement has found its way to the forefront of the educational reform stage. Given the foregoing, the most provocative and compelling questions that today’s educational administrators must answer are “What are the factors that are related to student achievement in our schools?” and “How do schools close and eliminate the achievement gap for all students?” (Armor, Conry-Oseguera, Cox, King, McDonnell, Pascal, Pauly, & Zellman, 1976; Becker, 1987; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Caldas, 1987; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966; Edmonds, 1979; Jencks, Smith, Acland, Bane, Cohen, Ginstis, Heyes, & Michelson, 1972; McClellend, 1965; Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1996; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).

As in most school districts across the country, student achievement in West Virginia is enhanced through the development and teaching of rigorous state curriculum standards (West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510; 2520.1; 2520.2; 2520.3; 2520.4.). In West Virginia, those standards are called Content Standard and Objectives (CSOs). The CSOs are measured by statewide assessments in terms of performance levels: Distinguished, Above Mastery, Mastery, Partial Mastery, and Novice. The Alternate Assessment is defined by the last four performance levels: Above Mastery, Mastery, Partial Mastery, and Novice. These accountability assessments,

15

called the West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST), are aligned to the state standards/performance level descriptors, and the results are annually reported by subgroup for each school, county, and state in the West Virginia Report Card (W.Va. Code §18-2E-4) and Accountability Reports (NCLB Act 2001; West Virginia State Board Policy 2320). WESTEST is administered in grades 3 through 8 in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and in grade 10 in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science. The WESTEST data focuses on the results for reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science.

An early state call for accountability in 1979 was brought about through a court case, and subsequently, related legislation. An accountability office was mandated and funded by the legislature (W. Va. Code §18-2E-5). The new accountability process was to be monitored by an accountability office, which became the Office of Education Performance Audits. This office is managed by a director who reports directly to the West Virginia Board of Education.

In 1983, a national call for accountability gave rise to a United States Department of Education study, A Nation at Risk, which discussed problems in student performance on National Education Goal 3 and called for improved student achievement (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). “The Education Commission of the States (1998) determined that accountability systems collect, evaluate, and use data about students and schools to hold educators and others responsible for results” (p. 19). As the data were collected, legislators, state boards of education members, educators, newspaper reporters, political activists, parents, and real estate agents became keenly interested in how schools produce, determine, monitor, and report school achievement that is funded with their tax dollars (National Association of State Boards of Education, 1997).

In attempts to determine the factors related to student achievement, studies were conducted from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. These studies suggested that socioeconomic status is one of the most powerful predictors of student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966; Hanushek, 1989; Jencks et al., 1972; McClellend, 1965; Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972). In contrast, the effective schools research of the 1970s and 1980s provided evidence, and therefore hope, that student achievement was not solely predetermined by the family and home variables of a child. Certainly, educators believe that school inputs do make a difference in student learning and achievement. Also, this body of research determined that schools can successfully teach all children and provided confirmed empirical evidence linking student achievement to 1) instructional leadership, 2) clear and focused mission, 3) safe and orderly environment, 4) climate of high expectations, 5) frequent monitoring of student progress, 6) positive home-school relations, and 7) opportunity to learn and student time on task (Effective Schools Products, Ltd., 2001). The West Virginia Department of Education has designed a school improvement initiative, the Framework for High Performing School Systems, built around the effective school research and correlates; it also includes strategies for instruction, curriculum, school effectiveness, and student/parent support. (Please see http://wvachieves.k12.wv.us/docs/2004/Framework%201.pdf)

More recently, the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) supported educational accountability with regard to subgroup performance, “The accountability system attempts to assure adequate attention to these groups of students

16

by requiring the separate reporting of results for economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and by race/ethnicity” (p. 7). Such disaggregated reporting of results provides a mechanism for monitoring the achievement for lower performing groups and narrowing the achievement gaps (CRESST, 2005). The strongest evidence of states’ intent to implement accountability systems and close the achievement gap can be seen in the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) “Goals for Education” theme. SREB promotes continuing improvement and meeting standards, particularly when monitored by good accountability systems. By 2000, “every SREB state had taken action aimed at holding schools accountable” (SREB, 2004); this included West Virginia’s early action in 1982.

An emerging gap in student achievement receiving national attention in recent months is the profound gap between the knowledge and skills most student learn in schools today and what they need to know to be successful in the 21st century work places and communities. To address this gap, the Partnership of 21st Century Skills was formed by interested stakeholders. This is a unique organization of public and private leaders in education who have partnered with West Virginia to assist schools in fully addressing the needs of the 21st century learner. West Virginia has become the second state in the nation to join the Partnership of 21st Century Skills and develop a plan for addressing nine areas of focus:

• embrace a powerful vision of public education that includes 21st century skills

• align leadership, management, and resources with educational goals

• use the MILE Guide for 21st Century Skills to assess where schools are currently

• develop priorities of 21st century skills

• develop a professional development plan for 21st century skills

• make sure students have an equitable access to a 21st century education

• begin developing assessments to measure student progress in 21st century skills

• collaborate with outside partners

• plan collectively and strategically for the future (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, n.d.)

17

Identified Achievement Gap Groupings

Educators across the nation have long been inundated with research designed to lead them toward closing the achievement gap. The disparities between educational achievements among subgroups of students have narrowed to some extent over the past two decades, but remain defiantly resistant to further closure. The persistence of the inequalities and the grave consequences that face students, who are academically unprepared once they leave school, drive researchers to document the achievement gap, and as a result, provide potential responses to the dilemma. Although achievement test performance is a major indicator of student success and school performance, other important factors such as higher order reasoning ability, interpersonal and social skills, and cultural values may be equally important but are not as easily measured; therefore, little reliable data are available on their effects. Other limitations contributing to the imprecise gathering of data are performance on nonschool work, social roles, and cultural bias as it may appear on testing instruments.

Achievement gaps have historically been most profound with the following groups: Black-White, Hispanic-White, Limited English Proficient, Students with Disabilities, Economically Disadvantaged, and 21st century learning skills. This section will also discuss the factors impacting performance including pre-school, teacher quality, culturally responsive schools, and effective school correlates.

Black-White Subgroup

National trends have shown that the Black-White achievement differences remained fairly constant in the 1970s, fell appreciably during the 1980s, and essentially leveled off or increased somewhat in the 1990s. Michael Cook and William Evans (2000) attribute a full 75 percent of the convergence to changes within schools. Logically, a 75 percent convergence cannot be an indication of the narrowing NAEP scores with respect to school funding because that would indicate that either the Blacks were directly targeted or that this specific subgroup is more responsive to resource variations than other subgroups. Therefore, Cook and Evans attribute the 75 percent convergence to two factors: an increase in parental education and improvements in the relative quality of schools that Whites and Blacks attend.

Critics argue that redirected expenditures of federal monies, specifically Title I, have increased the resources available to predominately minority schools. Many feel this has resulted in improvements in these schools and therefore decreased the need to expand desegregation (Armor, 1992). The actual desegregation of schools may be a second source of convergence. (Jaynes & Williams, 1990). Eric Hanushek (2001) reported that over time, the interstate funding pattern did not intrinsically parallel the pattern of achievement results. However, Hanushek did note that the distribution pattern of aggregate funding did tend to mirror the reduction and then equalization of the achievement gap. Jaynes and Williams found that even when incorporating school quality changes into the analysis, there did not appear to be any significant changes in achievement that indicate variations in school factors such as facilities, teacher preparedness, or class size (1990).

There is little information on the influence of desegregation on student performance. Hanushek (2001) reported that the leveling off of school integration directly corresponds to the

18

invariable achievement gaps in the 1990s. Further analysis indicates, “the estimated independent effect of racial integration for the 1980s is nonetheless larger than the total reduction in the NAEP gap of 0.3 standard deviations, suggesting either that the estimated effects on achievement are too large or that there are offsetting effects in the opposite direction” (Hanushek, 2001, p. 26). Hanushek addressed the problematic method of analyzing the effects of racial integration on achievement without separating the data from the characteristics of a student’s background. Nonetheless, Cook and Evans (2000) attributed 25 percent to changing family and school characteristics. NAEP data on parental education showed a convergence in parents’ education. David Armor argues that this narrowing is responsible for about, “one-half of the overall convergence in test scores and suggests that a substantial part of the remaining half may be attributable to change in other socioeconomic factors” (Armor, 1992, p. 66). Jaynes and Williams (1990) observed considerable dissimilarities in socioeconomic status, background, and school performance. However, without reliable data on income, poverty status, and family structure, education data remain the primary statistical source for family background. Head Start, which fosters parental involvement through active participation in its centers and policymaking, has become an important and integral part of the Black community. Jaynes and Williams (1990) found the early educational programs, such as Head Start, had beneficial effects on the educational performance of Blacks. However, compensatory strategies, such as remediation and various “pull-out” programs appeared to strengthen and essentially broaden the achievement gap.

Hispanic-White Subgroup

Similar to the Black-White achievement gap, the Hispanic-White gap is also a consequence of multiple factors including social, educational, and economic discrepancies. Jaekyung Lee (2002) stated that the greatest academic improvement of the lower performing students in all subgroups was illustrated from 1978 to 1986. During this time, the Hispanic-White achievement gap showed a slight drop but did not narrow as much as its Black-White counterparts. Between 1975 and 1999, the Hispanic achievement gap illustrated a contradictory pattern of rising and falling achievement scores; the greatest academic improvement of the lower performing students in all subgroups was illustrated from 1978 to 1986 (Lee, 2002). It appears that these achievement gaps have remained somewhat static since 1982. The factors contributing to these particular gaps appear to be: nationality, culture and English language proficiency, school factors, parent involvement, organizational structure, and curriculum and instruction (Jesse, Davis, & Pokorny, 2004).

Latino students tend to perform at levels lower than their elementary and secondary Anglo peers. More specifically, children of Cuban and South American origins outperform Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Dominican Republic nationals (Pew Hispanic Center, 2004). This appears to stem from the educational background and culture of their homelands, which in turn directly affects the level of difficulty these students experience when transitioning from their native languages into English. Studies have shown that students whose native and/or dominant language is Spanish fare better when taught first in Spanish with a slow transition into English. With respect to immigrant youth, language acquisition and fluency in English naturally deter accurate assessment of abilities until academic bilingualism is reached.

19

Many studies have looked at the organizational structure of schools and its impact on students. Traditionally, Hispanic students have experienced, or have been reared to engage in, familial type bonds with teachers. Therefore, the United States school and classroom environments become additional hurdles in the acculturation process with immigrant youth. Since the native schooling and culture are tied closely to social and emotional processes, which are in turn associated with the students’ cognitive abilities, motivation and engagement become instructional issues which may negatively impact achievement. Hispanic students are most responsive to personal associations with adults, extended time for hands on activities, and mainstreamed instruction (Jackson & Davis, 2000). It appears the personalization of instruction and the environment make the greatest impact on these students.

Parental involvement among Hispanics remains low. Hispanic parents are disinclined to participate in their children’s education and in school activities mainly through the erroneous belief that they have no right to involvement. The parents’ conciliatory manners usually lead educators to the common misperception that Hispanic parents are uncaring and somewhat apathetic. Adding to this are obstacles to inclusion that have been unconsciously raised in the educational system, such as monolingual English communications and also the setting of meeting times during working hours. The importance of the family remains strong among Hispanics and their participation in the educational process must be increased in order to help decrease the achievement gap in this population (Morton, 1992).

Limited English Proficient Subgroup

Closely tied to the Hispanic-White achievement gap is the Limited English Proficient (LEP) achievement gap, with over 76 percent of the nation’s LEP students being native Spanish speakers (NCES, 2004a). This subgroup, which functions more like an instructional group, exhibited no significant changes in English language ability from 1979 to 1999; this directly contrasts with the previously mentioned data in which the greatest academic improvement of the lower performing students in all subgroups was shown from 1978 to 1986. It does, however, show support for Lee’s (2002) data that between 1975 and 1999, the Hispanic achievement gap revealed a contradictory pattern of rising and falling achievement scores. Problematic to closing this achievement gap are the discrepancies in the classification of LEP students, issues of assessment reliability and validity, and instability of the subgroup, as well as cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic factors innate to LEP students.

LEP is not an easily or well-defined uniform classification for students; it is filled with inconsistencies across different educational agencies which directly affect the reporting of achievement. The most important standards for determining LEP status are 1) being a non-native speaker of English and 2) scoring low on English proficiency exams (Abedi, 2004). Discrepancies in identifying and reporting LEP student data often result in classification and reclassification of students, thus, contributing to the inconsistencies. The sparseness of the LEP population, particularly in rural areas, contributes to both the problematic identification of LEP students (experiential), as well as to possible overgeneralization of achievement results for LEP students in denser populations.

The quality of measurement for LEP students further complicates defining this achievement gap. Studies show that achievement tests are constructed and normed for the

20

majority, or native English speakers from middle class families. These same measurements, when applied to the LEP population, have lower reliability and validity (Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003). Language factors affect performance and students will not show improvement until their level of academic English proficiency has increased sufficiently to allow them to interact effectively with the test, particularly in content areas with elevated language demand.

Stability, or lack thereof, is another major consideration for this subgroup. Students may exit (move out of) LEP classification as they become proficient. This is supportive for the high achieving students because the move allows them to receive more appropriate instruction; however, the result is that the LEP subgroup continually consists solely of low performing students. The movement appears to perpetuate the achievement gap instead of closing it as mandated by No Child Left Behind.

The cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic factors innate to LEP students vary according to specific cultures, societies, and languages. LEP students are an intricate subgroup that require additional reflection and research before any definitive answers can be given on defining, as well as closing the achievement gap.

Students With Disabilities Subgroup

The LEP subgroup and the students with disabilities (SWD) share two striking commonalities; both subgroups function as instructional groups and provide opportunities to exit the program. Students with disabilities may have the ability to leave the subgroup as they become proficient which leaves this subgroup with a recurrent membership of lower performing students. The achievement gap continues to persist with this subgroup; researchers argue that students with disabilities, particularly the severely and profoundly disabled, cannot learn academic content. Many accredit poor achievement results to shortages of highly qualified teachers. One must also consider that the measurement and the materials taught may not correspond. The last factor that garners much attention is the changing nature of the population in the subgroup (Herner, Demczyk, & Cox, 2005).

The National Center on Educational Outcomes studied the effects of transitions between regular and special education. John Bielinski and James Ysseldyke conducted a study in Texas that looked specifically at the dynamics of the subgroup and found that “roughly 20 percent of the special education population in a given year had experienced a status change the prior year” (Bielinski & Ysseldyke, 2000, p. 17). Disability status is dynamic, as with a speech/language disability, so students have the ability to move in and out of special education. Accurate interpretation of the magnitude of the achievement gap necessitates the delineation of these status changes as well as examination of the procedures used for entering and exiting these students (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2002). Thus far, the data have been noisy at best, conceivably due in part to the fact that the lowest performing regular education students replace the highest performing students with disabilities. The other important factor that affected performance levels was the exemption rate. Studies have shown that across grades the regular education exemption rates were almost static, but the special education exemptions dropped abruptly as did special education performance. Since special education exemptions were not random, the greater number of exemptions in the early grades resulted in a more exclusive group of higher achieving students

21

being tested; this falsely minimizes the gap (Bielinski & Ysseldyke, 2000). Another issue with exemptions is the manipulation of testing, for accountability purposes, by schools seeking exclusion of the lower performing students.

Overall, students with disabilities who participate in a special education program show improvement, although often moderate. The beneficial effects are much greater for students classified as learning disabled or emotionally disturbed in large part due to the fact that these conditions almost completely obstruct classroom performance (Hanushek et al., 2002). Improvement, moderate or otherwise, should then be qualified as adequate for continuation in the subgroup but insufficient for upward movement which would effectively illustrate dynamic changes in closing the achievement gap.

Economically Disadvantaged (Low Socioeconomic Status) Subgroup

The last subgroup to be discussed, economically disadvantaged (SES), is probably the most difficult to demarcate, and that is largely attributable to each subgroup being comprised of unique and shared variables, by one or more of the other subgroups; economically disadvantaged is particularly susceptible to collective associations. Race and ethnicity account for a significant amount of the differences in students’ test scores; however, race and ethnicity are more closely tied to the economically disadvantaged subgroup than to cognitive skills. With racial differences considered, students from different economically disadvantaged groups still show achievement at different levels. It is uncommon for study outcomes to report that economically disadvantaged differences account for all the racial and ethnic score gaps. “In all studies, a collection of SES related measures seems to account for a difference of about half a standard deviation in White-Black test scores (7-8 points), regardless of the assessments used or the populations studied” (Princeton University & Brookings Institution, 2005, p. 2).

Research has shown that continual poverty has injurious effects on school achievement, as well as on IQ and social and emotional functioning. Valerie Lee and David Burkam (2004) reported, “disadvantaged children start kindergarten with significantly lower cognitive skills than their more advantaged counterparts” (p. 1). The chronological age at which children begin kindergarten remains fairly invariable, but the cognitive levels differ significantly. Prior to entering kindergarten, “the average cognitive score of children in the highest SES group are 60 percent above the scores of the lowest SES group” (p. 1). Physical factors that can contribute to lower cognitive skills in this subgroup of preschoolers are low birth weight, lead poisoning, and inadequate nutrition. Another important aspect that further increases initial inequality is the lack of preschool literacy related activities, such as reading aloud to young children (Barton, 2003). This factor is often linked to parental education, participation, and availability. Inequalities appear to develop for this subgroup earlier than school age. School quality is consistently inferior for economically disadvantaged children than it is for their higher economically advantaged peers. Teacher behavior impacts achievement through interpersonal processes. Teachers tend to perceive poor and SES students less positively (e.g. having less maturity and self-regulatory skills) and to have lower achievement expectations for them than for non-poor children, largely on the basis of non-cognitive considerations (e.g. speech patterns and dress) (McLoyd, 1998). A number of social scientists have documented the relationship between the inequalities of school structure and the increased social stratification in educational outcomes that occur as children move through school. Schools that place students in classes on

22

the basis of ability level produce greater social class disparities in achievement between students in the same schools (Lee & Croninger, 1994).

Equity in education for all is a multifaceted philosophy that requires an in-depth examination of all factors, measurable and incalculable, that may affect the success of students. This literature review delineates the crucial factors that have augmented the achievement gap in West Virginia and nationwide. The allocation of resources (teacher-pupil ratio, teacher education, teacher experience, teacher certification, and certification test scores), school factors, and family background have a direct correlation to the achievement gap in all subgroups.

21st Century Learning Skills

As technology increases in importance and society becomes more dependent upon its use, the knowledge and skills needed to successfully maneuver the digital divide and to be competitive professionally and globally become more complex to acquire. A rapidly emerging achievement gap in the United States is between the knowledge and skills today’s students learn in school and what they are expected to know and draw upon in order to be contributing members of the 21st century community. Weak academic standards and limited continual utilization of modern technology have blended to create a gap in today’s schools. A comparison of our educational system to those of other nations sheds light upon this growing gap.

Research from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed the Group of Eight (G8) countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are among the most economically developed in the world. In 2001, all of the G8 countries, except for the Russian Federation had close to universal participation in formal education for youth ages 5 to 14. The NCES noted that participation in formal education tends to be high until the end of compulsory education for all G8 countries. Conversely, sixty-four percent of United States children, ages 3-5, were enrolled in center-based preschool and primary education in 2001. The United States rate was lower than every other reporting G8 country, except for Canada (NCES, 2005).

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an assessment of the reading literacy of fourth grade students in 35 nations. In 2001, the average score for United States fourth grade students was 542 on the combined reading literacy scale. England had an average score was 553, France scored 525, the Russian Federation achieved 528, and Scotland scored 528. The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study also examined fourth grade students’ views on reading for enjoyment and appreciating books using a separate index. “All of the countries reporting data had a greater percentage of fourth-graders in the high category than the United States with the exception of England, whose percentage of fourth-graders was not measurably different from the corresponding percentage in the United States” (NCES, 2005). The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was used to measure the performance of 15-year-olds in reading, in 2000. On the combined reading literacy scale, there was no statistical difference in the performance of United States students with those in 19 of the 27 participating nations (NCES, 2004b).

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the 1999

23

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study – Repeat (TIMSS-R) were used to assess eighth grade students in mathematics and science in 38 nations. In 1999, the United States eighth grade mathematics students achieved higher than their peers in 17 other countries, performed the same as (no statistical difference) their peers in 6 countries, and performed lower than their peers in 14 nations. In science, the United States eighth grade students outperformed their peers in 18 nations, achieved at the same level (no statistical difference) as their peers in 5 countries, and achieved at lower levels than their peers in 14 nations, in 1999 (NCES, 2004b).

Another factor affecting the emerging gap is the use of technology in the school setting. Computers are extensively used in the workplace, and in 2003, 56 percent of all United States workers utilized computers. Higher frequencies of computer use are associated with higher levels of education and higher income levels (NCES, 2004b). Studies in 2003 showed 40 percent of high school graduates and 16 percent of high school dropouts used computers on the job as compared to 82 to 87 percent of degreed professionals using computers on the job. Although international comparisons are currently unavailable, in 1997, 83 percent of United States elementary and secondary students used computers at school. Impacting early use of technology is the socioeconomic status. “About 63 percent of students from families with an income of $75,000 or more used a computer at home for school work compared to 32 percent of students from families with incomes of $20,000 to $24,999” (NCES, 2004b).

Performance Factors Impacting the Achievement Gap

Preschool

Early childhood development directly impacts the achievement gap. Research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that racial/ethnic disparities pre-dated entrance to school. Between one third to one half of the Black and Hispanic children who entered kindergarten were already testing in the 25th percentile in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of Whites were in the highest percentile, but the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics in the 75th percentile was less than half that of the White figures. A follow-up study was conducted after these students had completed almost two full years of school. The results showed little change in the Black-White gap. However, the Hispanic-White gap did narrow from 5 to 3 points (on a scale averaging 50) in reading and 6 to 4 points in mathematics. Possible explanations for the decrease in the deficit could be acculturation to the United States and the acquisition of English (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).

There are clearly intellect-shaping factors in the lives of children before they enter school. David Armor examined the influences of cultural and environmental influences on racial variations in cognitive development. His study was the most comprehensive study of child development undertaken to date in the United States. The findings included 1) low birth weight babies lag behind others in intellectual development, 2) being born to a mother under the age of 18 has a strong negative impact on cognitive skills, and 3) children in single parent

24

households are at greater risk of behavioral and psychological problems (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).

Thus, the importance of a high quality preschool becomes one of the most effective means of closing the achievement gap. Studies have found that about half the gap in Black-White scores at the 12th grade could be attributed to differences already present in the first grade. Several longitudinal research studies have provided evidence that children who have attended high-quality preschool programs are better prepared academically and score higher on achievement tests. These same students also have lower retention rates, higher graduation rates, and increased job placement rates (Kober, 2001).

Teacher Quality

Not only subgroup membership affects the achievement gap, but other in-school factors do as well. Teacher quality, including preparedness, expectations, and professional development, directly impacts the effectiveness of classroom instruction and therefore the success of students. Current problems with teacher preparation programs are 1) colleges of education are incompatible with the ever changing needs of the 21st century K-12 schools; 2) greater importance is placed on pedagogy than content, which causes the foundation of a teacher’s knowledge to become less significant; and 3) the traditional teacher preparation programs create a barrier for individuals changing careers thus excluding many knowledgeable, highly qualified people from entering the field of education.

“The effectiveness of teachers has long-term consequences for students” (Laine, 2004, p. 1). Studies show that minority students are less likely than their peers to be taught by veteran, experienced, and highly qualified teachers. This appears to be one of the most critical variables underlying the achievement gap. “Minority students are substantially more likely than White students to be taught by teachers without college majors in the subjects they are teaching. Schools with high-poverty and high-minority enrollments have teachers with fewer years of experience, on average, than other schools, and also have higher rates of turnover” (Kober, 2001, p. 22). Kober goes on to report that teachers in districts with higher percentages of Blacks and Hispanics tend to have lower teacher certification exam scores than their colleagues in other districts. This is extremely significant because a correlation has been found between higher teacher certification exam scores and higher student achievement scores.

Very few researchers have been able to adequately measure “racial stereotype bias.” However, in the spring of 2001, a Harris poll found that 80 percent of teachers in schools with an enrollment of at least a two-thirds minority believed that all children could learn, as compared with 82 percent of those in schools with few minority students (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003, p. 196). The study also reported finding a greater level of pessimism in high-minority schools than in low-minority schools. With little scientific evidence as support, the theory assumes that negative perceptions of teachers influence the self-image of students who work and/or achieve accordingly.

Culturally Responsive Schools

A large body of research focuses on the administration and teaching practices of

25

schools that support large concentrations of economically disadvantaged and minority students who do not perform as well as their White and higher economically advantaged peers. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projects that by 2008, 41 percent of all students will be ethnic minorities, but only 5 percent of the teachers will be ethnic minorities (Kusimo, Ritter, Busick, Ferguson, Trumbull, & Solano-Flores, 2000). According to the NW Regional Educational Laboratory, although schools are often designed to provide a uniform education to all students, the absence of a familiar connection between the ethnic minority child’s home culture and the school may interfere with the child’s ability to function capably in the educational setting. Specifically compounding the difficulties the child experiences are cultural disparities in values, social interaction, and linguistic and cognitive styles (2006).

The issue of contrasting value systems must be looked at prior to addressing the needs of the students. The United States is a individualistic society but many of the recent immigrants, especially those from rural backgrounds, follow more collective value systems (success of the group). To develop culturally responsive schools and teaching, values and the cultural knowledge of the students must be validated. The educational approach must be comprehensive, multidimensional, transformative, and emancipatory (Gay, 2000). Researchers acknowledge that there is no definitive answer on how to create a culturally responsive system but generally agree that 1) data initially lay the groundwork to identify need and ultimately show effect; 2) instruction must be the focus; 3) a connection should be forged between the students and the adults in the building; and 4) everyone must believe that all students can and will learn (Education Trust, 2005b).

The Education Trust states, “Today only 68 out of 100 entering ninth-graders will graduate from high school on schedule. Fewer than 20 will graduate on time from college. Meanwhile, 80 percent of the fastest-growing jobs will require some postsecondary education” (Education Trust, 2005a, p. 3). The implications for the ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged students are grave when one considers the current frameworks around which schools are structured. With greater significance being placed on educational outcomes, “The nation’s governors have put high school reform at the top of their agendas, charging their association — the National Governors Association — with energizing a multi-year effort to overhaul high school education” (Education Trust, 2005b). The challenge is to identify and then find a way to close the cultural gaps that have such profound influences on learning, not only in high school but also in all grade levels.

Effective Schools Correlates

Beginning in the 1970s, a new line of thought surfaced in the literature with regard to the factors that are related to student and school achievement. This thinking not only seriously considers home background variables but also allows for the school’s internal workings as factors that influence student achievement (Cuban, 1984). Furthermore, the most current school organizational and effective schools research has proven that school factors are positively related to student achievement. The effective schools correlates are as follows:

1. Clear visions, communication, knowledge of quality instruction, supervision of instructional practices, and purposeful leadership are some of the characteristics associated with instructional leadership and student achievement (Blum, Butler,

26

& Olson,1987; Hallinger Murphy, 1987; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Neufeld & Freeman, 1992; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995).

2. Effective schools have a clear and focused mission which the staff shares and understands in terms of the commitment to the school’s goals which promotes student achievement (Blum, Butler, & Olson, 1987; Edmonds, 1979).

3. A safe and orderly environment is necessary to enhance learning. Effective schools are orderly, purposeful, and free from the threat of physical harm; they engage students in both the teaching and learning processes, as well as provide the social aspects of a safe learning environment thereby increasing student achievement (Edmonds, 1979; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Mayer, Mullens, Moore, & Ralph, 2000; Neufeld & Freeman, 1992; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995).

4. A climate of high expectations is the school’s drive for academic excellence. There are several studies that positively relate high expectations to student achievement, i.e. 90/90/90 schools and Comer Process (SDP) (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy et al, 1991; Shouse & Brinson, 1995).

5. Frequently monitored student performance is one of the best methods to gain the largest and most lasting gains in student performance (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1976; Flockton & Crooks, 1998; Kumar, 1991; Marizano, 2003; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997;, Walberg, 1999).

6. Positive home-school relations make a difference in student success, improve student learning, foster a culturally responsive learning environment, and positively impact student achievement and staffing considerations which result in engaging Latino families (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Mattingley, Prislin, Mackenzie, Rodriques, & Kayzar, 2002; Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001).

7. In effective schools, the opportunity to learn and student time on task are part of the teacher’s allocation of instructional time in essential curricular areas. Students are actively engaged in whole class or large groups and teacher directed planned learning activities which positively relate to improved student achievement (Brewer & Stacz, 1996; Burstein, 1993; Marzano, 2001).

It is very interesting that socioeconomic status is still currently presented as one of the leading indicators of academic achievement. However, it is most encouraging to see that various school factors are garnering greater respect for having a positive correlation to achievement; this is not always perceptible with socioeconomic status (Bryk et al., 1993; Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Shouse & Brinson, 1995).

In West Virginia, the educational administrative community is aware of the impact of socioeconomic status upon student achievement. Because the administrators are held accountable for school achievement (W.Va. Code §18-3A-2b; West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320), they are especially interested in embedding the factors within their schools that can improve student achievement and, consequently, school achievement. The effective schools correlates of 1) instructional leadership, 2) clear and focused mission, 3) safe and orderly environment, 4) climate of high expectations, 5) frequent monitoring of student progress, 6) positive home-school relations, and (7) opportunity to learn and student time on task (Effective

27

Schools Products, Ltd., 2001) are the elements that impact student learning (Blum, Butler, & Olson, 1987; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Marzano, 1998; Neufeld & Freeman, 1992; Sammons, 1999; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). This body of research creates a clear message, supported by many studies, that “the extent to which the Correlates are in place in a school has a dramatic, positive effect on student achievement” (Effective Schools Products, Ltd., 2001, p. 3).

28

State Public School Subgroup Impact Assessment Data Criterion

The tables and charts in this section provide trend data and summaries by student performance levels and subgroups for the assessment areas. A description of each assessment precedes the tables and figures that report the statistical information. The following assessment categories and corresponding tables, charts, and findings begin on page 30.

West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST)

WESTEST data charts address WESTEST performance and do not include the Alternate Assessment student performance results. WESTEST includes the regular, breach, Braille, and large print test forms. WESTEST data are reported for all students assessed, regardless of attendance patterns. The data analyses contained in the West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap were completed in January 2006; depending on the date the results were aggregated, slight variations may have occurred due to ongoing corrections of student category (see Tables 1-2 and Figures 1-2). [Note: WESTEST is part of the statewide assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV– MAP).]

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — WV and National

NAEP data charts address NAEP aggregate student performance by grade level and content area. NAEP data are reported for all of the students in the sample: NAEP sample sizes run from 2,500 students to 3,000 per grade level and content area (see Tables 3-6 and Figures 3-6). [Note: NAEP is part of the federal assessment system, National Assessment of Educational Progress.]

ACT

The ACT measures academic development that relies largely on the students’ abilities to apply the content knowledge and reasoning skills acquired in their coursework to high-level tasks. These tasks often require the integrations of proficiencies and skills from various high school courses. [Note: ACT is not a part of the statewide assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP).]

ACT PLAN

PLAN is a norm-referenced assessment that generates measures of English, mathematics, reading, and science skills for 10th grade students. Information about students' educational career plans, interests, high school course work plans, and self-identified needs for assistance are also gathered and reported. The purpose of this assessment is to provide career awareness and exploration activities; additionally, it is used by 10th graders to revise their individualized plans for the 11th and 12th grades. [Note: PLAN is part of the statewide assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP).]

29

ACT EXPLORE

EXPLORE is a norm-referenced assessment that generates measures of English, mathematics, reading, and science skills for 8th grade students. In addition, information about students' educational career plans, interests, high school course work plans, and self-identified needs for assistance are gathered and reported. Assessment results assist students, parents, and educators in decision-making about educational career plans, interests, and high school course work plans. [Note: EXPLORE is part of the statewide assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP).]

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)

The SAT Reasoning Test is a measure of the critical thinking skills (verbal and mathematics) needed for academic success in college. The SAT assesses the ability to analyze and solve problems. The SAT is typically taken by high school juniors and seniors. It is administered seven times a year in the United States, Puerto Rico, and United States Territories, and six times a year overseas. [Note: The SAT is not a part of the statewide assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP).]

Career/Technical Education (CTE) Assessments

The West Virginia Career and Technical Education prepares students for the workforce and further education through educational programs and training offered at career and technical education sites throughout the state. The federal Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Act of 1998 requires states to assess and report career/technical student progress related to a number of core indicators of performance. The core indicators that are relevant measures of student achievement in terms of assessment tools used by West Virginia are ACT WorkKeys and End-of-Course exams.

High Schools That Work (HSTW) Assessments

High Schools That Work (HSTW) is a national program designed to improve the way all high school students are prepared for work and further education. The assessment data included in this report are from the 2004 High Schools That Work student assessments in reading, mathematics, and science.

Organization of Assessment Data

The identified assessment measures and corresponding data are presented in the following manner:

• description of each assessment measure • table that reports statistical information for each assessment measure • summary of results based on analysis of solid data • tables/figures depicting summary results • findings noted

30

WESTEST

The West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) is a required assessment in grades 3-8 and 10 under No Child Left Behind (2001), W.Va. State Code §18-2E-2, and West Virginia State Board Policy 2340. The assessment is administered every year to all students in grades 3-8 and 10 and results are reported by the federally required subgroups.

WESTEST was designed to measure mastery of the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). Students are assessed and placed into one of the five performance levels: Distinguished, Above Mastery, Mastery, Partial Mastery, and Novice. Students are placed into performance levels, depending on their scores, for each of the following areas:

Reading/Language Arts Test measures vocabulary and reading comprehension skills for gaining information, performing tasks and reading for literacy experience, and writing skills to include language mechanics and language expression in the content standards of reading and writing.

Mathematics Test measures conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, problem solving, and mathematical skills in the content standards of numbers and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, data analysis, and probability.

Social Studies Test measures conceptual understanding and social studies skills in the content standards of citizenship, civics/government, economics, geography, and history.

Science Test measures conceptual understanding, scientific investigation, and practical reasoning in the content standards of history and nature of science, science as inquiry, unifying themes, science subject matter/concepts, scientific design and application, and science in personal and social perspectives.

Alternate Performance Task Assessments (APTA) is being developed to include strong technical quality. Students are assessed and placed into one of the four performance levels: Above Mastery, Mastery, Partial Mastery, and Novice. The first administration will be May 2006.

West Virginia educators were directly involved in the design and development of the CSOs, the foundation of WESTEST. They worked under the leadership of the Office of Instruction. The Office of Student Assessment Services, in collaboration with the Offices of Instructional Services and Special Education Programs and Services, educators, community members, statisticians, and CTB/McGraw-Hill to develop a quality assessment tool which aligned to the content of the CSOs and to the rigor of the performance descriptors.

Note:

Abbreviations contained throughout tables and figures in the WESTEST section include: All All West Virginia students ED Economically Disadvantaged (Low Social Economic Status) LEP Limited English Proficient Nat. Am. Native American SWD Students with Disabilities

31

20

04 A

ND

200

5 W

ESTE

ST R

EAD

ING

/LA

NG

UA

GE

AR

TS (

Agg

rega

te o

f pe

rfor

man

ce f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

):

Show

s th

e 1)

pe

rcen

tage

of

stud

ents

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Mas

tery

leve

l by

subg

roup

, an

d 3)

the

ch

ange

in p

erfo

rman

ce fro

m 2

004

to 2

005

by s

ubgr

oup.

Ta

ble

1: 2

004

and

2005

WES

TEST

Rea

din

g/La

ngu

age

Art

s

WES

TEST

RLA

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Dis

tin

guis

hed

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

8.

15

10.1

9 6.

24

8.34

2.

85

7.30

6.

82

22.9

8 3.

73

0.85

2.

61

11.0

2 20

05

8.12

10

.11

6.24

8.

33

2.78

5.

46

10.4

3 20

.52

3.88

0.

82

5.17

14

.22

Chan

ge

-0.0

3 -0

.08

0.00

-0

.01

-0.0

7 -1

.84

3.61

-2

.46

0.15

-0

.03

2.56

3.

20

WES

TEST

RLA

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Abo

ve M

aste

ry f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2004

25

.74

29.0

3 22

.65

26.2

1 15

.56

22.6

1 26

.14

36.4

9 18

.57

5.65

14

.05

19.9

6 20

05

26.9

6 30

.41

23.6

9 27

.43

17.4

7 18

.74

23.3

1 38

.55

19.8

6 5.

94

13.7

9 25

.67

Chan

ge

1.22

1.

38

1.04

1.

22

1.91

-3

.87

-2.8

3 2.

06

1.29

0.

29

-0.2

6 5.

71

WES

TEST

RLA

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

43

.34

44.0

9 42

.65

43.2

5 47

.17

43.9

0 42

.05

29.2

1 46

.11

26.4

5 44

.53

37.7

7 20

05

43.7

5 44

.18

43.3

3 43

.54

48.7

6 48

.93

44.7

9 29

.89

47.0

4 28

.55

56.9

0 35

.67

Chan

ge

0.41

0.

09

0.68

0.

29

1.59

5.

03

2.74

0.

68

0.93

2.

10

12.3

7 -2

.10

WES

TEST

RLA

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Par

tial

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

17

.58

13.8

8 21

.03

17.1

3 26

.56

20.3

3 20

.45

9.24

23

.63

41.5

2 27

.49

22.1

8 20

05

16.4

7 12

.78

19.9

7 16

.07

24.8

1 19

.59

17.7

9 8.

30

22.1

3 41

.28

18.9

7 17

.22

Chan

ge

-1.1

1 -1

.10

-1.0

6 -1

.06

-1.7

5 -0

.74

-2.6

6 -0

.94

-1.5

0 -0

.24

-8.5

2 -4

.96

WES

TEST

RLA

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Nov

ice

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

5.

19

2.80

7.

44

5.07

7.

86

5.86

4.

55

2.08

7.

96

25.5

3 11

.32

9.08

20

05

4.70

2.

52

6.77

4.

62

6.18

7.

28

3.68

2.

73

7.09

23

.41

5.17

7.

22

Chan

ge

-0.4

9 -0

.28

-0.6

7 -0

.45

-1.6

8 1.

42

-0.8

7 0.

65

-0.8

7 -2

.12

-6.1

5 -1

.86

WES

TEST

RLA

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve M

aste

ry f

or G

rade

s 3

-8 a

nd

10

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2004

77

.23

83.3

1 71

.54

77.8

65

.58

73.8

1 75

.01

88.6

8 68

.41

32.9

5 61

.19

68.7

5 20

05

78.8

3 84

.70

73.2

6 79

.3

69.0

1 73

.13

78.5

3 88

.96

70.7

8 35

.31

75.8

6 75

.56

Chan

ge

1.60

1.

39

1.72

1.

50

3.43

-0

.68

3.52

0.

28

2.37

2.

36

14.6

7 6.

81

32

77

.23

83.3

1

71.

54 77.

8

65.5

8

73.8

1

75.0

1 88.6

8

68.

41

32.9

5

61.1

9

68.

7578.8

3 84.7

73.2

6 79.3

69.

01

73.1

3

78.5

3

70.

78

35.

31

75.8

6

75.5

688.9

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2004

2005

A summary of the results from WESTEST Reading/Language Arts (Table 1) follows: • Distinguished level performance showed an increase in the Native

American, Economically Disadvantaged, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Above Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Migrant subgroups.

• Partial Mastery level performance showed a decrease in all subgroups. • Novice* level performance showed decreases in all subgroups except the

Hispanic and Asian subgroups. * An increase in the Novice category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Partial Mastery level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category. Figure 1, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement At or Above Mastery (Mastery, Above Mastery, Distinguished) for the Reading/Language Arts Content Standards (see Figure 1). These data are presented in the last section of Table 1 labeled “2004 and 2005 WESTEST Reading/Language Arts” (see Table 1). Figure 1: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Reading/Language Arts Subgroup Impact Data for Grades 3-8 and 10: Percent At or Above Mastery

Findings: The greatest increase was shown in the Migrant subgroup. Increases were shown in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups. A slight decrease was shown in the Hispanic subgroup.

33

2

00

4 A

ND

20

05

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

(Agg

rega

te o

f pe

rfor

man

ce f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

): S

how

s t

he 1

) p

erce

ntag

e o

f st

uden

ts in

eac

h pe

rfor

man

ce le

vel b

y su

bgro

up,

2) p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s A

t or

Abo

ve M

aste

ry le

vel b

y su

bgro

up,

and

3) t

he c

hang

e in

pe

rfor

man

ce fr

om 2

004

to 2

005

by s

ubgr

oup.

Ta

ble

2 :

200

4 an

d 20

05 W

ESTE

ST M

ath

emat

ics

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Dis

tin

guis

hed

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

4.

77

4.20

5.

32

4.82

1.

46

4.32

6.

21

25.2

0 1.

99

0.69

2.

62

12.0

7 20

05

6.53

5.

92

7.11

6.

61

2.74

5.

03

9.82

26

.63

3.20

1.

22

3.45

18

.67

Chan

ge

1.76

1.

72

1.79

1.

79

1.28

0.

71

3.61

1.

43

1.21

0.

53

0.83

6.

60

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at A

bove

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

17

.84

17.6

2 18

.08

18.2

4 9.

30

14.8

7 15

.82

29.6

0 11

.80

4.42

10

.96

16.7

2 20

05

20.4

7 20

.46

20.4

7 20

.9

10.9

5 17

.34

18.4

0 32

.22

14.5

4 5.

48

13.7

9 24

.78

Chan

ge

2.63

2.

84

2.39

2.

66

1.65

2.

47

2.58

2.

62

2.74

1.

06

2.83

8.

06

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

45

.20

46.9

4 43

.59

45.4

9 41

.32

43.7

6 45

.20

33.6

4 44

.10

23.3

6 37

.61

34.1

4 20

05

46.1

2 47

.67

44.6

5 46

.24

45.9

9 43

.04

46.6

3 31

.03

46.6

7 27

.36

46.5

5 33

.33

Chan

ge

0.92

0.

73

1.06

0.

75

4.67

-0

.72

1.43

-2

.61

2.57

4.

00

8.94

-0

.81

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at P

arti

al M

aste

ry fo

r G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2004

25

.07

25.3

9 24

.73

24.5

6 36

.12

29.7

4 25

.42

9.36

31

.59

40.0

1 33

.5

26.3

7 20

05

20.6

0 20

.64

20.5

6 20

.14

30.4

5 26

.34

18.4

0 7.

85

26.5

5 37

.78

27.5

9 17

.11

Chan

ge

-4.4

7 -4

.75

-4.1

7 -4

.42

-5.6

7 -3

.40

-7.0

2 -1

.51

-5.0

4 -2

.23

-5.9

1 -9

.26

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Nov

ice

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

7.

11

5.85

8.

28

6.89

11

.79

7.31

7.

34

2.20

10

.53

31.5

2 15

.32

10.6

9 20

05

6.28

5.

30

7.20

6.

11

9.87

8.

24

6.75

2.

26

9.03

28

.15

8.62

6.

11

Chan

ge

-0.8

3 -0

.55

-1.0

8 -0

.78

-1.9

2 0.

93

-0.5

9 0.

06

-1.5

0 -3

.37

-6.7

0 -4

.58

WES

TEST

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

an

d 1

0

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

67

.81

68.7

6 66

.99

68.5

5 52

.08

62.9

5 67

.23

88.4

4 57

.89

28.4

7 51

.19

62.9

3 20

05

73.1

2 74

.05

72.2

3 73

.75

59.6

8 65

.41

74.8

5 89

.88

64.4

1 34

.06

63.7

9 76

.78

Chan

ge

5.31

5.

29

5.24

5.

20

7.60

2.

46

7.62

1.

44

6.52

5.

59

12.6

0 13

.85

34

67

.81

68.7

6

66.

99

68.5

5

52.0

8 67.2

3

57.8

9

28.

47

51.1

9 62.

9373.1

2

74.0

5

72.2

3

73.7

5

59.6

8

65.

41 74.8

5 89.8

8

64.

41

34.0

6

63.

79 76.7

888.4

4

62.

95

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hisp

anic

Nat.

Am.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f Stu

dent

s

20042005

A summary of the results from WESTEST Mathematics (Table 2) follows: • Distinguished level performance showed an increase in the All, Female,

Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Above Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Native American, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Migrant subgroups.

• Partial Mastery level performance showed a decrease in students in all the subgroups.

• Novice level performance showed a decrease in all subgroups except the Hispanic and Asian subgroups.

* An increase in the Novice category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Partial Mastery level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category. Figure 2, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement At or Above Mastery (Mastery, Above Mastery, Distinguished) for the Mathematics Content Standards (see Figure 2). These data are presented in the last section of Table 2 labeled “2004 and 2005 WESTEST Mathematics” (see Table 2). Figure 2: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data for Grades 3-8 and 10: Percent At or Above Mastery

Findings: The greatest increases were shown in the Migrant and LEP subgroups. Increases were also shown in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups.

35

W

ESTE

ST S

ocia

l Stu

dies

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Dis

tin

guis

hed

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

11

.13

14.4

0 8.

02

11.3

1 4.

54

9.24

5.

26

37.4

0 5.

52

29.0

0 1.

68

29.0

0 20

05

10.9

6 14

.39

7.74

8.

33

4.21

10

.53

7.41

37

.01

5.55

0.

35

5.26

25

.37

Chan

ge

-0.1

6 -0

.01

-0.2

8 -2

.98

-0.3

2 1.

28

2.14

-0

.40

0.04

-2

8.65

1.

90

-3.6

3 W

ESTE

ST S

OC

IAL

STU

DIE

S S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

bove

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

27

.16

31.6

5 22

.86

27.6

5 17

.91

21.8

5 31

.58

26.7

2 19

.79

23.0

0 13

.45

23.0

0 20

05

27.5

6 31

.94

23.4

3 27

.45

19.5

3 17

.29

44.4

4 33

.07

20.0

7 3.

37

14.0

4 21

.64

Chan

ge

0.40

0.

29

0.57

-0

.20

1.61

-4

.56

12.8

7 6.

35

0.28

-1

9.63

0.

59

-1.3

6 W

ESTE

ST S

OC

IAL

STU

DIE

S S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at M

aste

ry f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

42

.09

41.6

7 42

.53

41.8

3 50

.34

44.5

4 57

.89

25.9

5 46

.06

28.0

0 41

.18

28.0

0 20

05

41.4

1 40

.82

41.9

6 43

.58

48.7

2 47

.37

37.0

4 22

.05

45.4

8 27

.62

38.6

0 32

.84

Chan

ge

-0.6

8 -0

.85

-0.5

7 1.

76

-1.6

2 2.

83

-20.

86

-3.9

1 -0

.58

-0.3

8 -2

.58

4.84

W

ESTE

ST S

OC

IAL

STU

DIE

S S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

arti

al M

aste

ry f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

16

.22

10.7

3 21

.39

15.8

8 21

.54

23.5

3 5.

26

9.16

23

.23

19.0

0 35

.29

19.0

0 20

05

16.9

5 11

.54

22.0

5 16

.04

23.5

4 23

.31

11.1

1 7.

09

23.9

5 51

.93

38.6

0 19

.40

Cha

nge

0.73

0.

81

0.65

0.

16

1.99

-0

.22

5.85

-2

.07

0.72

32

.93

3.30

0.

40

WES

TEST

SO

CIA

L ST

UD

IES

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Nov

ice

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

3.

41

1.55

5.

20

3.34

5.

67

0.84

0.

00

0.76

5.

40

1.00

3.

36

1.00

20

05

3.12

1.

31

4.82

4.

59

4.01

1.

50

0.00

0.

79

4.95

16

.74

1.75

0.

75

Chan

ge

-0.2

9 -0

.24

-0.3

7 1.

25

-1.6

6 0.

66

0.00

0.

02

-0.4

6 15

.74

-1.6

1 -0

.25

WES

TEST

SO

CIA

L ST

UD

IES

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

Mas

tery

an

d A

bove

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

80

.37

87.7

2 73

.41

80.7

8 72

.79

75.6

3 94

.74

90.0

8 71

.36

80.0

0 56

.30

80.0

0 20

05

79.9

3 87

.15

73.1

3 79

.37

72.4

6 75

.19

88.8

9 92

.13

71.1

0 31

.33

57.8

9 79

.85

Chan

ge

-0.4

4 -0

.57

-0.2

8 -1

.41

-0.3

3 -0

.44

-5.8

5 2.

05

-0.2

6 -4

8.67

1.

59

-0.1

5

2004

AN

D 2

005

WES

TEST

SO

CIA

L ST

UD

IES

(Agg

rega

te o

f pe

rfor

man

ce f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

):

Show

s t

he 1

) p

erce

ntag

e o

f st

uden

ts in

eac

h pe

rfor

man

ce le

vel b

y su

bgro

up,

2) p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s A

t or

Abo

ve M

aste

ry le

vel b

y su

bgro

up,

and

3) t

he c

hang

e in

pe

rfor

man

ce fr

om 2

004

to 2

005

by s

ubgr

oup.

Ta

ble

3 :

20

04

an

d 2

00

5 W

ESTE

ST S

ocia

l Stu

dies

36

A summary of the results from WESTEST Social Studies (Table 3) follows:

• Distinguished level performance showed an increase in the Hispanic, Native American, Economically Disadvantaged, and Migrant subgroups.

• Above Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, Black, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Migrant subgroups.

• Mastery level performance showed an increase in the White, Hispanic, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Partial Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Native American, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Novice level performance showed a decrease in all subgroups except the White, Hispanic, Asian, Students with Disabilities, and Migrant subgroups.

* An increase in the Novice category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Partial Mastery level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category. Figure 3, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement At or Above Mastery (Mastery, Above Mastery, Distinguished) for the Social Studies Content Standards (see Figure 3). These data are presented in the last section of Table 3 labeled “2004 and 2005 WESTEST Social Studies” (see Table 3). Figure 3: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Social Studies Subgroup Impact Data for Grades 3-8 and 10: Percent At or Above Mastery

Findings: The greatest increases were in the Asian and Migrant subgroups. Increase were not shown in any other subgroup. Decreases occurred in the Male, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups. The largest decrease was in the Students with Disabilities subgroup.

80.3

7

87.7

2

73.4

1

80.7

8

72.7

9

75.6

3

94.

74

90.0

8

71.3

6 80 80

79.

93 87.1

5

73.1

3

79.

37

72.4

6

75.1

9 88.8

9

92.1

3

71.1

31.3

3

79.

85

56.

357

.89

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hisp

anic

Nat.

Am.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f S

tud

ents

2004

2005

37

20

04 A

ND

200

5 W

ESTE

ST S

CIE

NC

E (A

ggre

gate

of

perf

orm

ance

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10):

Sh

ows

the

1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in

each

per

form

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Mas

tery

leve

l by

subg

roup

, an

d 3)

the

cha

nge

in p

erfo

rman

ce

from

200

4 to

200

5 by

sub

grou

p.

Tabl

e 4

: 2

00

4 a

nd

20

05

WES

TEST

Sci

ence

WES

TEST

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Dis

tin

guis

hed

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

5.

62

4.25

6.

96

5.69

1.

72

8.40

0.

00

21.3

7 2.

20

18.0

0 3.

36

29.0

0 20

05

5.97

4.

43

7.43

9.

90

2.08

3.

01

7.69

18

.90

2.67

0.

68

5.26

25

.37

Chan

ge

0.35

0.

19

0.47

4.

21

0.35

-5

.40

7.69

-2

.48

0.46

-1

7.32

1.

90

-3.6

3 W

ESTE

ST S

CIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

bove

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

29

.41

27.9

9 30

.82

30.0

7 15

.40

21.0

1 31

.58

40.4

6 19

.97

34.0

0 21

.01

23.0

0 20

05

32.3

1 30

.72

33.8

1 32

.08

17.4

6 24

.81

38.4

6 51

.18

23.5

9 7.

50

15.7

9 21

.64

Chan

ge

2.90

2.

73

2.99

2.

01

2.06

3.

80

6.88

10

.72

3.61

-2

6.50

-5

.22

-1.3

6 W

ESTE

ST S

CIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at M

aste

ry f

or G

rade

s 3-

8 an

d 10

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P 20

04

47.2

7 51

.47

43.2

4 47

.23

49.7

7 51

.26

63.1

6 29

.01

51.4

5 32

.00

50.4

2 28

.00

2005

44

.07

48.1

5 40

.22

42.6

8 48

.44

45.8

6 42

.31

21.2

6 48

.47

38.4

0 57

.89

32.8

4 Ch

ange

-3

.20

-3.3

3 -3

.02

-4.5

5 -1

.33

-5.4

0 -2

0.85

-7

.75

-2.9

7 6.

40

7.47

4.

84

WES

TEST

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Par

tial

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

15

.39

14.7

2 15

.96

14.8

4 27

.59

15.1

3 5.

26

9.16

22

.47

11.0

0 21

.85

19.0

0 20

05

15.3

4 15

.11

15.5

7 13

.03

27.5

5 24

.06

11.5

4 8.

66

21.7

0 42

.41

17.5

4 19

.40

Chan

ge

-0.0

4 0.

39

-0.3

9 -1

.81

-0.0

4 8.

93

6.28

-0

.50

-0.7

8 31

.41

-4.3

0 0.

40

WES

TEST

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Nov

ice

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

2.

32

1.57

3.

03

2.18

5.

52

4.20

0.

00

0.00

3.

90

5.00

3.

36

1.00

20

05

2.30

1.

59

2.98

2.

31

4.47

2.

26

0.00

0.

00

3.57

11

.01

3.51

0.

75

Chan

ge

-0.0

1 0.

02

-0.0

5 0.

14

-1.0

5 -1

.95

0.00

0.

00

-0.3

3 6.

01

0.15

-0

.25

WES

TEST

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Mas

tery

for

Gra

des

3-8

and

10

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

82

.30

83.7

1 81

.02

82.9

8 66

.90

80.6

7 94

.74

90.8

4 73

.62

84.0

0 74

.79

80.0

0 20

05

82.3

5 83

.30

81.4

5 84

.66

67.9

8 73

.68

88.4

6 91

.34

74.7

3 46

.58

78.9

5 79

.85

Chan

ge

0.05

-0

.41

0.44

1.

67

1.09

-6

.99

-6.2

8 0.

50

1.10

-3

7.42

4.

16

-0.1

5

38

A summary of the results from WESTEST Science (Table 4) follows:

• Distinguished level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, White, Black, Native American, Economically Disadvantaged, and Migrant subgroups.

• Above Mastery level performance showed an increase in the All, Female, Male, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

• Mastery level performance showed a decrease in all subgroups except Students with Disabilities, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient.

• Partial Mastery level performance showed an increase in Female, Male, Hispanic, Native American, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Novice level performance showed a decrease in the All, Male, Black, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

* An increase in the Novice category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Partial Mastery level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category. Figure 4, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement At or Above Mastery (Mastery, Above Mastery, Distinguished) for the Science Content Standards (see Figure 4). These data are presented in the last section of Table 4 labeled “2004 and 2005 WESTEST Science” (see Table 4). Figure 4: 2004 and 2005 WESTEST Science Subgroup Impact Data for Grades 3-8 and 10: Percent At or Above Mastery

Findings: The greatest increase was shown in the White subgroup. Increases were also shown in the All, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Migrant subgroups. Decreases were shown in the Hispanic, Native American, and Students with Disabilities subgroups.

82.3

83.7

1

81.0

2

82.9

8

66.9 80

.67 9

4.74

90.8

4

73.6

2

84

74.7

9 80

82.3

5

83.3

81.4

5

84.6

6

67.9

8

73.6

8 88.4

6

91.3

4

74.7

3

46.

58

78.

95

79.

85

0102030405060708090

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hisp

anic

Nativ

eAs

ian EDSW

D

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f S

tud

ents

2004

2005

39

National Assessment of Educational Progress

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a required assessment in Reading and Mathematics under No Child Left Behind (2001), W.Va. State Code §18-2E-2, and West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2340. The assessment is administered every two years to a sample of 2,500 to 3,000 fourth and eighth grade students chosen at random from state schools that correspond with state demographics. NAEP, often referred to as The Nation’s Report Card, is the only national measure of what students know and can do in various areas.

The NAEP assessments are based on content frameworks and specifications developed by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), a 26-member independent governing body appointed by the United States Secretary of Education. “With input from teachers, curriculum specialists, administrators, parents, and the public, NAGB has developed subject frameworks that outline what students should know and be able to do for each subject and grade level tested. The NAEP frameworks serve as guidelines for the content assessed by the NAEP exams and the specifications documents provide a blueprint for the test developer” (School Matters, 2005, p. 4).

States, on the other hand, have content standards and assessments adopted by the State Board of Education that reflect an agreement within the state educational community on the content specific knowledge and skills the students should possess at specific grade levels. All states independently determine the content standards, assessments, and proficiency levels. Therefore, proficiency levels on state exams cannot be compared from state-to-state. “However, state proficiency levels on NAEP can be compared across states since the same NAEP exams are administered in each state” (School Matters, 2005, p. 4).

NAEP assessment achievement level performance varies from WESTEST achievement level performance for other reasons as well. The WESTEST is a “high-stakes” exam because the test results are linked to academic and financial sanctions under NCLB. However, NAEP has no consequences attached to student performance. The assumption is that the “high-stakes” link to state test performance motivates students and school districts to take the WESTEST preparation and performance very seriously. One would therefore expect to see higher achievement levels with WESTEST, an assessment tool linked to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), than to NAEP which is not tied to AYP.

Note:

Abbreviations and terminology contained throughout tables and figures in the NAEP section include: All All West Virginia participating students Nat. Am. Native American ED Economically Disadvantaged (Low Social Economic Status) SWD Students with Disabilities LEP Limited English Proficient

40

20

03 A

ND

200

5 W

V N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

4th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

Wes

t V

irgi

nia)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) th

e ch

ange

in p

erfo

rman

ce f

rom

200

3 to

20

05 b

y su

bgro

up.

Tabl

e 5

: 20

03 a

nd

2005

WV

NA

EP R

eadi

ng

Gra

de 4

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

6.

0 7.

0 5.

0 6.

0 *

* *

* 3.

0 2.

0 **

*

2005

5.

0 6.

0 4.

0 5.

0 1.

0 *

* *

2.0

1.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

-1

.0

-1.0

-1

.0

* *

* *

-1.0

-1

.0

**

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

23

.0

26.0

20

.0

23.0

13

.0

* *

* 18

.0

10.0

**

*

2005

21

.0

22.0

19

.0

21.0

14

.0

* *

* 14

.0

10.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-2.0

-4

.0

-1.0

-2

.0

1.0

* *

* -4

.0

0.0

**

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

36

.0

38.0

35

.0

36.0

32

.0

* *

* 36

.0

22.0

**

*

2005

35

.0

36.0

34

.0

35.0

31

.0

* *

* 34

.0

24.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

-2

.0

-1.0

-1

.0

-1.0

*

* *

-2.0

2.

0 **

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

35

.0

30.0

40

.0

35.0

55

.0

* *

* 43

.0

66.0

**

*

2005

39

.0

36.0

43

.0

39.0

54

.0

* *

* 49

.0

65.0

**

*

Chan

ge

4.0

6.0

3.0

4.0

-1.0

*

* *

6.0

-1.0

**

*

WV

NA

EP R

EAD

ING

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

65

.0

70.0

60

.0

65.0

45

.0

* *

* 57

.0

34.0

**

*

2005

61

.0

64.0

57

.0

61.0

46

.0

* *

* 51

.0

35.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-4.0

-6

.0

-3.0

-4

.0

1

.0

* *

* -6

.0

1.0

**

*

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

41

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Reading Grade 4 (Table 5) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed every subgroup slightly decreased. • Proficient level performance showed an apparent slight decrease in all

subgroups except the Black subgroup. The Students with Disabilities (SWD) subgroup showed no change.

• Basic level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the Students with Disabilities subgroup and an apparent slight decrease in all other subgroups.

• Below Basic* level performance showed an apparent slight increase in each subgroup except the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups, which showed an apparent slight decrease.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 5, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for WV NAEP Grade 4 Reading. These data are presented in the last section of Table 5, labeled “WV NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 5) Figure 5 : 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Reading Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4

65

70

60

65

45

57

34

61 64

57 61

46

51

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f Stu

dent

s

2003

2005

Findings: Increases were shown in the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups. Decreases occurred in the All, Female, Male, White, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

42

N

ATIO

NAL

NAE

P R

eadi

ng

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

7.

0 8.

0 6.

0 10

.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

11.0

2.

0 1.

0 **

1.

0 20

05

7.0

8.0

6.0

10.0

2.

0 2.

0 3.

0 12

.0

2.0

2.0

**

1.0

Chan

ge

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

**

0.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

Rea

din

g Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

23

.0

25.0

21

.0

30.0

11

.0

12.0

14

.0

26.0

13

.0

8.0

**

6.0

2005

23

.0

25.0

21

.0

30.0

11

.0

13.0

15

.0

28.0

13

.0

9.0

**

6.0

Chan

ge

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

**

0.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

Rea

din

g Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

32

.0

32.0

31

.0

34.0

27

.0

28.0

31

.0

32.0

29

.0

20.0

**

20

.0

2005

33

.0

33.0

33

.0

35.0

29

.0

29.0

30

.0

32.0

30

.0

22.0

**

21

.0

Chan

ge

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

-1.0

0.

0 1.

0 2.

0 **

1.

0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

Rea

din

g Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

elow

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

38

.0

35.0

42

.0

26.0

61

.0

57.0

53

.0

31.0

56

.0

71.0

**

72

.0

2005

38

.0

34.0

41

.0

25.0

59

.0

56.0

51

.0

28.0

54

.0

67.0

**

73

.0

Chan

ge

0.0

-1.0

-1

.0

-1.0

-2

.0

-1.0

-2

.0

-3.0

-2

.0

-4.0

**

1.

0

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

Rea

din

g Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

62

.0

65.0

58

.0

74.0

40

.0

42.0

47

.0

69.0

44

.0

29.0

**

27

.0

2005

63

.0

66.0

60

.0

75.0

42

.0

44.0

48

.0

72.0

45

.0

33.0

**

28

.0

Chan

ge

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

4.0

**

1.0

2003

AN

D 2

005

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

4th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

the

Nat

ion)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in

each

per

form

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m

2003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

6:

200

3 a

nd

20

05

Nat

ion

al N

AEP

Rea

din

g G

rade

4

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

43

A summary of the results from National NAEP Reading Grade 4 (Table 6) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed an increase in the Native American, Asian, and Students with Disabilities subgroups. All other subgroups showed no change.

• Proficient level performance showed an increase in the Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and Students with Disabilities subgroups. All other subgroups showed no change.

• Basic level performance showed an increase in the all subgroups except Native American which slightly decreased and Asian which remained the same.

• Below Basic* level performance showed a decrease in all subgroups except the All which remained the same and the LEP which increased.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 6, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 4 Reading. These data are presented in the last section of Table 6, labeled “National NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 6) Figure 6: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Reading Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4

Findings: The greatest increase was in the Students with Disabilities subgroup. All other subgroups also showed increases.

62 65

58

74

69

27

63 66

60

75

42 44 48

72

45

33

28

47

4240 44

29

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

44

20

03 A

ND

200

5 W

V N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

8th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

Wes

t V

irgi

nia)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic b

y su

bgro

up,

and

3) t

he c

hang

e in

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

7: 2

003

and

2005

WV

NA

EP R

eadi

ng

Gra

de 8

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

2.

0 3.

0 1.

0 2.

0 *

* *

* 1.

0 *

**

*

2005

1.

0 2.

0 1.

0 1.

0 *

* *

* *

* **

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

-1

.0

0.0

-1.0

*

* *

* *

* **

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

23

.0

27.0

19

.0

24.0

13

.0

* *

* 16

.0

3.0

**

*

2005

21

.0

25.0

16

.0

21.0

10

.0

* *

* 12

.0

5.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-2.0

-2

.0

-3.0

-3

.0

-3.0

*

* *

-4.0

2.

0 **

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

47

.0

48.0

46

.0

47.0

46

.0

* *

* 45

.0

26.0

**

*

2005

45

.0

45.0

44

.0

45.0

34

.0

* *

* 44

.0

23.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-2.0

-3

.0

-2.0

-2

.0

-12.

0 *

* *

-1.0

-3

.0

**

*

WV

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

28

.0

22.0

35

.0

28.0

40

.0

* *

* 37

.0

71.0

**

*

2005

33

.0

27.0

39

.0

32.0

56

.0

* *

* 44

.0

73.0

**

*

Chan

ge

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

16.0

*

* *

7.0

2.0

**

*

WV

NA

EP R

EAD

ING

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

72

.0

78.0

65

.0

72.0

60

.0

* *

* 63

.0

29.0

**

*

2005

67

.0

73.0

61

.0

68.0

44

.0

* *

* 56

.0

27.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-5.0

-5

.0

-4.0

-4

.0

-16.

0 *

* *

-7.0

-2

.0

**

*

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

45

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Reading Grade 8 (Table 7) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed an apparent slight decrease in all subgroups except Male.

• Proficient level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the Students with Disabilities subgroup and all other subgroups showed a decrease.

• Basic level performance showed an apparent slight decrease in all subgroups with the exception of the Black subgroup.

• Below Basic level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the percentage of students in all subgroups with the exception of the Black subgroup.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 7, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for WV NAEP Grade 8 Reading. These data are presented in the last section of Table 7, labeled “WV NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 7) Figure 7: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Reading Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

72 78

65

72

60 63

29

67

73

61

68

44

56

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hisp

anic

Nat.

Am.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f Stu

den

ts

2003

2005

Findings: All subgroups showed decreases. The Students with Disabilities subgroup showed the slightest decrease.

46

N

ATIO

NAL

NAE

P R

EAD

ING

Sub

grou

p Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

3.

0 4.

0 2.

0 4.

0 0.

0 1.

0 1.

0 5.

0 1.

0 0.

0 **

0.

0 20

05

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

5.0

1.0

0.0

**

0.0

Chan

ge

0.0

-1.0

0.

0 -1

.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

**

0.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

REA

DIN

G S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

27

.0

32.0

23

.0

35.0

12

.0

13.0

17

.0

33.0

14

.0

5.0

**

5.0

2005

26

.0

30.0

22

.0

34.0

11

.0

13.0

17

.0

34.0

14

.0

6.0

**

4.0

Chan

ge

-1.0

-2

.0

-1.0

-1

.0

-1.0

0.

0 0.

0 1.

0 0.

0 1.

0 **

-1

.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

REA

DIN

G S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

42

.0

42.0

42

.0

43.0

41

.0

40.0

41

.0

39.0

41

.0

26.0

**

24

.0

2005

42

.0

42.0

42

.0

43.0

40

.0

41.0

43

.0

40.0

42

.0

27.0

**

24

.0

Chan

ge

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-1.0

1.

0 2.

0 1.

0 1.

0 1.

0 **

0.

0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

REA

DIN

G S

ubgr

oup

Impa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

elow

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

28

.0

23.0

33

.0

18.0

47

.0

46.0

41

.0

22.0

44

.0

68.0

**

71

.0

2005

29

.0

24.0

34

.0

19.0

49

.0

45.0

39

.0

21.0

43

.0

67.0

**

71

.0

Chan

ge

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

-1.0

-2

.0

-1.0

-.

01

-1.0

**

0.

0

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

REA

DIN

G S

ubg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

72

.0

78.0

67

.0

82.0

53

.0

54.0

59

.0

77.0

56

.0

31.0

**

29

.0

2005

71

.0

75.0

66

.0

80.0

51

.0

55.0

61

.0

79.0

57

.0

33.0

**

28

.0

Chan

ge

-1.0

-3

.0

-1.0

-2

.0

-2.0

1.

0 2.

0 2.

0 1.

0 2.

0 **

-1

.0

2003

AN

D 2

005

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

8th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

the

Nat

ion)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in

each

per

form

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m

2003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

8:

200

3 a

nd

20

05

Nat

ion

al N

AEP

Rea

din

g G

rade

8

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

*

Sam

ple

size

too

sm

all t

o pr

ovid

e re

liabl

e da

ta;

** D

ata

not

colle

cted

47

A summary of the results from National NAEP Reading Grade 8 (Table 8) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed every subgroup remained the same except for the Female and White subgroups which slightly decreased.

• Proficient level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the Asian and Students with Disabilities subgroups. All other subgroups decreased except for the Hispanic, Native American, and Economically Disadvantaged which remained the same.

• Basic level performance showed apparent slight increases in the Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups. The Black subgroup decreased and all other subgroups remained the same.

• Below Basic* level performance showed apparent slight decreases in the Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups. All other subgroups showed an increase except Limited English Proficient which remained the same.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 8, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 8 Reading. These data are presented in the last section of Table 8, labeled “National NAEP Reading Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 8) Figure 8: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Reading Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: The Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups showed an increase. All other subgroups decreased in performance.

72

78

67

82

53 54 59

77

56

31 29

71 75

66

80 79

28

33

57

51 55

61

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

48

20

03 A

ND

200

5 W

V N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

4th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

Wes

t V

irgi

nia)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic b

y su

bgro

up,

and

3) t

he c

hang

e in

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

9 :

2003

an

d 20

05 W

V N

AEP

Mat

hem

atic

s G

rade

4

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

2.

0 1.

0 2.

0 2.

0 *

* *

* 1.

0 *

**

*

2005

2.

0 2.

0 1.

0 2.

0 1.

0 *

* *

1.0

1.0

**

*

Chan

ge

0.0

1.0

-1.0

0.

0 *

* *

* 0.

0 *

**

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

22

.0

21.0

24

.0

22.0

13

.0

* *

* 16

.0

7.0

**

*

2005

24

.0

21.0

26

.0

24.0

16

.0

* *

* 17

.0

12.0

**

*

Chan

ge

2.0

0.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

* *

* 1.

0 5.

0 **

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

51

.0

53.0

50

.0

52.0

49

.0

* *

* 52

.0

32.0

**

*

2005

50

.0

51.0

50

.0

50.0

53

.0

* *

* 50

.0

39.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

-2

.0

0.0

-2.0

4.

0 *

* *

-2.0

7.

0 **

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

elow

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

25

.0

25.0

24

.0

24.0

38

.0

* *

* 32

.0

61.0

**

*

2005

25

.0

27.0

23

.0

24.0

31

.0

* *

* 31

.0

48.0

**

*

Chan

ge

0.0

2.0

-1.0

0.

0 -7

.0

* *

* -1

.0

-13.

0 **

*

WV

NA

EP M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

75

.0

75.0

76

.0

76.0

62

.0

* *

* 68

.0

39.0

**

*

2005

75

.0

73.0

77

.0

76.0

69

.0

* *

* 69

.0

52.0

**

*

Chan

ge

0.0

-2.0

1.

0 0.

0 7.

0 *

* *

1.0

13.0

**

*

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

49

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 (Table 9) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the Female subgroup and an apparent slight decrease in the Male subgroup.

• Proficient level performance showed apparent slight increases in the All, Male, White, Black, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed apparent slight increases in the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups and apparent slight decreases in the All, Female, White, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

• Below Basic level performance showed an apparent slight increase in the Female subgroup. The Male, Black, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups showed decreases.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 9, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for WV NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics. These data are presented in the last section of Table 9, labeled “WV NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 9). Figure 9 : 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4

75

75 76

76

62 6

8

39

75

73 7

7

76

69

69

52

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

Findings: The greatest increase was shown in the Students with Disabilities subgroup. The Male, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups also showed increases. A decrease was shown in the Female subgroup, and the All subgroup remained the same.

50

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

4.

0 3.

0 5.

0 5.

0 0.

0 1.

0 1.

0 10

.0

1.0

1.0

**

0.0

2005

5.

0 4.

0 6.

0 7.

0 1.

0 1.

0 2.

0 14

.0

1.0

2.0

**

1.0

Chan

ge

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

1.0

**

1.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

28

.0

26.0

29

.0

37.0

9.

0 14

.0

17.0

38

.0

14.0

11

.0

**

9.0

2005

30

.0

29.0

32

.0

40.0

12

.0

18.0

20

.0

40.0

18

.0

14.0

**

11

.0

Chan

ge

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

**

2.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

45

.0

46.0

43

.0

45.0

44

.0

47.0

47

.0

38.0

47

.0

38.0

**

40

.0

2005

44

.0

45.0

43

.0

42.0

47

.0

48.0

47

.0

35.0

48

.0

40.0

**

43

.0

Chan

ge

-1.0

-1

.0

0.0

-3.0

3.

0 1.

0 0.

0 -3

.0

1.0

2.0

**

3.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

24

.0

25.0

23

.0

13.0

46

.0

38.0

35

.0

13.0

38

.0

50.0

**

51

.0

2005

21

.0

21.0

20

.0

11.0

40

.0

33.0

31

.0

11.0

33

.0

44.0

**

46

.0

Chan

ge

-3.0

-4

.0

-3.0

-2

.0

-6.0

-5

.0

-4.0

-2

.0

-5.0

-6

.0

**

-5.0

N

ATI

ON

AL

NA

EP M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

77

.0

75.0

77

.0

87.0

53

.0

62.0

65

.0

86.0

62

.0

50.0

**

49

.0

2005

79

.0

78.0

81

.0

89.0

60

.0

67.0

69

.0

89.0

67

.0

56.0

**

55

.0

Chan

ge

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

7.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

6.0

**

6.0

2003

AN

D 2

005

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

4th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

the

Nat

ion)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in

each

per

form

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m

2003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

10:

200

3 an

d 20

05 N

atio

nal

NA

EP M

ath

emat

ics

Gra

de 4

51

A summary of the results from National NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 (Table 10) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed every subgroup increased except the Hispanic and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups which remained the same.

• Proficient level performance showed an increase in all subgroups with the Hispanic and Economically Disadvantaged showing the greatest gains.

• Basic level performance showed increases in the Black, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups. All other subgroups showed decreases except for the Male and Native American subgroups which remained the same.

• Below Basic* level performance showed decreases in all subgroups with the largest decrease in the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 10, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics. These data are presented in the last section of Table 10, labeled “National NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 10) Figure 10: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4

Findings: All subgroups showed increases, with the Black subgroup showing the largest increase in performance.

77 75 77

87 86

49

79 78 81 89

60

67 69

89

67

56 55

65

62

53

62

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

52

20

03 A

ND

200

5 W

V N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

8th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

Wes

t V

irgi

nia)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic b

y su

bgro

up,

and

3) t

he c

hang

e in

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

11

: 2

00

3 a

nd

20

05

WV

NA

EP M

ath

emat

ics

Gra

de 8

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

2.

0 1.

0 2.

0 2.

0 *

* *

* 1.

0 *

**

*

2005

1.

0 1.

0 1.

0 1.

0 *

* *

* 1.

0 *

**

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

0.

0 -1

.0

-1.0

*

* *

* 0.

0 *

**

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

18

.0

17.0

19

.0

18.0

6.

0 *

* *

10.0

1.

0 **

*

2005

16

.0

17.0

16

.0

17.0

5.

0 *

* *

9.0

1.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-2.0

0.

0 -3

.0

-1.0

-1

.0

* *

* -1

.0

0.0

**

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

43

.0

45.0

41

.0

43.0

33

.0

* *

* 41

.0

13.0

**

*

2005

42

.0

42.0

42

.0

43.0

31

.0

* *

* 37

.0

16.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-1.0

-3

.0

1.0

0.0

-2.0

*

* *

-4.0

3.

0 **

*

WV

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

elow

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

37

.0

37.0

38

.0

37.0

61

.0

* *

* 49

.0

86.0

**

*

2005

40

.0

40.0

40

.0

39.0

64

.0

* *

* 54

.0

83.0

**

*

Chan

ge

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

* *

* 5.

0 -3

.0

**

*

WV

NA

EP M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

63

.0

63.0

62

.0

63.0

39

.0

* *

* 51

.0

14.0

**

*

2005

60

.0

60.0

60

.0

61.0

36

.0

* *

* 46

.0

17.0

**

*

Chan

ge

-3.0

-3

.0

-2.0

-2

.0

-3.0

*

* *

-5.0

3.

0 **

*

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

53

60 60 60

36

61

17

46

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 (Table 11) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed apparent decreases in the All, Male, and White subgroups.

• Proficient level performance showed apparent slight decreases in the All, Male, White, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed apparent slight increases in the Male and Students with Disabilities subgroups and apparent slight decreases in the All, Female, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

• Below Basic level performance showed apparent slight increases in all subgroups except the Students with Disabilities subgroup which decreased.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 11, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at or above Basic for WV NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics. These data are presented in the last section of Table 11, labeled “ WV NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 11). Figure 11: 2003 and 2005 WV NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: The greatest increase was shown in the Students with Disabilities subgroup. All other subgroups showed decreases.

54

N

ATIO

NAL

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

5.

0 4.

0 6.

0 7.

0 0.

0 1.

0 2.

0 12

.0

1.0

1.0

**

1.0

2005

6.

0 5.

0 6.

0 7.

0 1.

0 1.

0 2.

0 16

.0

1.0

1.0

**

1.0

Chan

ge

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

0.0

**

0.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

22

.0

22.0

23

.0

29.0

7.

0 10

.0

14.0

30

.0

10.0

5.

0 **

4.

0 20

05

23.0

22

.0

24.0

30

.0

8.0

12.0

13

.0

31.0

12

.0

6.0

**

5.0

Chan

ge

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

-1.0

1.

0 2.

0 1.

0 **

1.

0 N

ATIO

NAL

NAE

P M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

39

.0

40.0

38

.0

43.0

32

.0

35.0

38

.0

36.0

36

.0

23.0

**

22

.0

2005

39

.0

40.0

39

.0

42.0

33

.0

38.0

41

.0

34.0

38

.0

24.0

**

23

.0

Chan

ge

0.0

0.0

1.0

-1.0

1.

0 3.

0 3.

0 -2

.0

2.0

1.0

**

1.0

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2003

33

.0

34.0

33

.0

21.0

61

.0

53.0

46

.0

23.0

53

.0

71.0

**

74

.0

2005

32

.0

33.0

32

.0

21.0

59

.0

50.0

45

.0

19.0

49

.0

69.0

**

71

.0

Chan

ge

-1.0

-1

.0

-1.0

0.

0 -2

.0

-3.0

-1

.0

-4.0

-4

.0

-2.0

**

-3

.0

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2003

66

.0

66.0

67

.0

79.0

39

.0

46.0

54

.0

78.0

47

.0

29.0

**

27

.0

2005

68

.0

67.0

69

.0

79.0

42

.0

51.0

56

.0

81.0

51

.0

31.0

**

29

.0

Chan

ge

2.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

3.0

5.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

**

2.0

2003

AN

D 2

005

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

8th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

the

Nat

ion)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in

each

per

form

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m

2003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

12

: 2

00

3 a

nd

20

05

Nat

ion

al M

ath

emat

ics

Gra

de 8

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

55

A summary of the results from National NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 (Table 12) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed the Asian subgroup with the largest increase. The All, Female, and Black subgroups also increased. All other subgroups remained the same.

• Proficient level performance showed increases in all subgroups except the Native American subgroup which decreased and the Female subgroup which remained the same.

• Basic level performance showed the greatest increases in the Hispanic and Native American subgroups. Also showing increases were the Male, Black, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups. The White and Asian subgroups decreased in performance.

• Below Basic* level performance showed a decrease in all the subgroups except the White which remained the same.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 12, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics. These data are presented in the last section of Table 12, labeled “National NAEP Mathematics Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 12) Figure 12: 2003 and 2005 National NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: All groups showed an increase with the Hispanic showing the greatest increase in performance.

66

66 67

79

39

46

54

78

47

29 27

68

67 69

79 81

2931

51

42

51 56

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2003

2005

56

W

V N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

1996

20

00

2.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

* *

* 1.

0 0.

0 **

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

1996

20

00

22.0

21

.0

23.0

23

.0

0.0

* *

* 16

.0

11.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

1996

20

00

44.0

43

.0

44.0

45

.0

0.0

* *

* 41

.0

28.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

1996

20

00

32.0

34

.0

31.0

31

.0

0.0

* *

* 42

.0

62.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NA

EP S

CIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

1996

20

00

68.0

65

.0

69.0

70

.0

0.0

* *

* 58

.0

39.0

**

*

Chan

ge

1996

AN

D 2

000

WV

NA

EP (

Agg

rega

te o

f al

l 4th

Gra

de p

erfo

rman

ce i

n t

he

Nat

ion

): Sh

ows

the

1) p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s in

eac

h pe

rfor

man

ce le

vel b

y su

bgro

up, 2

) pe

rcen

tage

of

stud

ents

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

13:

199

6 an

d 20

00 W

V N

AEP

Sci

ence

Gra

de 4

1996

dat

a ca

nnot

be

relia

bly

com

pare

d to

200

a da

ta d

ue t

o in

com

patib

ility

of

varia

bles

.

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

57

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Science Grade 4 (Table 13) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed the Male and White subgroups performed slightly higher than the other reported subgroups.

• Proficient level performance showed the Male and White subgroups achieved slightly higher than the other subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed the Male and White subgroups performed somewhat higher than the other subgroups.

• Below Basic level performance showed the Students with Disabilities subgroup achieved considerably higher than the other subgroups.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category. Figure 13, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for WV NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics. These data are presented in the last section of Table 13, labeled “WV NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 13) Figure 13: 2000 WV NAEP Science Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: The Male and White subgroups outperformed the other subgroups.

68 65

69 70

39

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2000

58

N

ATIO

NAL

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2000

3.

0 2.

0 4.

0 5.

0 0.

0 0.

0 1.

0 *

0.0

1.0

**

0.0

Chan

ge

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2000

23

.0

21.0

25

.0

31.0

5.

0 7.

0 17

.0

* 9.

0 10

.0

**

2.0

Chan

ge

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2000

35

.0

35.0

34

.0

40.0

25

.0

25.0

36

.0

* 29

.0

23.0

**

12

.0

Chan

ge

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent a

t Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 4

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2000

39

.0

41.0

38

.0

24.0

70

.0

67.0

47

.0

* 61

.0

65.0

**

87

.0

Chan

ge

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

4

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2000

61

.0

58.0

63

.0

76.0

30

.0

32.0

54

.0

0.0

38.0

34

.0

**

14.0

Chan

ge

2000

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

4th G

rade

per

form

ance

in

th

e N

atio

n):

Sh

ows

the

1) p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s in

eac

h pe

rfor

man

ce le

vel b

y su

bgro

up, 2

) pe

rcen

tage

of

stud

ents

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

the

chan

ge in

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

003

to

2005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

14

: 2

00

0 N

atio

nal

NA

EP S

cien

ce G

rade

4

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

59

A summary of the results from National NAEP Science Grade 4 (Table 14) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed the White subgroup outperformed the other subgroups.

• Proficient level performance showed the White subgroup outperformed the other subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed the White subgroup outperformed the other subgroups.

• Below Basic* level performance showed the Black subgroup showed the poorest performance when compared to the other subgroups.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 14, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 4 Science. These data are presented in the last section of Table 14, labeled “National NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4.” (See Table 14) Figure 14: 2000 National NAEP Science Grade 4 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 4

Findings: The White subgroup achieved at higher levels than the All subgroup. The lowest achieving group was the Limited English Proficient subgroup.

61 58

63

76

14

54

3230

38

34

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

mAs

ian EDSW

D

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2000

60

W

V N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at A

dvan

ced

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

1996

2000

2.

0 1.

0 2.

0 2.

0 0.

0 *

* *

0.0

0.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Pro

fici

ent

for

Gra

de 8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

1996

2000

22

.0

19.0

25

.0

23.0

5.

0 *

* *

12.0

4.

0 **

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bas

ic fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

1996

2000

33

.0

34.0

32

.0

33.0

19

.0

* *

* 27

.0

12.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NAE

P SC

IEN

CE

Subg

roup

Im

pact

Dat

a Pe

rcen

t at

Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

1996

2000

43

.0

46.0

41

.0

42.0

76

.0

* *

* 60

.0

0.0

**

*

Chan

ge

WV

NA

EP S

CIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Per

cen

t A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at.

Am.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

1996

2000

57

.0

54.0

59

.0

58.0

24

.0

* *

* 39

.0

0.0

**

*

Chan

ge

2000

WV

NA

EP (

Agg

rega

te o

f al

l 8th

Gra

de p

erfo

rman

ce i

n t

he

Nat

ion

): S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

le

vel

by s

ubgr

oup,

2)

perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) th

e ch

ange

in

perf

orm

ance

fro

m 2

003

to 2

005

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

14

: 2

00

0 W

V N

AEP

Sci

ence

Gra

de 8

1996

dat

a ca

nnot

be

relia

bly

com

pare

d to

200

a da

ta d

ue t

o in

com

patib

ility

of

varia

bles

.

Not

e: C

alcu

latio

ns a

re r

ound

ed t

o re

flect

who

le n

umbe

rs.

Num

eric

al d

iffer

ence

s of

±1%

may

occ

ur in

the

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic le

vel d

ue t

o ro

undi

ng.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

61

A summary of the results from WV NAEP Science Grade 8 (Table 15) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed the Male and White subgroups performed slightly higher than the other reported subgroups.

• Proficient level performance showed the Male and White subgroups achieved slightly higher than the other subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed the Female and White subgroups performed somewhat higher than the other subgroups.

• Below Basic level performance showed that the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups achieved considerably higher than the other subgroups.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 15, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for WV NAEP Grade 8 Science. These data are presented in the last section of Table 15, labeled “WV NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 15)

Figure 15: 2000 WV NAEP Science Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: The Male and White subgroups outperformed the other reported subgroups.

57

54

59 58

24

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m.

Asian ED

SWD

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2000

62

20

00 N

ATI

ON

AL

NA

EP (

Agg

rega

te o

f al

l 8th

Gra

de p

erfo

rman

ce i

n t

he

Nat

ion

):

Show

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

in e

ach

perf

orm

ance

leve

l by

subg

roup

, 2)

perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) th

e ch

ange

in p

erfo

rman

ce f

rom

200

3 to

20

05 b

y su

bgro

up.

Tabl

e 16

: 20

00 N

atio

nal

NA

EP S

cien

ce G

rade

8

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent a

t Adv

ance

d fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2000

4.

0 3.

0 5.

0 5.

0 0.

0 1.

0 6.

0 6.

0

1.0

1.0

**

0.0

Chan

ge

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at P

rofi

cien

t fo

r G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2000

25

.0

22.0

28

.0

33.0

6.

0 9.

0 20

.0

28.0

10.0

7.

0 **

3.

0 Ch

ange

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent

at B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2000

28

.0

29.0

28

.0

33.0

18

.0

22.0

25

.0

25.0

21.0

18

.0

**

8.0

Chan

ge

NAT

ION

AL N

AEP

SCIE

NC

E Su

bgro

up I

mpa

ct D

ata

Perc

ent a

t Bel

ow B

asic

for

Gra

de 8

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P

2000

43

.0

46.0

40

.0

29.0

76

.0

69.0

49

.0

41.0

68.0

75

.0

**

89.0

Ch

ange

NA

TIO

NA

L N

AEP

SC

IEN

CE

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a P

erce

nt

At

or A

bove

Bas

ic f

or G

rade

8

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2000

57

.0

54.0

61

.0

71.0

24

.0

32.0

51

.0

59.0

32

.0

26.0

**

11

.0

Chan

ge

N

ote:

Cal

cula

tions

are

rou

nded

to

refle

ct w

hole

num

bers

. N

umer

ical

diff

eren

ces

of ±

1% m

ay o

ccur

in t

he A

t or

Abo

ve B

asic

leve

l due

to

roun

ding

.

* S

ampl

e si

ze t

oo s

mal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

; **

Dat

a no

t co

llect

ed

63

A summary of the results from National NAEP Science Grade 8 (Table 16) follows:

• Advanced level performance showed the Native American and Asian subgroups achieved at higher levels than the other subgroups.

• Proficient level performance showed the White subgroup performed at a higher level than the other subgroups.

• Basic level performance showed the White subgroup performed at a higher level than the other subgroups.

• Below Basic* level performance showed the Limited English Proficient subgroup had the poorest performance of all subgroups.

* An increase in the Below Basic category signifies that additional students have fallen below the Basic level and therefore is considered a decrease in performance. Conversely, a decrease indicates that students have improved and are now in a higher category.

Figure 16, below, graphically summarizes the percentage of students demonstrating achievement at Basic or above for National NAEP Grade 8 Science. These data are presented in the last section of Table 16, labeled “National NAEP Science Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8.” (See Table 16) Figure 16: 2000 National NAEP Science Grade 8 Subgroup Impact Data: Percent At or Above Basic for Grade 8

Findings: The White subgroup outperformed all other subgroups. The lowest performance levels were shown by the Black, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

57 54

61

71

24 32

51

59

32

26

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

mAs

ian EDSW

D

Migran

tLE

P

Subgroups

% o

f S

tud

ents

2000

64

The ACT Program

The ACT/Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) includes ACT, EXPLORE, and PLAN. All of these EPAS Programs are based on a common content continuum in each of the five areas tested and are helpful for measuring student achievement, for gauging student readiness, for transitioning to the next level of learning, and for school program evaluation. The subgroups used by the ACT Program are different from the required NCLB subgroups.

ACT

The American College Testing Program (ACT) contains five curriculum-based tests: English, mathematics, reading, and science; the optional writing test is an impromptu essay on a given prompt. The tests are standardized multiple-choice tests based on major areas of high school and postsecondary instructional programs. Performance on these tests has a direct relationship to a student’s educational achievement.

National forms of the multiple-choice ACT tests are constructed by selecting items from the item pool that match both the content and statistical specifications for the tests. Each form of the ACT is a sample from the larger domain on which the test is based.

The ACT is not part of the state assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP). It is part of a private national assessment system that provides college admission testing opportunities directly to local school systems. Students pay a fee for the test administration and results.

The five tests are measures of academic development that rely largely on the students’ abilities to apply the content knowledge and reasoning skills acquired in their coursework to high-level tasks. These tasks often require the integrations of proficiencies and skills from various high school courses. Consequently, the ACT tests contain a large proportion of analytical and problem-solving exercises. Students are evaluated in each of the following areas:

English is a 75-item, 45 minute test that measures the student’s understanding of the conventions of standard English and rhetorical styles.

Mathematics is a 60-item, 60 minute test that assesses the mathematical skills acquired through grade 12. The areas include Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra II.

Reading is a 40-item, 35 minute test that measure the student’s reading comprehension as a product of referring and reasoning skills.

Science is a 40-item, 35 minute measurement of the student’s interpretation, analysis, evaluation, reasoning, and problem-solving skills required in the natural sciences.

65

Note: Abbreviations and terminology contained throughout tables and figures in the ACT section include:

Nation All graduating students All All West Virginia graduating students Mex. Am. Mexican American Am. Indian Native American AK Alaska Native

66

A

CT

REA

DIN

G

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK N

ativ

e

Asia

n To

tal

Test

ed

2000

21

.4

20.9

21

.0

20.8

21

.0

17.7

23

.4

20.0

18

.5

22.1

12

267

2001

21

.3

20.8

20

.9

20.6

20

.8

17.3

23

.4

18.2

19

.8

23.2

11

857

2002

21

.1

21.0

21

.1

20.8

21

.1

16.8

21

.6

20.8

19

.6

22.4

11

451

2003

21

.2

20.9

21

.1

20.8

21

.0

17.4

20

.8

19.6

19

.6

22.6

11

728

2004

21

.3

21.1

21

.2

20.9

21

.2

17.6

21

.3

20.4

18

.8

23.8

11

486

2005

21

.3

20.9

21

.1

20.7

21

.0

17.6

20

.6

20.8

20

.1

23.3

11

451

AC

T M

ATH

EMA

TIC

S

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n To

tal

Test

ed

2000

20

.7

19.0

18

.5

19.6

19

.0

16.6

20

.2

18.8

16

.8

23.1

12

267

2001

20

.7

18.9

18

.5

19.5

18

.9

16.3

20

.5

18.0

18

.8

23.8

11

857

2002

20

.6

19.1

18

.6

19.8

19

.2

16.3

18

.4

19.9

17

.8

22.7

11

451

2003

20

.6

19.2

18

.6

19.9

19

.3

16.1

19

.0

18.3

18

.0

22.8

11

728

2004

20

.7

19.4

18

.9

20.0

19

.4

16.8

19

.6

18.5

17

.7

23.3

11

486

2005

20

.7

19.3

18

.8

20.0

19

.3

17.0

18

.8

18.6

19

.1

22.6

11

451

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

Rea

din

g M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s (A

ggre

gate

of

all h

igh

sch

ool g

radu

ates

):

Show

s 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

su

bgro

up, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

17:

200

0-20

05 A

CT

Rea

din

g

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

Mat

hem

atic

s M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s (A

ggre

gate

of

all h

igh

sch

ool g

radu

ates

):

Show

s 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

18

: 2

00

0-2

00

5 A

CT

Mat

hem

atic

s

67

A

CT

SCIE

NC

E

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n To

tal

Test

ed

2000

21

.0

20.4

20

.0

20.9

20

.5

17.7

22

.0

19.6

18

.4

22.0

12

267

2001

21

.0

20.3

19

.9

20.8

20

.4

17.1

21

.4

19.5

20

.2

23.0

11

857

2002

20

.8

20.4

19

.9

21.0

20

.5

17.2

19

.3

20.7

18

.9

22.0

11

451

2003

20

.8

20.3

20

.0

20.8

20

.4

17.2

20

.7

18.9

18

.4

22.3

11

728

2004

20

.9

20.3

20

.0

20.8

20

.4

17.9

19

.8

20.2

18

.7

22.4

11

486

2005

20

.9

20.4

20

.0

20.9

20

.4

17.9

19

.5

19.8

20

.5

22.2

11

451

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

Scie

nce

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l hig

h s

choo

l gra

duat

es):

Sh

ows

1) t

he n

atio

nal m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by

subg

roup

, 2)

the

All (

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia)

mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

’ mea

n sc

ale

scor

es.

Tabl

e 1

9:

20

00

-20

05

AC

T Sc

ien

ce

68

21.4

20.9

21

20.8

21

17.7

23.4

20

18.5

22.1

21.3

20.8

20.9

20.6

21.9

18.6

23.8

17.7

20.3

24

21.1

21

21.1

20.8

21.1

16.8

21.6

20.8

19.6

22.4

21.2

20.9

21.1

20.8

21

17.4

20.8

19.6

19.6

22.6

21.3

21.1

21.2

20.9

21.2

17.6

21.3

20.4

18.8

23.8

21.3

20.9

21.1

20.7

21

17.6

20.6

20.8

20.1

23.3

051015202530

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black Pu

erto R

ican/

Hispa

nicMex

. Am./C

hican

o Am. I

ndian

/AK N

ative

Asian

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 1

7:

20

00

-20

05

AC

T R

eadi

ng

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

Fin

din

gs:

Fem

ale,

Whi

te,

and

Asia

n su

bgro

ups

gene

rally

sco

red

hig

her

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

The

Blac

k su

bgro

up g

ener

ally

sco

red

low

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Th

e Bl

ack

subg

roup

sho

wed

im

prov

emen

t in

rea

ding

per

form

ance

fro

m 2

002

thro

ugh

2004

and

thi

s su

bgro

up’s

per

form

ance

re

mai

ned

con

sist

ent

from

200

4 to

200

5.

From

200

4 to

200

5, s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce d

ropp

ed i

n m

ost

subg

roup

s, e

xcep

t Bl

ack

whi

ch r

emai

ned

the

sam

e w

hile

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no, a

nd

Amer

ican

Ind

ian/

Alas

ka N

ativ

e sh

owed

gai

ns.

The

All

stud

ent

subg

roup

con

sist

ently

sco

red

belo

w t

he N

atio

n in

rea

ding

. Th

e As

ian

subg

roup

co

nsis

tent

ly s

core

d ab

ove

the

Nat

ion

in r

eadi

ng.

69

20.7

19

18.5

19.6

19

16.6

20.2

18.8

16.8

23.1

20.7

18.9

18.5

19.5

20.1

17.7

21

17.1

19.2

25.2

20.6

19.1

18.6

19.8

19.2

16.3

18.4

19.9

17.8

22.7

20.6

19.2

18.6

19.9

19.3

16.1

19

18.3

18

22.8

20.7

19.4

18.9

20

19.4

16.8

19.6

18.5

17.7

23.3

20.7

19.3

18.8

20

19.3

17

18.8

18.6

19.1

22.6

051015202530

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black Pu

erto R

ican/

Hispa

nicMex

. Am./C

hican

o Am. I

ndian

/AK N

ative

Asian

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 1

8: 2

000-

2005

AC

T M

ath

emat

ics

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

Fin

din

gs:

Mal

e, W

hite

, an

d As

ian

subg

roup

s ge

nera

lly s

core

d h

igh

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Fe

mal

e, B

lack

, Pu

erto

Ric

an/H

ispa

nic,

and

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no

subg

roup

s ge

nera

lly

scor

ed

low

er

than

ot

her

subg

roup

s.

Th

e Bl

ack

subg

roup

sh

owed

im

prov

emen

t in

m

athe

mat

ics

perf

orm

ance

ove

r th

e pa

st t

hree

yea

rs w

ith a

17.

0 in

200

5.

From

200

4 to

200

5, s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce d

ropp

ed f

or m

ost

subg

roup

s ex

cept

for

the

Mal

e w

hich

rem

aine

d th

e sa

me

whi

le t

he B

lack

, M

exic

an

Amer

ican

/Chi

cano

, an

d Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive

incr

ease

d. T

he A

ll st

uden

t su

bgro

up c

onsi

sten

tly s

core

d be

low

the

Nat

ion

in m

athe

mat

ics.

Th

e As

ian

subg

roup

con

sist

ently

sco

red

abov

e th

e N

atio

n in

mat

hem

atic

s.

70

21

20.4

20

20.9

20.5

17.7

22

19.6

18.4

22

21

20.3

19.9

20.8

20.4

17.1

21.4

19.5

20.2

23

20.8

20.4

19.9

21

20.5

17.2

19.3

20.7

18.9

22

20.8

20.3

20

20.8

20.4

17.2

20.7

18.9

18.4

22.3

20.9

20.3

20

20.8

20.4

17.9

19.8

20.2

18.7

22.4

20.9

20.4

20

20.9

20.4

17.9

19.5

19.8

20.5

22.2

051015202530

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black Pu

erto

Rica

n/His

panic

Mex. A

m./Chic

ano Am

. Ind

ian/A

K Na

tive

Asian

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 1

9: 2

000-

2005

AC

T Sc

ien

ce M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

Fin

din

gs:

The

Asi

an s

ubgr

oup

is t

he o

nly

subg

roup

tha

t co

nsis

tent

ly s

core

d ab

ove

the

natio

nal a

nd s

tate

ave

rage

s.

The

Blac

k su

bgro

up is

the

on

ly s

ubgr

oups

tha

t ha

s n

ever

sco

red

at o

r ab

ove

the

stat

e av

erag

e. T

he M

ale

subg

roup

con

sist

ently

sco

red

abov

e th

e st

ate

aver

ages

. Fr

om 2

004

to 2

005,

the

All,

Mal

e, a

nd A

mer

ican

Ind

ian/

Alas

ka N

ativ

e su

bgro

ups

impr

oved

whi

le t

he F

emal

e, W

hite

, Bl

ack,

Pue

rto

Ric

an/

His

pani

c, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, and

Asi

an s

ubgr

oups

sta

yed

the

sam

e or

dec

lined

.

71

ACT PLAN

The ACT PLAN Program is designed to be administered in tenth grade to provide students with an early indication of their educational progress in the context of post-high school educational and career options they are considering. PLAN contains four curriculum-based tests: English, mathematics, reading, and science. These standardized multiple-choice tests are based on the major areas of high school and postsecondary instructional programs.

The four tests are measures of academic development that rely largely on the students’ abilities to apply the content knowledge and reasoning skills acquired in their coursework to high-level tasks. These tasks often require the integrations of proficiencies and skills from various high school courses. Consequently, the PLAN tests contain a large proportion of analytical and problem-solving exercises. PLAN is a part of the West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP). Students are evaluated in each of the following areas:

English is a 50-item, 30 minute test that measures the student’s understanding of the conventions of standard written English and of rhetorical skills.

Mathematics is a 40-item, 40 minute test designed to assess the mathematical skills that students have typically acquired in first– and second-year high school courses (pre-algebra, first-year algebra, and plane geometry).

Reading is a 25-item, 20 minute test that measures the student’s reading comprehension as a product of referring and reasoning skills.

Science is a 30-item, 25 minute test that measures the student’s interpretation, analysis, evaluation, reasoning, and problem-solving skills acquired in general, introductory courses in the natural sciences.

Note:

Abbreviations and terminology contained throughout tables and figures in the ACT PLAN section include:

Nation An annual representative sample of 10th grade students All All 10th grade West Virginia students who took the exam under standard conditions (without accommodations) Mex. Am. Mexican American Am. Indian Native American AK Alaska Native Other All students not members of a defined subgroup

72

A

CT

PLA

N R

EAD

ING

Ye

ar

Nat

ion

All

(WV)

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k Pu

erto

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n O

ther

M

ulti-

raci

al

2002

15

.8

16.3

16

.8

15.7

16

.5

14.5

15

.5

14.1

14

.0

18.8

14

.3

16.9

2003

15

.8

16.5

17

.2

15.8

16

.7

14.6

16

.7

15.7

14

.7

19.0

14

.6

17.0

2004

15

.8

16.5

17

.1

15.9

16

.7

14.4

15

.5

16.2

14

.4

18.8

14

.8

16.7

2005

15

.8

16.7

17

.4

15.9

16

.8

14.7

15

.8

16.0

14

.9

18.9

15

.0

16.9

AC

T P

LAN

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Ye

ar

Nat

ion

All

(WV)

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k Pu

erto

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/A

K N

ativ

e

Asia

n O

ther

M

ulti-

raci

al

2002

16

.3

16.3

16

.4

16.3

16

.5

14.6

16

.2

14.7

14

.5

20.0

14

.4

16.7

2003

16

.3

16.5

16

.4

16.5

16

.6

14.4

16

.4

15.9

14

.8

20.9

15

.0

16.4

2004

16

.3

16.4

16

.4

16.5

16

.6

14.8

16

.3

15.4

14

.7

19.8

15

.0

16.5

2005

16

.3

16.6

16

.5

16.6

16

.7

14.6

15

.7

15.7

14

.7

20.1

15

.2

16.7

2002

—20

05 A

CT

PLA

N R

eadi

ng

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l gra

de 1

0 st

ude

nts

):

Show

s th

e 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

20

: 2

00

2—

20

05

AC

T P

LAN

Rea

din

g

20

02

—2

00

5 A

CT

PLA

N M

ath

emat

ics

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l gra

de 1

0 st

ude

nts

): S

how

s 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

21:

200

2—20

05 A

CT

PLA

N M

ath

emat

ics

73

AC

T P

LAN

SC

IEN

CE

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n O

ther

2002

17

.4

17.5

17

.6

17.4

17

.6

16.4

17

.5

16.7

15

.9

20.2

16

.2

2003

17

.4

17.5

17

.6

17.5

17

.7

15.8

17

.4

17.1

16

.1

20.0

16

.3

2004

17

.4

17.7

17

.8

17.6

17

.9

16.3

17

.0

16.9

16

.3

20.0

16

.5

2005

17

.4

17.8

17

.9

17.7

18

.0

16.5

17

.3

17.0

16

.5

20.2

16

.6

2002

—20

05 A

CT

PLA

N S

cien

ce M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s (A

ggre

gate

of

all g

rade

10

stu

den

ts):

Sho

ws

1) t

he n

atio

nal m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

2)

the

All (

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia)

mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

’ mea

n sc

ale

scor

es.

Tabl

e 22

: 2

002—

2005

AC

T P

LAN

Sci

ence

74

15.8

16.3

16.8

15.7

16.5

14.5

15.5

14.1

14

18.8

14.3

16.9

15.8

16.5

17.2

15.8

16.7

14.6

16.7

15.7

14.7

19

14.6

17

15.8

16.5

17.1

15.9

16.7

14.4

15.5

16.2

14.4

18.8

14.8

16.7

15.8

16.7

17.4

15.9

16.8

14.7

15.8

16

14.9

18.9

15

16.9

05101520

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black

Puert

o Rica

n/Hi

span

ic Mex. A

m./Chic

ano

Am. I

ndian

/AK

Native

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

0: 2

002-

2005

AC

T P

LAN

Rea

din

g M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

Fin

din

gs:

Fem

ale,

Whi

te,

Asia

n, a

nd M

ultir

acia

l su

bgro

ups

gene

rally

sco

red

hig

her

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

Mal

e, B

lack

, Pu

erto

Ric

an/H

ispa

nic,

M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d lo

wer

tha

n re

mai

ning

sub

grou

ps.

The

Bla

ck a

nd

Puer

to R

ican

sub

grou

p pe

rfor

man

ce w

as v

aria

ble.

Fr

om 2

004

to 2

005,

All,

Fem

ale,

Whi

te,

Blac

k, P

uert

o Ric

an/H

ispa

nic,

Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

Asi

an,

Oth

er,

and

Mul

tirac

ial

subg

roup

s in

crea

sed

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

The

Nat

ion

and

Mal

e su

bgro

ups

rem

aine

d th

e sa

me.

Th

e on

ly s

ubgr

oup

to d

ecre

ase

was

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no.

75

16.3

16.3

16.4

16.3

16.5

14.6

16.2

14.7

14.5

20

14.4

16.7

16.3

16.5

16.4

16.5

16.6

14.4

16.4

15.9

14.8

15

16.4

16.3

16.4

16.4

16.5

16.6

14.8

16.3

15.4

14.7

19.8

15

16.5

16.3

16.6

16.5

16.6

16.7

14.6

15.7

15.7

14.7

15.2

16.7

05101520

Natio

nAll

Female

MaleW

hite

Black Puer

to R

ican/

Hispa

nic

Mex. A

m./Chic

ano Am

. Ind

ian/A

K Na

tive

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

1: 2

002-

2005

AC

T P

LAN

Mat

hem

atic

s M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

Fin

din

gs:

Fem

ale,

Mal

e, W

hite

, As

ian,

and

Mul

tirac

ial s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d h

igh

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Bl

ack,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no,

Amer

ican

Ind

ian/

Alas

ka N

ativ

e, a

nd O

ther

sub

grou

ps g

ener

ally

sco

red

low

er

than

rem

aini

ng s

ubgr

oups

. T

he B

lack

sub

grou

p sh

owed

ove

rall

impr

ovem

ent

from

200

2 to

200

4 bu

t de

crea

sed

in 2

005.

Fr

om 2

004

to 2

005,

All,

Fem

ale,

Mal

e, W

hite

, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, As

ian,

Oth

er,

and

Mul

tirac

ial su

bgro

ups

incr

ease

d in

per

form

ance

. T

he

Nat

ion

and

Amer

ican

Ind

ian/

Alas

kan

Nat

ive

subg

roup

s re

mai

ned

the

sam

e.

The

Blac

k an

d Pu

erto

Ric

an/H

ispa

nic

subg

roup

s sh

owed

a s

light

de

crea

se.

76

17.4

17.5

17.6

17.4

17.6

16.4

17.5

16.7

15.9

16.2

17.7

17.4

17.5

17.6

17.5

17.7

15.8

17.4

17.1

16.1

20

16.3

17.6

17.4

17.7

17.8

17.6

17.9

16.3

17

16.9

16.3

20

16.5

17.6

17.4

17.8

17.9

17.7

18

16.5

17.3

17

16.5

16.6

17.8

05101520

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black Pu

erto

Rica

n/His

panic

Mex. A

m./ Ch

icano Am

. Ind

ian/A

K Na

tive

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

2: 2

002-

2005

AC

T P

LAN

Sci

ence

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

Fin

din

gs:

The

All,

Fem

ale,

Mal

e, W

hite

, As

ian,

and

Mul

tirac

ial

subg

roup

s sc

ored

abo

ve t

he n

atio

nal

aver

age

each

yea

r.

The

Blac

k, A

mer

ican

In

dian

/Ala

ska

Nat

ive,

Asi

an, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, Mul

tirac

ial,

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

sho

wed

impr

ovem

ent.

Fr

om 20

04 to

20

05,

the

All,

Fem

ale,

M

ale,

Whi

te,

Blac

k, Pu

erto

Ric

an/H

ispa

nic,

Am

eric

an In

dian

/Ala

ska

Nat

ive,

M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, M

ultir

acia

l, an

d O

ther

sub

grou

ps im

prov

ed.

77

ACT EXPLORE

The ACT EXPLORE Program is designed to be administered in the eighth grade to provide students with an early indication of their educational progress in the context of the post-high school educational and career options they are considering. EXPLORE contains four curriculum-based tests: English, mathematics, reading, and science. These standardized multiple-choice tests are based on the major areas of high school and postsecondary instructional programs.

The four tests are measures of academic development that rely largely on the students’ abilities to apply the content knowledge and reasoning skills acquired in their coursework to high-level tasks. These tasks often require the integrations of proficiencies and skills from various courses. Consequently, the EXPLORE tests contain a large proportion of analytical, and problem-solving exercises. EXPLORE is a part of the West Virginia Measures of Assessment Progress (WV-MAP). Students are evaluated in each of the following areas:

English is a 40-item, 30 minute test that measure the student’s understanding of the conventions of standard English and rhetorical skills.

Mathematics is a 30-item, and 30 minute test designed to assess the mathematical skills that students have typically acquired in middle school and junior high courses.

Reading is a 30-item, 30 minute test that measures the student’s reading comprehension as the product of referring and reasoning skills.

Science is a 28-item, 30 minute test that measures the student’s interpretation, analysis, evaluation, reasoning, and problem-solving skills acquired in science courses through grade 8.

Note:

Abbreviations and terminology contained throughout tables and figures in the ACT EXPLORE section include: Nation An annual representative sample of 8th grade students All All 8th grade West Virginia students who took the exam under standard conditions (without accommodations) Mex. Am. Mexican American Am. Indian Native American AK Alaska Native Other All students not members of a defined subgroup

78

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

MA

THEM

ATA

ICS

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/A

K N

ativ

e

Asia

n O

ther

M

ulti-

raci

al

2000

14

.4

13.9

14

.0

13.9

14

.3

12.0

12

.3

11.8

12

.5

15.0

13

.5

14.2

2001

14

.4

14.4

14

.4

14.4

14

.7

12.6

14

.0

13.5

13

.1

16.1

13

.8

14.8

2002

14

.4

14.1

14

.3

14.0

14

.5

12.1

13

.6

12.8

12

.9

14.8

13

.9

14.7

2003

14

.4

14.2

14

.4

14.0

14

.3

12.2

12

.7

12.6

12

.4

15.0

13

.6

14.7

2004

14

.4

14.2

14

.4

14.1

14

.4

12.6

14

.0

12.7

12

.4

17.3

13

.6

14.3

2005

14

.4

14.5

14

.7

14.4

14

.7

13.0

12

.9

13.9

13

.3

16.8

13

.5

14.5

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

REA

DIN

G

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n O

ther

M

ulti-

raci

al

2000

13

.9

13.6

14

.5

12.7

14

.1

11.3

11

.3

10.4

11

.4

14.2

12

.6

14.1

2001

13

.9

14.3

14

.7

13.8

14

.6

12.4

14

.2

13.4

12

.9

15.3

13

.4

14.8

2002

13

.9

13.8

14

.3

13.4

14

.2

12.2

13

.6

13.1

12

.8

14.2

13

.2

14.2

2003

13

.9

13.8

14

.3

13.3

14

.1

12.3

12

.9

12.8

12

.4

14.4

12

.7

13.9

2004

13

.9

13.8

14

.3

13.3

13

.9

12.2

13

.4

12.9

12

.0

16.4

12

.8

13.8

2005

13

.9

13.9

14

.4

13.4

14

.1

12.5

12

.4

13.4

12

.6

15.2

12

.7

13.8

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

EXP

LOR

E R

eadi

ng

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l gra

de 8

stu

den

ts):

Sh

ows

the

1) t

he n

atio

nal m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

2)

the

All (

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia)

mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

’ mea

n sc

ale

scor

es.

Tabl

e 23

: 2

000—

2005

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

Rea

din

g

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

EXP

LOR

E M

ath

emat

ics

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l gra

de 8

stu

den

ts):

Sh

ows

the

1) t

he n

atio

nal m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

2)

the

All (

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia)

mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

’ mea

n sc

ale

scor

es.

Tabl

e 2

4:

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

EXP

LOR

E M

ath

emat

ics

79

20

00—

2005

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

Scie

nce

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l gra

de 8

stu

den

ts):

Sh

ows

the

1) t

he n

atio

nal m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

2)

the

All (

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia)

mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, a

nd 3

) al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

’ mea

n sc

ale

scor

es.

Tabl

e 2

5:

20

00

—2

00

5 A

CT

EXP

LOR

E Sc

ien

ce

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

SCIE

NC

E

Year

N

atio

n Al

l (W

V)

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

Puer

to

Ric

an/

His

pani

c

Mex

. Am

./

Chic

ano

Am.

Indi

an/

AK

Nat

ive

Asia

n O

ther

M

ultir

acia

l

2000

15

.9

14.0

14

.4

13.7

14

.4

12.3

12

.0

11.9

12

.3

14.8

13

.4

1

4.4

2001

15

.9

16.1

16

.3

16.0

16

.4

14.8

16

.1

15.3

14

.9

17.2

15

.6

1

6.6

2002

15

.9

16.0

16

.1

15.8

16

.2

14.6

15

.3

15.1

15

.2

16.0

15

.6

1

6.3

2003

15

.9

15.7

15

.9

15.5

15

.9

14.5

14

.5

14.8

14

.6

16.4

15

.1

1

6.0

2004

15

.9

15.7

15

.9

15.4

15

.8

14.4

15

.4

14.9

14

.1

17.9

15

.2

1

5.8

2005

15

.9

15.9

16

.2

15.7

16

.1

14.9

15

.2

15.6

15

.0

17.8

15

.1

1

5.9

80

13.9

13.8

14.3

13.3

13.9

12.2

13.4

12.9

12

16.4

12.8

13.8

13.9

13.9

14.4

13.4

14.1

12.5

12.4

13.4

12.6

15.2

12.7

13.8

05101520

Nation

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black

Puer

to Rica

n/His

panic Mex

. Am./C

hican

oAm

. Ind

ian/A

K Na

tive

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

3: 2

000-

2005

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

Rea

din

g M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

Fin

din

gs:

Fem

ale,

Whi

te,

and

Asia

n su

bgro

ups

gene

rally

sco

red

hig

her

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

Blac

k, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d lo

wer

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

The

Blac

k su

bgro

up s

how

ed i

mpr

ovem

ent

from

200

4 to

200

5,

with

200

5 pe

rfor

man

ce b

eing

the

hig

hes

t.

From

200

4 to

200

5, A

ll, F

emal

e, M

ale,

Whi

te,

Blac

k, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, an

d Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

n N

ativ

e su

bgro

ups

incr

ease

d in

pe

rfor

man

ce.

The

Nat

ion

and

Mul

tirac

ial

subg

roup

s re

mai

ned

the

sam

e.

The

Puer

to R

ican

/His

pani

c, A

sian

, an

d O

ther

sub

grou

ps s

how

ed a

slig

ht

decl

ine

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

81

14.4

13.9

14

13.9

14.3

12

12.3

11.8

12.5

15

13.5

14.2

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.7

12.6

14

13.5

13.1

16.1

13.8

14.8

14.4

14.1

14.3

14

14.5

12.1

13.6

12.8

12.9

14.8

13.9

14.7

14.4

14.2

14.4

14

14.3

12.2

12.7

12.6

12.4

15

13.6

14.7

14.4

14.2

14.4

14.1

14.4

12.6

14

12.7

12.4

17.3

13.6

14.3

05101520

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black Pu

erto

Rica

n/His

panic

Mex. A

m./Chic

ano Am

. Ind

ian/A

K Na

tive

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

4: 2

000-

2005

AC

T EX

PLO

RE

Mat

hem

atic

s M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

Fin

din

gs:

Fem

ale,

Whi

te,

and

Asia

n su

bgro

ups

gene

rally

sco

red

hig

her

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

Blac

k, P

uert

o Ric

an/H

ispa

nic,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/

Chic

ano,

Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d lo

wer

tha

n ot

her

subg

roup

s.

The

Blac

k su

bgro

up s

how

ed o

vera

ll im

prov

emen

t fr

om 2

000

with

200

5 pe

rfor

man

ce b

eing

the

hig

hes

t, b

ut o

vera

ll th

e su

bgro

up’s

per

form

ance

was

var

iabl

e.

From

200

4 to

200

5, t

he A

ll Fe

mal

e, M

ale,

Whi

te,

Blac

k, M

exic

an A

mer

ican

/Chi

cano

, Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

and

Mul

tirac

ial

subg

roup

s in

crea

sed

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

The

Puer

to R

ican

/His

pani

c, A

sian

, and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

indi

cate

d a

decr

ease

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

82

Fi

gure

25:

200

0-20

05 A

CT

EXP

LOR

E Sc

ien

ce M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s

15.9

14

14.4

13.7

14.4

12.3

12

11.9

12.3

14.8

13.4

14.4

15.9

16.1

16.3

16

16.4

14.8

16.1

15.3

14.9

17.2

15.6

16.6

15.9

15.7

15.9

15.5

15.9

14.5

14.6

15.1

16

15.9

15.9

16.2

15.7

16.1

14.9

15.2

15.6

15

17.8

15.1

15.9

16.4

14.5

14.8

05101520

Nation

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black

Puer

to Rica

n/His

panic Mex

. Am./

Chica

no

Am. I

ndian

/AK

Nativ

e

Asian

Other

Multira

cial

Subg

roup

s

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fin

din

gs:

The

Fem

ale,

Mal

e, B

lack

, Am

eric

an/I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no, a

nd O

ther

sub

grou

ps h

ave

neve

r sc

ored

abo

ve t

he

natio

nal

aver

age.

Th

e Al

l, W

hite

, Pu

erto

Ric

an/H

ispa

nic

Asia

n, a

nd M

ultir

acia

l ha

ve s

eldo

m s

core

d ab

ove

the

natio

nal

aver

age.

Fe

mal

es

cons

iste

ntly

sco

re h

igh

er th

an t

he M

ale

subg

roup

. Fr

om 2

004

to 2

005,

the

All,

Fem

ale,

Mal

e, W

hite

, Bl

ack,

Am

eric

an I

ndia

n/Al

aska

Nat

ive,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an/C

hica

no,

and

Mul

tirac

ial

subg

roup

s in

crea

sed

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

The

Puer

to R

ican

/His

pani

c an

d O

ther

sub

grou

ps s

how

ed a

dec

line

in p

erfo

rman

ce.

83

SAT

The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Reasoning Test measures writing, critical reading, and mathematical reasoning skills that students have developed over time and are necessary to be successful in college. The SAT is aligned with current curriculum and institutional practices in high schools and colleges. The subgroups used by the College Board are different from the required NCLB subgroups and the ACT subgroups.

The SAT is not part of the state assessment system, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress (WV-MAP). It is part of a private national assessment system that provides college admission testing opportunities directly to local school systems. Students pay a fee for the test administration and results.

Students are evaluated in the following areas:

Verbal is a 75 minute three-part multiple-choice exam. The first two sections are 30 minutes each and the third section is 15 minutes. The Verbal section measures extended reasoning, literal comprehension, and vocabulary in context.

Mathematics is a three-section multiple-choice and student produced response exam. The first two sections are 30 minutes each and the last section is 15 minutes. The exam measures numbers and operations, algebra and functions geometry, statistics, probability, and data analysis abilities.

Note:

Abbreviations contained throughout tables and figures in the report include: Nation All graduating students All West Virginia graduating students in public school Mex. Am. Mexican American Am. Indian Native American Indian Other All students not members of a defined subgroup

84

SA

T V

ERB

AL

Year

N

atio

n

All

(WV)

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k Pu

erto

Ric

an

Mex

. Am

. H

ispa

nic

Am.

Indi

an

Asia

n O

ther

To

tal

Test

ed

2000

50

5 52

5 52

5 52

6 52

7 45

0 *

* 53

0 *

557

* 33

75

2001

50

6 52

6 52

6 52

6 52

7 44

4 60

3 51

7 53

7 50

9 57

7 51

7 30

03

2002

50

4 52

3 51

9 52

7 52

3 43

4 *

* 54

8 *

553

530

2967

2003

50

7 52

0 51

6 52

6 51

9 43

3 *

* 50

1 *

547

526

3041

2004

50

8 52

1 51

5 52

8 51

9 44

2 49

5 49

7 57

2 50

5 57

3 51

4 28

54

2005

50

8 52

4 51

7 53

3 52

3 46

8 *

488

566

508

554

531

2804

SAT

MA

THEM

ATI

CS

Year

N

atio

n

All

(WV)

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k Pu

erto

Ric

an

Mex

. Am

. H

ispa

nic

Am.

Indi

an

Asia

n O

ther

To

tal

Test

ed

2000

51

4 51

1 49

4 53

3 51

4 41

8 *

* 49

1 45

2 59

0 *

3375

2001

51

4 51

2 49

7 53

1 51

3 42

3 56

0 48

0 48

5 49

4 61

2 50

2 30

03

2002

51

6 51

4 49

5 53

6 51

5 40

4 *

* 55

3 49

6 59

3 51

3 29

67

2003

51

9 51

1 49

1 53

5 51

1 40

5 *

* 47

8 *

581

503

3041

2004

51

8 51

4 49

1 53

9 51

1 41

5 48

8 45

1 54

3 51

6 61

9 49

7 28

54

2005

52

0 51

4 49

6 53

8 51

1 44

7 *

485

572

503

588

511

2804

2000

—20

05 S

AT

Ver

bal M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s (A

ggre

gate

of

all p

ubl

ic h

igh

sch

ool g

radu

ates

): S

how

s th

e 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

26:

200

0—20

05 S

AT

Ver

bal

2000

—20

05 S

AT

Mat

hem

atic

s M

ean

Sca

le S

core

s (A

ggre

gate

of

all p

ubl

ic h

igh

sch

ool g

radu

ates

):

Show

s th

e 1)

the

nat

iona

l mea

n sc

ale

scor

e by

sub

grou

p, 2

) th

e Al

l (W

est

Virg

inia

) m

ean

scal

e sc

ore

by s

ubgr

oup,

and

3)

all o

ther

sub

grou

ps’ m

ean

scal

e sc

ores

. Ta

ble

27:

200

0—20

05 S

AT

Mat

hem

atic

s

Not

e: O

nly

the

last

sco

re a

stu

dent

ach

ieve

s is

use

d to

con

stru

ct t

he d

ata.

*

Sam

ple

too

smal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

Not

e: O

nly

the

last

sco

re a

stu

dent

ach

ieve

s is

use

d to

con

stru

ct t

he d

ata.

*

Sam

ple

too

smal

l to

prov

ide

relia

ble

data

85

505

525

527

450

530

557

506

526

526

526

527

444

603

537

517

509

577

517

507

520

516

526

519

433

501

547

526

508

521

515

528

519

442

495

572

497

505

573

514

508

524

517

533

523

468

566

488

508

554

531

525

526

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black

Puer

to R

ican

Hisp

anic

Mex. A

m.

Am. I

ndian

Asian

Other

Su

bg

rou

ps

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

6: 2

000-

2005

SA

T V

erba

l Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

Fin

din

gs:

All,

Mal

e, H

ispa

nic,

Asi

an,

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d h

igh

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Bl

ack,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an,

and

Amer

ican

In

dian

sub

grou

ps g

ener

ally

sco

red

low

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Th

e Bl

ack

subg

roup

per

form

ance

was

at

an a

ll tim

e h

igh

ove

r th

e pa

st s

ix y

ears

w

ith a

ver

bal s

core

of

468.

Fr

om 2

004

to 2

005,

all

subg

roup

s sh

owed

gai

ns

in s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce e

xcep

t M

exic

an A

mer

ican

, H

ispa

nic,

and

Asi

an.

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia (

All)

cons

iste

ntly

sco

red

abov

e th

e N

atio

n in

SAT

Ver

bal.

86

514

511

514

418

491

452

590

514

512

497

531

513

423

560

485

480

494

612

502

516

514

495

536

515

404

553

496

593

513

519

511

491

535

511

405

478

581

503

518

514

491

539

511

415

488

543

451

516

619

497

520

514

496

538

511

447

572

485

503

588

511

533

494

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Natio

n

All

Female

Male

Whit

e

Black

Puer

to R

ican

Hisp

anic

Mex. A

m.

Am. I

ndian

Asian

Other

Su

bg

roup

s

Scale Scores

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figu

re 2

7: 2

000-

2005

SA

T M

ath

emat

ics

Mea

n S

cale

Sco

res

Fin

din

gs:

All,

Mal

e, W

hite

, H

ispa

nic,

and

Asi

an s

ubgr

oups

gen

eral

ly s

core

d h

igh

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Bl

ack,

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an,

and

Amer

ican

In

dian

sub

grou

ps g

ener

ally

sco

red

low

er t

han

othe

r su

bgro

ups.

Th

e Bl

ack

subg

roup

per

form

ance

was

at

an a

ll tim

e h

igh

ove

r th

e pa

st s

ix y

ears

w

ith a

mat

hem

atic

s sc

ore

of 4

47.

From

200

4 to

200

5, a

ll su

bgro

ups

show

ed g

ain

s in

stu

dent

per

form

ance

exc

ept

Mal

e, A

mer

ican

Ind

ian,

and

Asi

an.

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia (

All)

cons

iste

ntly

sc

ored

bel

ow t

he N

atio

n in

SAT

Mat

hem

atic

s.

87

Career/Technical Education (CTE)

ACT WorkKeys End-of-Course Exams

The West Virginia Career and Technical Education prepares approximately 4,000 students annually for the workforce and further education through educational programs and training offered at career and technical education sites throughout the state. The career and technical programs utilize over 300 schools and are available to students in every county in the state.

The federal Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Act of 1998 requires states to assess and report career/technical students progress related to a number of core indicators of performance. Three core indicators are relevant measures of student achievement/outcomes. The two assessment tools used by West Virginia are:

ACT WorkKeys – All Career/Technical completers are required to take the attainment of academic skills assessments in reading and mathematics. Performance levels are established for each career/technical concentration based on industry standards for entry and progression within the workplace. [Note: A West Virginia Career/Technical completer is defined as a student that has completed, at a minimum, the four career/technical concentration units for the area of study.]

End-of-Course Exams – All students that take a career/technical core course are required to take an online, end-of-course test designed to assess mastery of the specified technical skills, content standards, and objectives. These tests are administered at the end of each semester, with mastery defined as 74 percent.

The remaining indicator used for compliance is the Postsecondary Placement of Completers in Employment or Postsecondary Education. It is described on page 95 of this report, and the most recent data are on page 99 of this report.

Note:

Abbreviations contained throughout tables and figures in the report include:

AK Nat. Alaska Native

Nat. Am. Native American Indian

Other All students not members of a defined subgroup

88

20

04-2

005

CTE

AC

T W

orkK

eys:

Aca

dem

ic S

kills

Att

ain

men

t (A

ggre

gate

of

all

perf

orm

ance

in

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

):

Show

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of st

uden

t m

eetin

g w

orkp

lace

pro

ficie

ncy

stan

dard

s in

rea

ding

and

mat

hem

atic

s by

sub

grou

p.

Tabl

e 2

8:

20

04

-20

05

AC

T C

TE W

orkK

eys

2004

-200

5 C

TE E

nd-

of-C

ours

e Ex

ams:

Tec

hn

ical

Ski

lls A

ttai

nm

ent

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l pe

rfor

man

ce i

n W

est

Vir

gini

a):

Sho

ws

the

perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

t m

eetin

g w

orkp

lace

pro

ficie

ncy

stan

dard

s in

tec

hnic

al s

kills

by

subg

roup

. Ta

ble

29

: 2

00

4-2

00

5 C

TE E

nd-

of-C

ours

e

Oth

er =

Tec

h Pr

ep s

tude

nts

*Dat

a w

ill b

e av

aila

ble

in J

une

2006

2004

-200

5 C

TE E

nd-

of-C

ours

e Pe

rcen

tage

of

Stud

ents

Mee

ting

Stan

dard

s in

Tec

hnic

al S

kill

Atta

inm

ent

Tota

l N

umbe

r Te

sted

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

./

AK N

at.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

LEP

Non

-tr

aditi

onal

En

rolle

es

Oth

er

2004

18

,509

42

.69

37.8

9 40

.28

25.7

9 40

.00

33.3

3 43

.04

42.0

0 20

.48

44.2

6 41

.31

34.8

4

2005

31

,538

64

.49

60.6

3 62

.74

48.8

6 51

.91

46.1

5 72

.67

57.8

5 42

.91

55.3

7 65

.09

58.0

6

2006

D

ata

is n

ot a

vaila

ble*

M

aste

ry is

def

ined

at

74%

O

ther

= T

ech

Prep

stu

dent

s *D

ata

will

be

avai

labl

e in

Jun

e 20

06

2004

-200

5 C

TE A

CT

Wor

kKey

s Pe

rcen

tage

of

Stud

ents

Mee

ting

Stan

dard

s in

Aca

dem

ic S

kill

Atta

inm

ent

Tota

l N

umbe

r Te

sted

Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

./ A

K N

at.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

LEP

Non

-tr

aditi

onal

En

rolle

es

Oth

er

2005

3,

785

68.7

4 42

.84

53.0

4 46

.53

50.0

0 25

.00

80.0

0 51

.96

17.2

1 50

.00

73.9

42

.82

2006

D

ata

is n

ot a

vaila

ble*

89

68

.74

42.

84 53.0

4

46.5

3 50

25

80

51.9

6

17.

21

50

73.9

42.

82

02040

6080

100

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hisp

anic

Nat.

Am./

AK N

at.

Asian ED

SWD LE

P

Nont

raditio

nal E

nroll

ees

Other

Subgroups

% o

f S

tud

ents

2005

Findings: The Asian and Nontraditional Enrollees subgroups outperformed all other subgroups. The Female, White, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and Limited English Proficient subgroups were all at 50 percent or above in meeting proficiency standards.

Figure 28: 2004-2005 CTE ACT WorkKeys: Academic Skills Attainment

42.6

9

37.8

9

40.2

8

25.7

9

40

33.

33 43.0

4

42

20.4

8 44.2

6

41.3

1

34.

84

64.4

9

60.6

3

62.7

4

48.8

6

51.

91

46.1

5

72.

67

57.8

5

42.9

1 55.3

7

65.0

9

58.0

6

0

20

40

60

80

Female Male

Whit

eBla

ck

Hispan

ic

Nat. A

m./ AK

Nat.

Asian ED

SWD LE

P

Non-tr

aditio

nal E

nroll

ees

Other

Subgroups

% o

f St

uden

ts

2004

2005

Figure 29: 2004-2005 CTE End-of-Course Exams: Technical Skills Attainment

Findings: All subgroups showed increases in 2005. The greatest increases were the Asian and Nontradional Enrollees subgroups.

90

High Schools That Work (HSTW)

High Schools That Work (HSTW) is a national program designed to improve the way all high school students are prepared for work and further education. It was founded on the conviction that most students can master rigorous academic and career/technical studies if school leaders and teachers create an environment that motivates students to make the effort to succeed. West Virginia joined the effort-based school improvement initiative in 1986. High Schools That Work is currently in 104 high schools in 35 West Virginia counties. The High Schools That Work goals, key practices, and key conditions as a school improvement initiative are aligned to the Framework for High Performing School Systems.

High Schools That Work has four achievement levels for which cut scores are determined. They are Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. High Schools That Work assessments were re-normed in terms of benchmarks and cut scores in 2003. Subsequently, the 2003-2004 data is not considered comparable to the past assessment results. However, West Virginia vocational completers have consistently shown progress in the data from past HSTW assessments.

West Virginia has completed the 2006 High Schools That Work assessments and that data will be available in August 2006. Although the most recent data is unavailable, they clearly indicated a direct rise in student achievement when the High Schools That Work practices and conditions are fully implemented. The data included in this report are from the 2004 High Schools That Work student assessments. The results are based on a testing sample of over 5,000 students in 90 High Schools That Work sites statewide.

91

2004-2005 High Schools That Work Reading Assessment (Aggregate of all performance in West Virginia): Shows the 1) percentage of students in each performance level by subgroup and 2) the percentage of students At or Above Basic by subgroup. Table 30: 2004-2005 High Schools That Work Reading Assessment

HSTW READING Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Advanced All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW READING Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Proficient All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 31.0 34.0 28.0 32.0 20.0 22.0 30.0 19.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW READING Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Basic All Female Male6 White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 36.0 41.0 31.0 36.0 35.0 29.0 46.0 31.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW READING Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Below Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 28.0 21.0 36.0 27.0 43.0 47.0 22.0 42.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW READING Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 72.0 80.0 64.0 73.0 57.0 52.0 78.0 58.0 2005 Data not available

Findings: The All, Female, Male, and White subgroups outperformed all other subgroups at the Advanced level. The All, Female, White, and Multiracial subgroups showed the greatest achievement at the Proficient level. The Female and Multiracial subgroups showed the highest achievement at the Basic level. The Black and Hispanic subgroups showed the least achievement at the Below Basic level.

92

2004-2005 High Schools That Work Mathematics Assessment (Aggregate of all performance in West Virginia): Shows the 1) percentage of students in each performance level by subgroup and 2) the percentage of students At or Above Basic by subgroup. Table 31: 2004-2005 High Schools That Work Mathematics Assessment

HSTW MATHEMATICS Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Advanced All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW MATHEMATICS Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Proficient All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 11.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 7.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW MATHEMATICS Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 41.0 43.0 40.0 42.0 26.0 33.0 52.0 38.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW MATHEMATICS Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Below Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 46.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 70.0 57.0 37.0 53.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW MATHEMATICS Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 54.0 54.0 55.0 55.0 31.0 43.0 63.0 48.0 2005 Data not available

Findings: The Male subgroups showed the greatest achievement at the Advanced level. The All, Male, and White subgroups showed the highest performance at the Proficient level. The Multiracial subgroup showed the greatest performance at the Basic level. The Black and Hispanic subgroups showed the lowest achievement at the Below Basic level.

93

2004-2005 High Schools That Work Science Assessment (Aggregate of all performance in West Virginia): Shows the 1) percentage of students in each performance level by subgroup and 2) the percentage of students At or Above Basic by subgroup. Table 32: High Schools That Work Science Assessment

Findings: The Male and Other subgroups showed the highest performance at the Advanced level. The Male and Multiracial subgroups showed the greatest achievement at the Proficient level. The Female and White subgroups showed the highest performance at the Basic level. The Black and Hispanic subgroups showed the lowest performance at the Below Basic level.

HSTW SCIENCE Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Advanced All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW SCIENCE Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Proficient All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 14.0 10.0 17.0 14.0 6.0 10.0 16.0 11.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW SCIENCE Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 28.0 30.0 27.0 29.0 23.0 20.0 26.0 24.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW SCIENCE Subgroup Impact Data Percent at Below Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 56.0 59.0 53.0 55.0 70.0 70.0 55.0 62.0 2005 Data not available

HSTW SCIENCE Subgroup Impact Data Percent At or Above Basic All Female Male White Black Hispanic Multiracial Other

2004 44.0 41.0 48.0 45.0 30.0 31.0 44.0 39.0 2005 Data not available

94

Additional State Public School Subgroup Impact Data Criterion The additional data in this section are presented by the numbers or rates per subgroups as determined by student participation within each indicator. A description of each indicator precedes the tables that report the statistics. The tables provide trend data by indicator and subgroups.

Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses are sponsored by the College Board. The Board provides teacher training on the instructional aspects of delivering quality Advanced Placement coursework for West Virginia students. The College Board also provides assessments of the courses for students who have enrolled and completed Advanced Placement coursework. The Advanced Placement scores range from 1 to 5 per Advanced Placement course/assessment.

Attendance Rate According to West Virginia Board of Education Policy 4110, public school attendance of days present divided by the number of days of membership, multiplied by one hundred, equals attendance rate for students on the attendance registers in classes in grades K-12. The calculation for the student attendance rate is as follows: [total days present / (total days present + total days absent)] x 100. Attendance data are maintained on the West Virginia Education Information System (WVEIS). Dropout Rate According to West Virginia Board of Education Policy 4110, a dropout is an individual who was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year and was not enrolled on October 1st of the current school year or was not enrolled on October 1st of the previous year although expected to be in membership (i.e., was not reported as a dropout the year before and has not graduated from high school, obtained a General Educational Development (GED) diploma, or completed a state or district approved education program, and does not meet any of the exclusionary conditions outlined within this policy.) Dropout data are maintained on the WVEIS. Graduation Rate

The public school graduation rate is measured using the number of students who graduate from a public high school with a regular diploma (not including a GED or any other diploma not fully aligned with the state’s academic standards) in the standard number of years. As authorized by Title I Part A of NCLB, §200.19, West Virginia will include a provision for students with disabilities that allows the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to determine the standard number of years for graduation. The number of high school graduates and dropouts by grade has been reported to the West Virginia Department of Education for the last five years.

95

The calculation for West Virginia’s graduation rate is the method recommended by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the total number of four-year graduates divided by the sum of the total number of four-year graduates plus the dropouts for the four years of high school for this class of graduates as represented in the following formula:

gt /(gt+ d12

t + d11(t-1) + d10

(t-2) + d9(t-3))

g = graduates t = year of graduation d = dropouts 12, 11, 10, 9 = class level

College Going Rate The West Virginia Department of Education does not currently collect this data nor does the Department have a formal definition or protocol for collecting this data. Retention Rate The West Virginia Department of Education does not currently collect this data nor does the Department have a formal definition or protocol for collecting this data.

Career/Technical Education Postsecondary Placement of Completers

Postsecondary placement of completers in employment or education is required for compliance with the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Act of 1998. Placement status is determined by a follow-up conducted within one year of graduation for all career/technical completers to ascertain their employment or postsecondary education status.

Impact Data Results

The aforementioned input data are reported with findings following each category of information.

Organization of Additional Data

The identified assessment measures and corresponding data are presented in the following manner:

• table that reports the statistics for each measure from 2004-2005, by subgroup

• findings are noted

96

20

04-2

005

AD

VA

NC

ED P

LAC

EMEN

T Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Du

plic

ated

Cou

nt

of S

tude

nts

)

All

Fem

ale

Mal

e W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

at. A

m.

Asia

n ED

SW

D

Mig

rant

LE

P 20

04

11,1

77

6,12

8 5,

049

10,3

17

146

91

8 61

5 1,

278

42

2 52

6 20

05

10,7

20

5,95

2 4,

768

9,93

5 18

0 57

21

52

7 1,

309

40

2 44

9 C

han

ge

-

457

-17

6 -2

81

-382

34

-3

4 13

-8

8 31

-2

0

-77

2004

-200

5 A

TTEN

DA

NC

E R

ATE

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ate

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

96

.41

96.5

1 96

.32

96.4

6 95

.27

96.0

1 94

.90

97.5

9 96

.99

96.0

0 *

95.6

6 20

05

96.7

4 96

.87

96.6

3 96

.78

95.8

3 96

.41

95.1

1 98

.52

98.2

1 96

.12

* 95

.92

Ch

ange

0.

33

0.36

0.

31

0.32

0.

56

0.40

0.

21

0.93

1.

22

0.12

*

0.26

2004

—20

05 A

dvan

ced

Pla

cem

ent

Enro

llmen

t Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l hig

h s

choo

l stu

dent

s):

Sh

ows

the

num

ber

of W

est

Virg

inia

stu

dent

s by

sub

grou

p w

ho w

ere

enro

lled

in A

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t cl

asse

s.

Tabl

e 33

: 2

004-

2005

Adv

ance

d P

lace

men

t En

rollm

ent

2004

—20

05 A

tten

dan

ce R

ate

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a (A

ggre

gate

of

all

high

sch

ool

stud

ents

):

Sho

ws

the

atte

ndan

ce r

ate

of W

est

Virg

inia

stu

dent

s by

sub

grou

p w

ho w

ere

enro

lled

in p

ublic

sch

ools

. Ta

ble

35

: 2

00

4-2

00

5 A

tten

dan

ce R

ate

Fin

din

gs:

The

data

indi

cate

tha

t th

e Bl

ack,

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

, and

Eco

nom

ical

ly D

isad

vant

aged

sub

grou

ps s

how

ed in

crea

ses

in t

he n

umbe

r of

stu

dent

s en

rolle

d in

Adv

ance

d Pl

acem

ent.

The

num

ber

of s

tude

nts

taki

ng t

he A

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t ex

ams

appe

ar t

o be

dis

prop

ortio

nate

ly s

mal

l in

the

var

ious

sub

grou

ps i

n co

mpa

rison

to

the

tota

l pop

ulat

ion

of h

igh

scho

ol s

tude

nts.

Fin

din

gs:

The

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia p

ublic

sch

ools

Att

enda

nce

Rat

e da

ta s

how

ed t

hat

each

sub

grou

p im

prov

ed i

n at

tend

ance

fro

m 2

004

to 2

005.

M

igra

nt d

ata

wer

e no

t av

aila

ble.

2004

—20

05 A

dvan

ced

Pla

cem

ent

Per

form

ance

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l h

igh

sch

ool

stu

den

ts):

S

how

s th

e nu

mbe

r of

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia h

igh

scho

ol s

tude

nts

by s

ubgr

oup

who

sco

red

a 3

or a

bove

on

Adva

nced

Pla

cem

ent

exam

s.

Tabl

e 34

: 2

004-

2005

Adv

ance

d P

lace

men

t P

erfo

rman

ce

2004

-200

5 A

DV

AN

CED

PLA

CEM

ENT

Per

form

ance

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Du

plic

ated

Cou

nt

of S

tude

nts

))

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

Oth

er

No

Res

pons

e

2004

2,

155

1,10

4 1,

051

1,82

8 18

19

9

197

57

27

2005

2,

073

1,09

0 98

3 1,

743

16

32

5 18

0 71

26

C

han

ge

-82

-14

-68

-85

-2

13

-4

-17

14

-1

Fin

din

gs:

The

dat

a in

dica

te t

hat

the

num

ber

of s

tude

nts

scor

ing

a 3

or a

bove

dro

pped

in e

ach

repo

rted

sub

grou

p fr

om 2

004

to 2

005

with

the

exc

eptio

ns o

f th

e H

ispa

nic

and

Oth

er s

ubgr

oups

. Th

e nu

mbe

r of

stu

dent

s sc

orin

g 3

or a

bove

als

o se

emed

dis

prop

ortio

nate

ly s

mal

l fo

r th

e Bl

ack,

His

pani

c, N

ativ

e Am

eric

an,

Asia

n, a

nd O

ther

sub

grou

ps w

hen

com

pare

d to

the

All

subg

roup

.

97

20

04-2

005

DR

OP

OU

T R

ATE

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

3.

21

2.68

3.

70

3.16

4.

47

2.95

8.

23

0.62

3.

79

3.75

*

1.66

20

05

3.04

2.

71

3.35

3.

01

3.85

3.

72

2.78

1.

48

3.74

4.

36

* 2.

07

Ch

ange

-0

.17

0.03

-0

.35

-0.1

5 -0

.62

0.77

-5

.45

0.86

-0

.05

0.61

*

0.41

2004

-200

5 G

RA

DU

ATI

ON

RA

TE S

ubg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

83

.99

86.3

2 81

.84

83.9

1 83

.52

83.1

6 75

.00

98.0

1 80

.49

73.5

5 10

0.00

96

.92

2005

84

.26

86.0

6 82

.52

84.3

3 81

.20

88.5

4 63

.64

92.2

0 77

.99

75.2

4 10

0.00

87

.76

Ch

ange

0.

27

-0.2

6 0.

68

0.42

-2

.32

5.38

-1

1.36

-5

.81

-2.5

0 1.

69

0.00

-9

.16

2004

—20

05 D

ropo

ut

Rat

e Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l h

igh

sch

ool

stu

den

ts):

S

how

s th

e nu

mbe

r of

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia

stud

ents

by

subg

roup

who

dro

pped

out

of

scho

ol.

Tabl

e 36

: 2

004-

2005

Dro

pou

t R

ate

20

04

—2

00

5 G

radu

atio

n R

ate

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a (A

ggre

gate

of

all

high

sch

ool

stud

ents

):

Sho

ws

the

num

ber

of W

est

Virg

inia

st

uden

ts b

y su

bgro

up w

ho g

radu

ated

. Ta

ble

37

: 2

00

4-2

00

5 G

radu

atio

n R

ate

Find

ings

: Th

e W

est

Virg

inia

pub

lic s

choo

ls D

ropo

ut R

ate

data

sho

wed

All,

Mal

e, W

hite

, Bl

ack,

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

, an

d Ec

onom

ical

ly D

isad

vant

aged

su

bgro

ups

had

a lo

wer

ed D

ropo

ut R

ate

from

200

4-20

05.

Fem

ale,

His

pani

c, A

sian

, St

uden

ts w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s, a

nd L

imite

d En

glis

h Pr

ofic

ient

su

bgro

ups

show

ed g

ain

s in

the

Dro

pout

Rat

e fr

om 2

004-

2005

.

Fin

din

gs:

The

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia p

ublic

sch

ools

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e da

ta s

how

ed F

emal

e, B

lack

, N

ativ

e Am

eric

an,

Asia

n, E

cono

mic

ally

Dis

adva

ntag

ed,

and

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

nt s

ubgr

oups

had

a l

ower

ed g

radu

atio

n ra

te f

rom

200

4-20

05.

All,

Mal

e, W

hite

, H

ispa

nic,

and

Stu

dent

s w

ith

Dis

abili

ties

subg

roup

s sh

owed

gai

ns

in G

radu

atio

n Rat

e fr

om 2

004-

2005

.

98

2004

-200

5 C

OLL

EGE

GO

ING

RA

TE S

ubg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

U

nav

aila

ble

from

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Dep

artm

ent

of E

duca

tion

– H

igh

er E

duca

tion

may

pro

vide

dat

a.

2005

Ch

ange

2004

-200

5 R

ETEN

TIO

N R

ATE

Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

Al

l Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

. As

ian

ED

SWD

M

igra

nt

LEP

2004

U

nav

aila

ble

from

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Dep

artm

ent

of E

duca

tion

20

05

Ch

ange

2004

—20

05 C

olle

ge G

oin

g R

ate

Subg

rou

p Im

pact

Dat

a (A

ggre

gate

of

all p

ubl

ic h

igh

sch

ool s

tude

nts

):

Dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

Tabl

e 38

: 2

004-

2005

Col

lege

Goi

ng

Rat

e

2004

—20

05 R

eten

tion

Rat

e Su

bgro

up

Impa

ct D

ata

(Agg

rega

te o

f al

l pu

blic

hig

h s

choo

l stu

den

ts):

D

ata

are

una

vaila

ble.

Ta

ble

39:

200

4-20

05 R

eten

tion

Rat

e

Fin

din

gs:

The

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia p

ublic

sch

ools

Col

lege

Goi

ng R

ate

data

are

not

cur

rent

ly a

vaila

ble

for

stud

y.

Fin

din

gs:

The

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia p

ublic

sch

ools

Ret

entio

n Rat

e da

ta a

re n

ot c

urre

ntly

ava

ilabl

e fo

r st

udy.

99

20

04-2

005

Pla

cem

ent

of C

ompl

eter

s in

Em

ploy

men

t or

Pos

tsec

onda

ry E

duca

tion

(A

ggre

gate

of

all

2004

Com

plet

ers)

: S

how

s th

e 1)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

plac

ed in

em

ploy

men

t or

the

mili

tary

in e

ach

subg

roup

, 2)

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

plac

ed in

con

tinui

ng e

duca

tion

or t

rain

ing

in e

ach

subg

roup

, and

3)

the

perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts n

ot p

lace

d in

eac

h su

bgro

up.

Tabl

e 4

0 :

20

04

-20

05

CTE

Pla

cem

ent

in E

mpl

oym

ent

or P

osts

econ

dary

Edu

cati

on

Un

avai

labl

e u

nti

l Ju

ne

2006

2004

-200

5 C

TE P

OST

SEC

ON

DA

RY

PLA

CEM

ENT

Per

cen

tage

of

Stu

den

ts P

lace

d in

Em

ploy

men

t or

Pos

tsec

onda

ry E

duca

tion

(2

004

Com

plet

ers)

2004

-200

5

Tota

l N

umbe

r of

Co

mpl

eter

s Fe

mal

e M

ale

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

. Am

./

AK

Nat

. As

ian

ED

SWD

LE

P N

ontr

aditi

onal

En

rolle

es

Empl

oym

ent/

Mili

tary

2,

614

48.7

3 61

.71

57.2

0 45

.56

80.0

0 75

.00

16.6

7 60

.73

66.3

4 60

.00

50.9

9 Co

ntin

ued

Educ

atio

n/Tr

aini

ng

1,63

9 45

.29

30.3

6 35

.78

48.8

9 20

.00

0.00

66

.67

29.2

5 21

.26

40.0

0 43

.07

Not

Pla

ced

331

5.98

7.

93

7.02

5.

55

0.00

25

.00

16.6

6 10

.02

12.4

0 0.

00

5.94

20

05-2

006

Empl

oym

ent/

Mili

tary

Co

ntin

ued

Educ

atio

n/Tr

aini

ng

Not

Pla

ced

Fin

din

gs:

Pl

acem

ent

in e

mpl

oym

ent

or p

osts

econ

dary

edu

catio

n w

as m

ost

succ

essf

ul

for

the

His

pani

c an

d Li

mite

d En

glis

h Pr

ofic

ient

su

bgro

ups.

G

reat

er p

erce

ntag

es o

f H

ispa

nic

and

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

/Ala

ska

Nat

ive

stud

ents

bec

ame

empl

oyed

or

ente

red

mili

tary

ser

vice

tha

n al

l oth

er s

ubgr

oups

. Th

e As

ian

subg

roup

had

the

gre

ates

t nu

mbe

r of

stu

dent

s co

ntin

uing

with

edu

catio

n or

tra

inin

g.

100

Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives in West Virginia

The gaps in school achievement among racial, limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities are well documented in national research. The research divides the indictors of the achievement gaps into three time frames: before school, school, school system expectations, and beyond school programs (Barton, 2003).

Before School Programs

First and foremost, the early experiences of a child’s life before school affects the development process. Low birth weight, exposure to environmental hazards, hunger and nutrition, and lack of environmental stimulation necessary for cognitive development are experiences that produce negative development in children. Secondly, the learning connection which deals with the support for learning at home is important to the developmental process. These factors deal with parental achievement expectations, reading to young children, access to a quiet study place, attention to physical and health needs, amount of TV watching, and parent availability to the child/children (Barton, 2003). To date, the West Virginia Department of Education has worked to provide statewide leadership to close the achievement gap. These statewide before school initiatives are as follows: Even Start, QELL, and pre-K systems.

Even Start

Even Start (Title I, Part B) is a federally funded family literacy program that encompasses adult education, early childhood education, and interactive family literacy activities for every family enrolled. Local Even Start programs must be partnerships between the local school system and at least one community partner. Currently, West Virginia has 13 local programs serving 218 families, 227 adults, and 310 children. This is the maximum number of programs that can be funded based on federal allocations. Local Even Start programs must meet the federal 15 elements of program quality and the West Virginia Even Start Performance Indicators. Federal funding has been decreasing over the past three years and a 60 percent decrease in current funding levels has been projected for 2007. Research to support the continuation of funding, family literacy research, (Padak & Rasiniski, 2003) has shown mixed results because the research primarily evaluated the components of family literacy, not family literacy as an intervention.

West Virginia Quality Enhancement for Language and Literacy (QELL) Project

The purpose of the Quality Enhancement for Language and Literacy (QELL) Project, also called READ IT AGAIN !, is to ensure that children in West Virginia’s pre-K programs achieve a foundation in early language and

101

literacy to support their successful transition to kindergarten and facilitate the acquisition of reading readiness skills. Using a storybook approach, QELL is a supplement that can be used with any curricular preschool framework and is designed to build competencies in vocabulary, narrative, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness.

The project is being piloted with 137 students at eight sites in Roane County and with 150 students at eight sites in Nicholas County. An awareness session with staff at the pilot sites was conducted on August 26, 2005. Staff training was conducted during November 2005, with additional sites to be trained during the summer of 2006. Evaluation will be conducted by Dr. Laura Justice, University of Virginia, and will continue throughout the project.

West Virginia Universal Pre–K System

The West Virginia Universal Pre-K System promotes oral language and pre-literacy skills and reduces the deficit of these skills by early intervention. Currently, 7,980 students (38 percent) are served in all 55 counties from a total estimated population of 21,000. West Virginia is one of five states in the nation with a state legislative mandate for a universal pre-K system. West Virginia believes a strong pre-K system will improve high school graduations and reduce the number of special education placements and grade level retentions. A recent study, funded by the Benedum Foundation, provides evidence that for every dollar invested in high quality public pre-K education, the state will realize a $5.20 savings because of lower special education placements, less grade retention, and higher graduation rates for students who participate in pre-K (Padak & Rasiniski, 2005). A new study showed that West Virginia children made improvement (language and mathematical abilities) from attending a preschool program regardless of the ethnic or economic background (Barnett, Lamy, & Jung, 2005)

West Virginia Universal Pre-K: Preschool Special Education Services

As with universal pre-K services, the purpose of public preschool special education is to promote the development of language, pre-literacy, cognitive, social-emotional development, and motor skills for every child and reduce the deficit of these skills with early intervention.

Public School Preschool Special Education is required by federal legislation. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), provides for a free appropriate public education that must be provided with an individualized education program (IEP) which is implemented in the least restrictive environment. There are many choices as to where and how special education can be provided. The program is designed to meet the educational needs of children with developmental delays. Currently, these services are available to

102

5,833 eligible children, ages three through five years, with identified disabilities. A child must be determined eligible for preschool special needs through the criteria: 1) a 25 percent delay in two areas of development, including cognition, fine motor, gross motor, communication, social/emotional/affective development, and self-help skills, or 2) meeting eligibility criteria in the program regulations for one of the categorical areas specified in W. Va. Code §18-20-1.

The federal government requires an annual evaluation report from the West Virginia Department of Education. Additionally, the Department monitors the counties and schools that receive federal funding.

School Programs

The school indicators deal with teaching and learning, as well as with the learning environment during the time the child is enrolled in the school system. The instructional infrastructure (including the quality of leadership, pedagogy, professional development, rigor of the curriculum, teacher preparation, and availability of appropriate technology-assisted instruction) are powerful school related indicators of academic achievement.

To date, the West Virginia Department of Education has worked to provide statewide leadership to close the achievement gap during the school time frame in the following areas: Increasing Student Achievement, Highly Qualified Personnel, and Technology-Assisted Instruction.

Increasing Student Achievement

Algebra I Pilot Project

The Algebra I Pilot is a focused instruction and assessment pilot for the volunteer counties/schools. Currently, 18 schools in 8 counties have volunteered for the project. Approximately, 2,000 students participated in the October 2005, field test. The purpose is to promote instructional strategies and Algebraic Thinking Tool skills and conduct assessments aligned to the algebra content and skills. The benefits will increase the standardization of mathematics instruction and continuity of Algebra I content, target instructional weaknesses, and subsequently, improve student learning and performance. The successful components of the Algebra I Pilot will be replicated across the state. Evaluation/studies will be provided at the conclusion of this pilot project.

Comprehensive School Reform

Comprehensive School Reform is a federally funded competitive grant program for Title I eligible schools. The focus of the Comprehensive School Reform program is to raise student achievement by employing comprehensive scientifically based methods and strategies based on the eleven components of

103

school reform. Participating schools receive grants of at least $50,000 and up to $100,000 a year for each of the three years in order to implement a research-based, whole-school reform program. Currently, 14 elementary, 2 middle, and one K-12 schools have grants. The funds are used to help the schools obtain the necessary external expertise to facilitate change and provide school personnel with skills and strategies to meet the challenges of making fundamental changes in the manner in which the school operates.

A review of the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 WESTEST data showed 63 percent of the elementary schools, six percent of the middle schools, and one K-12 school improved in reading. The same data indicated 63 percent of the elementary schools, six percent of the middle schools, and one K-12 school had improvement in mathematics.

The federal government requires an annual evaluation report from the West Virginia Department of Education. Additionally, the department monitors the counties and schools that receive federal funding.

Differentiated Instruction Cadre

The Middle School Differentiated Instruction (DI) Project was originally funded by Titles I and II and the Office of Special Education for the purpose of building local capacity to support teachers in meeting the diverse learning needs of students in the general curriculum and general education settings. The middle level cadre includes 21 special education teachers, as well as 12 Title I teachers and 28 general education teachers who are being trained in differentiated instruction and related instructional strategies, such as building a collaborative culture and co-teaching. Cadre members represent all eight RESAs, 25 LEAs, and 35 schools. The members of this cadre are supported by a RESA-based study group and led by RESA professional development and special education personnel. The cadre members have been trained in the differentiation of content, process, and product, according to a student's interest, and in a readiness and learning profile, using a wide variety of research-based high yield strategies. Phase one, the train-the-trainer model, is built upon the work of the ASCD Cadre for Differentiated Instruction, led by Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership, The Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. This work has led to another project focused on collaboration and co-teaching. The department is in the process of studying several research/evaluation designs focused on differentiation, collaboration, and co-teaching, as well as the impact of various models on student achievement.

During the summer of 2005, the Cadre members designed 13 professional development modules to support their work with other teachers in their schools, their LEAs, and the RESAs. To date, the only evaluation to take place is teacher growth as demonstrated by a required portfolio with a reflection component. While the portfolio had positive results, no formal

104

evaluation or studies have been conducted on this phase of the project. An evaluation design is being established for the next phase of the project which focuses on the implementation of differentiated instruction in middle level classrooms across the state.

English Language Proficiency Alignment Study

No Child Left Behind, Title III, Part A, §3113(b)(2) requires each state to develop English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards and ensure that these standards are aligned with the state’s academic content standards. In May 2004, the West Virginia Board of Education adopted Policy 2417 that outlines the state’s ELP standards. In October 2005, a committee of West Virginia educators began developing a framework for linking the ELP standards with the mathematics and science standards.

In addition to meeting the federal requirement, this study will (a) articulate clear linkages between ELP and content standards; (b) provide a succinct and meaningful tool for both the content and English as Second Language classroom, and (c) create a rubric that describes how limited English proficient students can demonstrate their mathematics/science content knowledge at all five levels of English language proficiency. A study will be provided at the conclusion of this project.

Health Services

All 55 county school districts provide basic and specialized health services to 279,457 students in 765 public schools requiring health care maintenance during the school day, in accordance with W. Va. State Code §18- 5-22 and West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2422.7, Basic and Specialized Health Care Procedures. The goal of school health services is to allow students with basic and specialized health care needs to maintain their health needs during the school day so that they can fully participate in and benefit from the educational experience. Since the state’s students outnumber the capacity of the 215 school nurses employed by the county school districts, it is becoming necessary for health service systems to begin utilizing the full spectrum of providers that include school nurses, contracted nursing services, school based health center mid-level providers, and more. Health service needs are evaluated biannually by the West Virginia Department of Education Schools Nurse Needs Assessment.

High Schools for West Virginia’s Future Taskforce

The High Schools for West Virginia’s Future Taskforce was convened in February 2005, with approximately 70 participants. They investigated the compliance of West Virginia’s high schools with NCLB legislation and the

105

national importance on high school reform (Achieve, Inc). The taskforce reviewed a body of literature and research on the need to reform American high schools. Based upon the available information and assessment trend data, the taskforce made recommendations to the West Virginia State Board of Education with respect to policies, statutes, and practices for all students achieving success in high school and postsecondary pursuits. Based on their recommendations, the taskforce then proposed a plan of action, A Vision for Student Success High Schools for West Virginia’s Future (http://wvde.state.wv.us/hstw/vision.pdf).

As a result of this report, the West Virginia Board of Education formed a committee that prioritized the recommendations from the taskforce. The committee, composed of four members of the State Board of Education and selected West Virginia Department of Education staff will review state code and policy that may be changed to achieve the recommendations.

High Schools That Work (HSTW)

High Schools That Work is a school improvement initiative that is currently in 104 high schools, in 35 counties. It has identified a set of Key Practices which impact student achievement. The researched High Schools That Work Key Practices provide direction and meaning to comprehensive school improvement and student learning:

• High Expectations - Motivate more students to meet high expectations by integrating high expectations into classroom practices and giving students frequent feedback.

• Program of Study - Require each student to complete an upgraded academic core and a concentration.

• Academic Studies - Teach more students the essential concepts of the college preparatory curriculum by encouraging them to apply academic content and skills to real-world problems and projects.

• Career/Technical Studies - Provide more students access to intellectually challenging career/technical studies in high-demand fields that emphasize the higher-level mathematics, science, literacy and problem-solving skills needed in the workplace and in further education.

• Work-Based Learning - Enable students and their parents to choose from programs that integrate challenging high school studies and work-based learning that are planned by educators, employers and students.

• Teachers Working Together - Provide teams of teachers from several disciplines the time and support to work together to help students succeed in challenging academic and career/technical studies. Integrate reading, writing, and speaking as strategies for learning into all parts of the curriculum and integrate mathematics into science and career/technical classrooms.

106

• Students Actively Engaged - Engage all students in academic and career/technical classrooms in rigorous and challenging proficient-level assignments using research-based instructional strategies and technology.

• Guidance - Involve students and their parents in a guidance and advisement system that develops positive relationships and ensures completion of an accelerated program of study with an academic or career/technical concentration. Provide each student with the same mentor throughout high school to assist with setting goals, selecting courses, reviewing the student's progress and suggesting appropriate interventions as necessary.

• Extra Help - Provide a structured system of extra help to assist students in completing accelerated programs of study with high-level academic and technical content.

• Culture of Continuous Improvement - Use student assessment and program evaluation data to continuously improve school culture, organization, management, curriculum, and instruction to advance student learning.

High Schools That Work believes everyone - teacher, school, district, local, and state leaders - must work together to align policies, resources, initiatives, and accountability efforts to support high schools and middle grades schools as they adopt and implement comprehensive school improvement designs. The High Schools That Work program employs all of the effective schools research in program delivery: a clear functional mission statement, strong leadership, a plan for continuous improvement, qualified teachers, commitment to goals, flexible scheduling, and support for professional development. Schools that fully implement all of the key practices continue to show positive gains in student achievement. Evaluation information can be located on pages 90-93 of this report.

House Bill 4669

House Bill 4669, now W. Va. Code §18-2E-3g, mandated special demonstration professional development school projects for improving academic achievement for all children. The intent of this bill was to provide a special demonstration environment in the selected public schools to improve academic achievement. The selected schools work in collaboration with higher education, community organizations, and the state board to develop and implement strategies that may be replicated in other public schools with significant enrollments of disadvantaged, minority, and underachieving students. Currently, there are ten counties with a total of 31 schools participating in the project. The successful components of this project will be replicated across the state.

107

Edvantia Inc. (formerly AEL) conducted a study of the professional development schools. Edvantia Inc. selected matching schools for each professional development school based on three criteria. All matching schools had (a) a similar school level, (b) percentage of black students and were located within the same RESA, and (c) similar school size. This study is limited to a one-year snapshot of professional staffs’ perceptions, as it was conceived during the last year of a five-year contract. Preliminary evaluation results showed that baseline data indicated significant differences between the professional development schools (PD) and matching schools on the majority of the survey instruments’ subscales.

Three separate surveys were administered during the 2004 – 2005 school year. The West Virginia Department of Education Closing the Achievement Gap Specialists (CAGS) administered the surveys to the professional development schools. Surveys at the matching schools were administered by other West Virginia Department of Education personnel.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative data, including response rates, reliability estimates, and correlations for the administration of the three instruments. Three Multivariate Analyses of Variances (MANOVAs) were conducted using the Measure of School Capacity for Improvement, Perceptions of School Culture, and Continuous School Improvement Questionnaires as dependent variables and the school as the independent variable.

Results from the MANOVA indicated an overall significant difference between the professional development and matching schools on the combined set of dependent variables (Pillai’s Trace and F -test), with a medium to large effect. Follow up ANOVAs for each dependent variable were also conducted. They indicated significant differences between the professional development schools and the matching schools on equity in practice, expectations for student performance, differentiated instruction, coordinated curriculum, and technical resources.

A comparison of 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 accountability reports of percent proficient in mathematics and reading/language arts for all subgroups in the professional development schools indicated the following findings:

• All subgroups showed greater gains in mathematics than in reading/language arts with the exception of the Hispanic and Native American subgroups.

• The Economically Disadvantaged subgroup had the highest average increase in mathematics of all subgroups with the exception of the Asian subgroup.

• The Students with Disabilities and the Economically Disadvantaged subgroups had higher average increases in reading/language arts than the White and All students subgroups.

108

• Except for the Hispanic and Native American subgroups, all subgroups’ performances showed improvement in reading/language arts and mathematics in at least 50 percent of all schools:

• 78.6 percent of the schools showed increases in mathematics in the Black subgroup

• 86.7 percent of the schools showed increases in mathematics in the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup

• 80 percent of the schools showed increases in mathematics in the Students with Disabilities subgroup

• 55.2 percent of the schools showed increases in reading/language arts in the Black subgroup

• 66.7 percent of the schools showed increases in reading/language arts in the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup

• 60 percent of the schools showed increases in reading/language arts for the Students with Disabilities subgroup

The complete Baseline Study of Selected Professional Development Schools in West Virginia is available on http://osa.k12.wv.us.

Mathematics Education Reform Initiative for Teachers (MERIT)

MERIT is a “comprehensive team approach to improving mathematics achievement” that helped define statewide initiatives to support math achievement. MERIT research indicated schools that implemented the plan showed the mean percentage of proficient students increased from 2004-2005 for each group and each grade level. Furthermore, students at schools considered to be demonstrating effective MERIT implementation had a greater average proficiency rate than students at non-participating schools both in 2004 and 2005 (Howard, 2006).

Mathematics Science Partnership Program

The Mathematics Science Partnership (MSP) Program is intended to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Partnerships between high need school districts and the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in institutions of higher education are at the core of these improvement efforts. Other partners may include state education agencies, public charter schools or other public schools, businesses, and nonprofit or for-profit organizations concerned with mathematics and science education.

The Mathematics and Science Partnership Program is a formula grant

109

program, with the size of individual state awards based on student population and poverty rates. No state receives less than one half of one percent of the total appropriation. With theses funds, each state is responsible for administering a competitive grant competition, in which grants are made to partnerships to improve teacher knowledge in mathematics and science. Currently five partnerships are funded with this project. Each partnership develops an evaluation and accountability plan for the activities of the project.

Medical Services

School based health centers serve a vital role in our medically underserved state. These centers bring the medical services to the children where they attend school which alleviates the transportation barrier to health care. Through a collaborative relationship with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, Office of Primary Care, 50 schools have agreements with primary health care agencies to deliver medical services to students in the school setting through school based health centers. These centers are mainly funded through start-up funds from the Office of Primary Care and the collection of fees for services. The centers are staffed by a medical director and a mixture of mid-level providers, nurses, and other health care clinicians. With parent permission, these centers provide 20,917 students and staff with primary health services such as but not limited to physical exams, treatment for acute illnesses, diabetic management, asthma management, dental services, and behavioral health counseling. During the 2004-2005 school year, there were 63,403 student visits and 3,302 visits from school staff and family members. The positive educational impact of school based health centers comes through improved attendance by both students and staff and in improved performance due to improved health status. The medical services are evaluated annually by the Report of the West Virginia School Based Health Assembly.

Policy 2320, A Process for Improving Education: Performance Based Accreditation System

This policy establishes an accountability system to determine the adequate yearly progress of West Virginia’s 765 public schools and a system of education performance audits. The policy measures the quality of education and the preparation of 279,457 students based on the standards and measures of student, school, and school system performance and processes for 55 counties. For the federal AYP requirement, the policy requires that all schools be held accountable for reading/language arts and mathematics results (grades 3-8 and 10) disaggregated by the federally required nine subgroups: All (students), Female, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, Migrant, and Limited English Proficient.

110

In the 2004-2005 school year, all subgroups met the mathematics AYP requirement with the exceptions of 1) the secondary Hispanic and 2) the middle school and secondary Students with Disabilities subgroups. In 2004-2005, all subgroups met reading AYP requirements with the exceptions of 1) the secondary Black, 2) elementary, middle, and high school Students with Disabilities, and 3) the middle and high school Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

In addition, the system of performance audits assists the West Virginia Board of Education, the Legislature, the Governor, and the Process for Improving Education Council with ensuring that the high quality educational standards and annual performance measures and progress are met by schools and school systems and that a thorough and efficient system of schools is provided. For the 2004-2005 school year, 92.73 percent of the school districts were issued Full Approval status; 7.27 percent of the districts received Nonapproval status. The OEPA issued Exemplary Accreditation status to 16.75 percent of schools, Full Accreditation status to 67.94 percent of schools, Conditional Accreditation status to 10.69 percent of schools, Temporary Accreditation status to 4.22 percent of schools, and Seriously Impaired status to 0.40 percent of schools. The Office of Education Performance Audits is supervised and monitored by the West Virginia Board of Education.

Reading First

The primary goals of Reading First are the following: 1) students reading on grade level by the end of grade three and 2) reducing the special education referral rate for reading disabilities. Each school is monitored three to four times yearly by the West Virginia Department of Education. Additionally, the Reading First program must submit an annual report to the United States Department of Education. The document includes a reporting of all schools, grades K-3, in each of the five essential reading components (phonemic awareness, phonics fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), by subgroup areas. These subgroup areas correspond to the state AYP subgroup areas.

Ongoing studies indicate that 83 percent of Reading First schools met adequate yearly progress for 2005. Additionally, all schools recorded gains on the DIBELS K-3 Reading Assessment used for 2005 national reporting in all subgroups for each reading component – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Reading/Language Arts Standards-Based Units

A revision to Policy 2510 resulting in the requirement for 90 minutes of daily instruction in reading/language arts in grades 5-8. This change prompted the need for teachers to better understand how to use the instructional block effectively for teaching the standards related to reading, writing, speaking,

111

listening, and viewing. In response to this identified need in the middle grades, a West Virginia Department of Education staff member assembled a team of middle level reading and language arts teachers to review the research related to the effective use of the 90-minute reading/language arts instructional block, backward design, literacy for higher student achievement, and differentiated instruction. As a result of this collaboration, the team developed unit designs, lesson design templates, and a training package for teachers.

During the 2004-2005 school year, the research team worked with a team of 18 teachers from across the state to develop standards-based units for reading/language arts in grades 5-8. During the summer of 2005, 150 teachers from the 10 counties represented by HB 4669 received training in the design of the units, as well as the strategies to be used within various units. Teachers are currently at various stages of implementing these units in their classrooms. In September 2005, a second design team of 20 teachers was assembled and they are currently designing 40 additional units that will be posted online by June 2006.

During the summer of 2006, English teachers from selected middle level schools and their feeder high schools will receive Advanced Placement (AP) vertical teaming training for two days. The middle level English teachers will receive an additional three days of training in selected units which will serve as the content for a Pre-Advanced Placement curriculum to be taught at the middle level. The goal is to bring rigor to the middle level English language arts classroom and to build a strong Advanced Placement English curriculum at the high school. The West Virginia Department of Education will be working in collaboration with the Center for Professional Development, and the two agencies will collaboratively support the initiative through professional development, coaching, and the implementation of an evaluation design. Participating teachers will be required to collect and maintain data to support this evaluation design. Between February and June of 2006, the Center for Professional Development and the West Virginia Department of Education will develop the design that will be used to evaluate this project for a three-year period.

Response to Intervention

The West Virginia Response to Intervention Project is designed to increase reading achievement for all students in grades K-3 and more appropriately identify students with disabilities. Eleven pilot schools are implementing a three-tier model of reading instruction that includes universal screening, the use of scientifically research-based reading instruction and intervention, continuous progress monitoring, and the provision of additional reading instruction to students who struggle. Response to Intervention data collected by teachers will ultimately assist in the identification of students with disabilities. Project components include the provision of state funds to purchase universal screening assessments and ongoing professional

112

development opportunities for teachers. By the end of the 2005-2006 school year, the Office of Special Education will provide specific guidance and technical assistance to address the statewide implementation of the Response to Intervention model. An extensive evaluation of the pilot is being coordinated by Dr. Ken Olsen and the Mid-South Regional Resource Center at the University of Kentucky. Results will be available in draft form on April 10, 2006.

Responsible Students through School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Program (RS-SWPBS)

The RS-SWPBS Program strives to establish school climates where

appropriate behavior is the norm. Research from the University of Oregon supports the dramatic reduction in the number of students being sent to the office in elementary and middle schools when primary prevention strategies are in place. West Virginia implemented the Positive Behavior Intervention System through a cadre of teachers who work within counties and individual schools to train teachers and other school staff. At this time, there are 97 cadre members serving 215 schools in 43 of 55 counties. Reduction of learning time spent in disciplinary action allows students to remain in the classroom, available for instruction. Variables to be evaluated are reduction in suspension and expulsions, reduction in other disciplinary actions that remove the student from the classroom, and improvement of student achievement in schools implementing the program. The RS-SWPBS program is currently under evaluation by Dr. John McLaughlin of Managing for Results, Inc. and the results will be available upon completion of the program.

School Nutritional Programs

The West Virginia Department of Education is the state administering agency for five United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrition programs for children. Programs include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and the Special Milk Program. These programs assist sponsors to provide healthful, low-cost or free meals and snacks to children and functionally impaired adults in a variety of settings, including public and private schools, child care centers, residential institutions, shelters, family day care homes, summer camps, and parks. In addition to providing nutritious meals and snacks, child nutrition programs promote lifelong healthful eating practices by integrating nutrition education, creating healthful learning environments, and promoting nutrition in the community.

Child nutrition programs are intended to serve the nutrition needs of all children, regardless of family income. Since the inception of the National School

113

Lunch Act in 1946, Congress has affirmed the importance of sound nutrition to the health and welfare of children. Nutrition programs enhance learning and quality of life.

In West Virginia, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program provide meals in every public school throughout the state. The National School Lunch Program qualifies 118,242 economically disadvantaged students, 41 percent of the total state school population, for free meals and 31,130 economically disadvantaged students, 11 percent of the total state school population, for reduced price meals. The Summer Food Service Program provides food services for economically disadvantaged students at 478 sites in West Virginia, including 11 colleges and universities, six community action agencies, four day care centers, 37 local school districts, four governmental agencies, one homeless shelter, 13 religious organizations, and 20 residential camps and service agencies.

Child Nutrition Programs are audited annually in accordance with the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A-133, Additionally, the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Child Nutrition monitors each program sponsor in accordance with federal and state program requirements.

Special Education Project to Reduce the Number of Misidentified Minority Students

Disproportionality refers to comparisons made between groups of students by race/ethnicity who are identified for special education and related services. Where students from a particular racial or ethnic group are identified either at a greater or lesser rate than all other students, that group may be said to be disproportionately represented in special education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) requires states to examine data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in identification, placement, and/or disciplinary actions. The statute requires that where a determination of disproportionality is found, the State Education Agency (SEA) must provide for review, and if appropriate, revision of the district’s policies, practices, and procedures to ensure students are being appropriately identified for special education.

The West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE), defines disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 2.0 or higher for any racial/ethnic group consisting of 10 or more students in special education and related services and/or within a specific disability category when the weighted risk ratio method is used. The Office of Special Education analyzed 2004-2005 child count data to determine potential disproportionality for the state and individual districts. A total of fourteen (14) districts emerged as potentially disproportionate in either the total number of students in special education or the number of students eligible in a specific disability

114

category based on a risk ratio of 2.0 for a cell size of 10 for racial or ethnic students being identified for special education or related services.

The Office of Special Education addresses the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education through its Continuous Improvement Focused Monitoring Process utilizing a district self-assessment. The self-assessment includes an indicator whereby districts evaluate their status (compliant, non-compliant, or needs improvement) related to the appropriate identification of students in particular racial/ethnic groups for special education. When a district has been determined to be disproportionate, the district must utilize a protocol developed by the Office of Special Education, to review its policies, procedures, and practices related to the identification of minority students for special education. If evidence of inappropriate identification is found, the district must submit an improvement plan to correct the deficiency. The deficiency must be corrected within one year. The Office of Special Education’s monitoring staff conducts a thorough review of each district’s self- assessment upon submission. Included in this review is an examination of the disproportionality indicator, the improvement plan, and all supporting documentation. If a district’s improvement plan is not approved, the Office of Special Education may provide technical assistance, which may include professional development and/or an on-site review to verify the appropriateness of the district’s identification, evaluation, and eligibility processes. Corrective activities or sanctions may be required.

Through the examination of disaggregated data, the Office of Special Education has identified the need to provide professional development in the following areas: identification and implementation of research-based interventions for students with academic, behavioral and/or emotional deficits, non-discriminatory assessment instruments and practices, and a culturally responsive school climate. State and district data will continue to be examined to ensure that minority students are appropriately identified for special education, however, currently there is no evaluation tool in place to assess the effectiveness of this newly implemented project.

Special Education Reading Project (SERP)

The goal of the Special Education Reading Project is to develop and deliver statewide teacher professional development to address the needs of struggling readers in the elementary grades. The objectives of the project include training in basic literacy content (i.e., five essential components of reading) and how to make instructional adaptations that increase student academic performance.

Staff from the Offices of Special Education and Instructional Services have participated in training and prepared a professional development schedule for the training of cadre members. The cadre will be comprised of reading specialists, special education teachers, West Virginia Department of Education

115

staff, and invited representatives of high education who will be trained to deliver research-based instructional practices. Teams from each Regional Education Service Agency (RESA) will consist of two special education teachers, two regular education teachers, and other Regional Education Service Agency personnel for a total of thirty-two teachers. Cadre members will receive training in April 2006, and statewide implementation of the professional development modules will be initiated in summer 2006. Regional Education Service Agencies will develop regional teacher trainings. The Office of Special Education and the State’s Reading First grant will provide collaborative funding for the project. An evaluation study will be completed at the conclusion of this pilot project.

Special Education Services

The West Virginia Department of Education provides federal and state funding to all 55 counties, the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind, Institutional Education Programs, and the Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) for the purpose of implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). Special education services are provided by 3,322 special education teachers to approximately 50,000 students identified as disabled. The West Virginia Department of Education Office of Special Education provides oversight of the IDEA implementation, focusing equally on compliance with its provisions and on improving results for students with disabilities.

Schools and counties are accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities. This is typically measured through performance on state assessments, graduation with a regular diploma, and progress toward reaching goals on Individual Educational Programs (IEP). The West Virginia Department of Education is additionally responsible to the United States Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to ensure that progress is demonstrated in reaching rigorous and measurable targets for 20 indicators included in the federally required State Performance Plan. These targets include, among others, increased graduation rate, decline in the dropout rate, increased percentage of students with disabilities achieving mastery in content areas as measured on the WESTEST and Alternate Assessment, and transition planning that results in postsecondary education, employment, and independent living.

As part of its monitoring function, the Office of Special Education reviews county graduation rates, dropout rates, third grade reading achievement scores on the WESTEST, and the pattern of placement in the least restrictive environment. Rankings on these four indicators trigger comprehensive monitoring visits to counties which can include corrective actions and follow up visits.

116

On the 2005 WESTEST, 38 percent of Students with Disabilities achieved proficiency in reading, an increase of four percent from 2004. Thirty- seven percent of the Students with Disabilities achieved proficiency in mathematics, an increase of seven percent from 2004. The State Performance Plan 2005-2011 submitted to OSEP on December 2, 2005, projects that 77 percent of the Students with Disabilities subgroup will achieve mastery in reading in the spring 2011 testing, and 76 percent of the subgroup will achieve mastery in mathematics at that time.

Three initiatives, the implementation of RS-SWPBS, new requirements for transition, and the targeted effort to prepare teachers to write IEPs based on content standards, are being evaluated in collaboration with Dr. John McLaughlin of Managing Results, Inc., for their impact on achievement of students with disabilities. A separate evaluation of individual student progress with relationship to IEPs is currently not in place.

Statewide Administrative Math Improvement Team

The West Virginia Department of Education has developed and implemented a five-year plan to increase the mathematics achievement of all students, focusing on the implementation of standards-based curriculum and instruction strategies. Fifty-five school district mathematics teams have received a series of professional development training sessions designed to increase capacity at the district level, to identify mathematics program needs, and to develop goals and objectives to increase the mathematics achievement of all students.

The mathematics plan provides a structure for training math leadership teams in each of the 55 counties. Initial and ongoing training of team members provides support for identified leaders in each county to support and schedule local professional development activities in K-12. Regional mathematics workshops have recently been completed to promote and support the implementation of professional development initiatives defined by the county five-year plans and predicated by identified local needs.

In addition, an administrative mathematics leadership team has been formed to coordinate all professional development and programmatic initiatives in mathematics and to ensure efficient and effective utilization of staff and resources in order to maximize student achievement.

Partners in the mathematics leadership teams include the West Virginia Department of Education, West Virginia Center for Professional Development, Higher Education, Coal Rural Systemic Initiative, Math Science Partnership Grant, Title I, Title II, June Harless Center for Rural Educational Research and Development, and Benedum Foundation. Evaluation results will be provided in 2006-2007, based on assessment trend data.

117

Taskforce on Secondary LEP Education

The Taskforce was launched in the spring of 2005, based on recommendations from Title III Directors and upon the growing number of West Virginia secondary limited English proficient students. The Taskforce serves 400 secondary limited English proficient students; its members consist of five West Virginia Department of Education employees and 10 county employees, each representing a different county. The Taskforce goals include the development of 1) online and written resources describing best practices for secondary administrators and teachers of limited English proficient students, and 2) official guidance documents on issues such as English as a Second Language (ESL) for high school credit, scheduling for limited English proficient students, and working with foreign exchange students.

As a result of their efforts, the Taskforce will publish a Toolkit and several guidance documents in 2006. They will be available on http:// wvconnections.k12.wv.us.

Title I—NCLB

Federally funded compensatory education programs in West Virginia operate under Public Law 107-110, known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Title I is the largest single program of federal aid for elementary and secondary education. Title I funding impacts the ability of districts to implement and accomplish the two missions of the United States Department of Education: enforcing equity and promoting excellence in education. The purpose of Title I is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and assessments. Currently, all 55 districts receive Title I funding to serve 381 public schools and 21 private schools within the state. The programmatic breakdown is 326 elementary schools (85 percent), 50 middle schools (14 percent), and five high schools (1 percent).

Review and evaluation of WESTEST data indicate that Title I schools are making significant gains in achievement. Of the 381 public schools that receive Title I funding, 369 schools administer the WESTEST to students in grades 3-8 and grade 10. A comparison of the 2004 WESTEST scores with the 2005 WESTEST results indicated that 273 of the 369 schools (73.9 percent) showed improvement in reading achievement. Moreover, 292 of the 369 schools (79 percent) showed improvement in mathematics. To provide a further analysis, one may compare these achievement gains by programmatic levels. At the elementary level, 233 schools (74.2 percent) demonstrated improvement in mathematics, while 241 schools (76.7 percent) displayed gains in reading. The middle level schools showed evidence of improvement in mathematics in 47 of the 50 (94 percent) schools served. Furthermore, improvement in reading was shown in 37 of the 50 schools (74 percent). While

118

only a few high schools in West Virginia receive Title I funding, gains in achievement were evident. Four of the five high schools (80 percent) showed improvement in the area of mathematics, while three of the five high schools (60 percent) demonstrated gains in reading. An annual separate evaluation of individual student achievement gains is currently not in place.

Title I School Improvement—NCLB

West Virginia Title I schools, which have been identified for improvement under the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, receive specific technical assistance in identifying needs and implementing research- based strategies to close the specific achievement gaps causing the school to be identified for improvement. School improvement teams receive training in identifying needs, creating change, curriculum, instruction, school effectiveness, and in creating support systems necessary to close the achievement gap between subgroups.

In 2004-2005, West Virginia had 37 Title I schools identified for improvement. For the 2005-2006 school year, there are 36 schools identified for improvement. A list of identified schools and the sanctions is available on the West Virginia Achieves website: http://wvachieves.k12.wv.us/.

According to NCLB §1003, four percent of each state’s Title I, Part A funding must be allocated for the purpose of carrying out the state educational agency’s statewide system of technical assistance and support for schools identified for improvement. For the 2005-2006 school year, 26 local education agencies (LEAs) and 36 schools identified for improvement received this funding.

A review of spring 2004-2005 WESTEST data indicated that reading and mathematics scores are increasing for the majority of schools identified for improvement. Studies show that 30 of 37 schools (81 percent) made increases in reading; 34 of 37 schools (92 percent) made increases in mathematics; and 36 of 37 schools (97 percent) made an increase in at least one or both, reading and mathematics.

University of Kansas Learning Strategies in Writing

The University of Kansas Learning Strategies in Writing Program is being systematically used in 13 counties across the state in an effort to improve writing and reading skills of all participating students in the 14 pilot middle schools. A three-year research project, 2005-2008, is designed to measure the effects of the program. The initiative is organized and funded by the Office of Special Education but implemented through the collaboration of general and special education teachers. Evaluation/studies will include data from annual pre– and post-writing samples, WESTEST scores, and self-reporting by trainers, teachers, and administrators of pilot schools. Evaluation results will be shared

119

with and analyzed by Dr. Don Deshler, University of Kansas upon completion of the project.

West Virginia Phonemic Awareness Collaborative Statewide (PALS)

Project

This statewide project trains school teams to implement an intensive, consistent, and coordinated phonemic awareness approach. It has been implemented in 180 schools, including all Reading First schools, since 2001, and focuses on at-risk students in kindergarten and first grade.

The six-year goal is to expand to all elementary schools and to increase the number of students reading on grade level by the end of the third grade. This will be done through emphasizing the importance of phonemic awareness as an early teachable reading skill and the necessity for early intervention. A three-year external evaluation conducted by the University of Virginia from 2001-2004 indicated that students in kindergarten and first grade considered at-risk by PALS assessment administration, scored as well or better than their benchmark peers after receiving intensive reading instruction.

West Virginia Reading Excellence Accelerates Deserving Students (READS)

In 1998, the West Virginia Legislature enacted House Bill 4306 to initiate a competitive grant program for K-4 reading. West Virginia READS was established to provide an extended instructional time program to address achievement difficulties that may prevent students from performing at grade level in kindergarten through grade four. Thirty competitive grants of $10,000 are available to elementary schools in West Virginia to provide summer school opportunities for students who exhibit reading difficulty. Priorities for awarding grants include schools that have test scores below the state standards and schools that receive federal funds for the improvement of reading.

The project serves an average of 950 students each summer in 30 elementary schools. Results of pre- and post-assessments indicate overall student growth in reading achievement during the summer intervention. Each grant application must include an evaluation component requiring the school to discuss in measurable terms how the project will be evaluated and how the goals and objectives were met in reference to the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives. A final report with evaluation data must be submitted by each school at the completion of the program.

West Virginia State Improvement Grant

The West Virginia State Improvement Grant (WV SIG) has funded subgrants to three institutes of higher education to offer graduate and undergraduate courses in reading and mathematics for teachers of students

120

with disabilities. West Virginia SIG has also awarded 37 subgrants to LEAs (individually or in consortiums) to conduct professional development activities geared toward improving the reading and mathematics achievement of students with disabilities. Lastly, the West Virginia SIG has awarded a subgrant to West Virginia Parent Training and Information Center (WVPTI) to coordinate training of parents on how to assist their children at home.

Each subgrant includes an evaluation component that measures the extent to which teachers are utilizing the strategies and improving their skills. A variety of evaluation techniques are being utilized, including principal walkthroughs, observations, lesson plan reviews, and checklists. An external evaluator from Mid-South Regional Resource Center (MSRRC) at the University of Kentucky is conducting an overall evaluation of the State Improvement Grant and working with each subgrantee to improve the quality of their respective evaluations. Nick Nihoris from MSRRC recently completed phone interviews with 13 of the 17 subgrantees. The majority of the subgrantees reported that they are comfortable with the status of their grants and the evaluation process.

West Virginia Test of English Language Learning (WESTELL)

As required by NCLB and West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2417, the WESTELL assessment was first implemented as an operational test in 2004-2005 to best measure English language learning for the limited English proficient (LEP) students. Subsequent data analyses of test scores have resulted in statewide training modules to assist schools with a) an understanding the Interpretation Guide and score reports, b) using WESTELL data to inform instruction of LEP students, and c) providing meaningful information to parents regarding students’ English language development. WESTELL serves 1,000 Limited English Proficient students in 25 counties. The American Institute of Research (AIR) provides strong evidence of reliability for making judgments about student performance of limited English proficient students and school improvement based on WESTELL.

Highly Qualified Personnel

Alternative Routes to Certification The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all teachers in Title I

schools meet requirements to be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. NCLB did not address the requirements for special education teachers who teach the core academic subjects named in the law. The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 gave specific direction to states regarding the requirements for all special education teachers to be considered highly qualified in their special education assignments.

121

West Virginia’s WVEIS system is currently (January 2006) collecting information on the number of teachers in all assignments who have achieved highly qualified status. The total is, therefore, not known. In the 2004-2005 school year, 20 percent of special education teachers were not licensed to teach in their primary assignment. The need for alternate routes to certification was clear so that special education teachers could attain both licensure and highly qualified status as appropriate. Both IDEA and NCLB provide for a teacher to be identified as highly qualified if the teacher is enrolled in an alternative route to certification. That status is retained for three years while the teacher completes the program.

The West Virginia Board of Education approved a West Virginia Department of Education alternate route to certification program for special education teachers in July 2005. This 21-credit-hour program addresses the need for special educators teaching in a core academic subject to be certified in that subject. The credit hours can be met through coursework, professional development, or an internship. There are currently no evaluation models in place to measure the success of the program. Participation and certification data will be available at the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

Highly Qualified Internship

The Highly Qualified Internship is a means by which special education teachers are paired with content area advisors. The special education teacher will earn six credits for the year-long internship; these hours may be applied to a 21-hour alternative certification program in the content areas. This program will lead to more teachers being highly qualified in reading and mathematics. More information on these alternative routes to certification is available at http://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educator/alternative/internship.html. No evaluation studies have been conducted on this project. Participation data will be available at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Highly Qualified Teachers

The West Virginia Department of Education has developed a link to the West Virginia Department of Education Web site (http://wvde.state.wv.us/ certification) to assist teachers in making a determination about their status as a highly qualified general education or special education teachers. Using a series of “yes/no” questions that mirror the No Child Left Behind Act, Highly Qualified Teacher criteria, a West Virginia teacher can determine his/her highly qualified status. In addition, for those special education teachers who may be assigned to teach a core academic subject, alternative routes to certification have been developed by the West Virginia Department of Education. These routes provide reasonable options for meeting the definition of highly qualified by utilizing previously completed coursework and state -approved professional development.

122

The 2003-2004 data indicated that all schools showed a total number of core academic classes at 58,999. The total number of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers was 56,661. These data indicated that 96.0 percent of the core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers. There are currently no evaluation models in place to measure the success of the program. More information on these alternative routes to certification is available on http://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educator/alternative/ special.html.

National Board Certification

The performance standards are based on The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) policy statement, What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do, and the Five Core Propositions (http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/coreprops.pdf). The standards are written by practicing classroom teachers, development experts, and educational leaders in each respective disciplinary field, from across the country. The standards are widely disseminated for public review, approved by the NBPTS Board of Directors, and made available online at no charge. There have been more than 150 studies, reports, and papers commissioned on the National Board certification process. Studies show that NBCT scored higher on teaching expertise than teachers who sought but did not achieve National Board Certification. Other attributes include 1) having an extensive knowledge of subject matter; 2) the ability to adapt and improvise instruction; 3) formulating lessons that are challenging and engaging; and 4) promoting academic achievement.

In 2004-2005, 244 West Virginia teachers earned National Board Certification. Approximately 31 percent of the 55 counties have no National Board certified teachers.

Technology Assisted Instruction Projects

Basic Skills/Computer Education (BS/CE)

The Basic Skills/ Computer Education (BS/CE) program provides approximately 446 elementary schools and 130 middle schools in the state with the hardware and software to improve the basic skills using technology. The West Virginia BS/CE Program goals are to improve skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and computer literacy, as well as to provide timely quality professional development for teachers implementing the program. West Virginia’s BS/CE program has had a positive impact on student achievement, as detailed in a study released by researchers from Columbia and Hofstra Universities. A recent study attributes 11 percent of West Virginia’s increase in mathematics and language arts scores to the computer interventions (http:/access.k12.wv.us/bcse/march23.htm.)

123

According to the 2005 West Virginia K-12 Digital Divide Survey, West Virginia schools have a 3.23:1 student to computer ratio of Windows 98 and above computers. West Virginia schools have a 6.29:1 student to computer ratio of Windows XP computers. Currently, 470 schools (82 percent) use Compass Classic software while 69 West Virginia schools (12 percent) have migrated to Compass Odyssey, a web-based curriculum software that is seamlessly aligned to the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives; 34 West Virginia schools (6 percent) use Riverdeep software, a web-based curriculum software that is flawlessly aligned to the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives. As funds become available, the goal is to have 100 percent of West Virginia schools transition to the newer web-based curriculum software programs and move toward a 1:1 student to computer ratio.

E-Learning for Educators

West Virginia is one of nine states and nine public broadcasting stations developing a state specific E-Learning for Educators program. The program is a result of a United States. Department of Education grant to the West Virginia Department of Education and West Virginia Public Broadcasting from the Ready to Teach program. This technology initiative’s mission is to provide a successful, sustainable program to address statewide teacher quality needs via Internet-based professional development courses for teachers.

E-Learning for Educators will allow e-learning instructors and e-learning course developers to receive professional development via e-learning courses to meet high priority needs for West Virginia school teachers, with a particular emphasis on teachers from eligible at risk schools and districts. The project is slated to begin in April 2006. There is currently no evaluation plan in place for this project.

Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT)

The EETT program is part of No Child Left Behind, under Title II, Part D. The program’s goals are to improve student academic achievement, to assist every student in crossing the digital divide, and to encourage the effective integration of technology. The program funds 22 Technology Integration Specialists who assist teachers with effective ways of integrating technology into the curricula. This allows teachers to use technology as an effective tool for addressing the content standards. The new technology based strategies benefit all students in the classroom. Interactive Inc., a national research firm specializing in educational research, is studying the effectiveness of the program. The preliminary results from the first two years of research are very promising (http://setdatapp.org/content.cfm?sectionid=15.), and final results from the three-year study should be available in 2006. The evaluation

124

will be provided at the conclusion of this study. For more information, please visit http://access.k12.wv.us/eet/index.htm.

Student Utilization of Computers in Curriculum for the Enhancement of Scholastic Skills (SUCCESS)

SUCCESS is mandated by the West Virginia Legislature. It provides the technology tools to prepare students in West Virginia’s approximately 300 secondary schools to succeed in college, other types of post-secondary education, or obtain gainful employment. The goal of the initiative is to enhance the curriculum through instructional technology and to develop 21st century skills for students resulting in improved student achievement. Staff development is critical to the successful implementation of technology. Appropriate opportunities for staff development are provided through the SUCCESS Initiative.

In May 1999, the West Virginia Department of Education entered into a contract with MGT of America, Inc., to conduct research into the effectiveness of SUCCESS and to assess the degree to which the program objectives are being achieved. The study commended Governor Cecil H. Underwood, the West Virginia Legislature, and the West Virginia Department of Education for “establishing the vision for SUCCESS and then implementing the Initiative in a positive manner” (MGT, 2000, p. 1-17). The study found, “the SUCCESS Initiative has impacted many secondary students in a positive way” (MGT, 2000, p. 4-4), citing that through the integration of technology into the curriculum, students experienced increased learning capacity and development of specific work place skills.

The 2006 West Virginia K-12 Digital Divide Survey (draft) notes that West Virginia schools have a 3.23:1 student to computer ratio of Windows 98 computers and above. West Virginia schools have a 6.29:1 student to computer ratio of Windows XP computers. As funds are made available, the goal is to have all West Virginia secondary schools move toward a 1:1 student to computer ratio, and for all students to have access to workplace simulation, student career/college exploration and decision-making. and office suite software (word processing, presentation software, spreadsheets and data bases). The 2006 West Virginia K-12 Digital Divide Survey will be available in May 2006, at http://wveis.k12.wv.us/surveys/digital_reports.cfm.

West Virginia Virtual School (WVVS)

The West Virginia Virtual School initiative helps bridge the barriers of time, distance, and inequities for all West Virginia students by providing access to many of the same educational resources available in a classroom. West Virginia Virtual School began with three middle school

125

students and has grown to 1,350 students in four years. There are currently 640 students enrolled in the WVVS Spanish program. Rockman et al, a national research firm specializing in educational research, is studying the effectiveness of the West Virginia Virtual School Spanish program. The preliminary results from the first two years of research showed great potential, and final results from the three-year study should be available in 2006-2007 and will be provided upon conclusion of the research project.

School System Expectations 21st Century Skills

In November 2005, West Virginia became the second state to be accepted into the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The broad-based public-private partnership was founded through the efforts of the United States Department of Education, eight business organizations, and two individuals. The initiative was originally created in response to the ever increasing gap between the knowledge and skills most students learn in school and those required to be successful in today’s workplace and as integral members of communities.

Preparing students to meet the challenges of the 21st century requires a pedagogically combined effort. The six key elements to the 21st century education are learning skills, core subjects, 21st century content, 21st century context, 21st century assessment, and 21st century learning tools. A co-requisite to the six key elements is expertise in specific 21st century skills. These skills encompass information and communication, thinking and problem-solving, and interpersonal and self-direction. Completing the skills set are financial, economic, and business literacy, global awareness, and civic literacy.

Implementation of the 21st century structure for meeting the critical elements of the partnership application has defined 40 initiatives that need to be addressed at the state and local levels. A work plan detailing the initiatives will be followed over the next five years. An evaluation plan has been designed to measure the success of implementing the defined critical elements with the state school system.

Framework for High Performing School Systems

The Framework for High Performing School Systems (http://wvachieves.k12.wv.us/docs/2004/Framework%201.pdf) represents a major initiative to accomplish the accountability standards of West Virginia Achieves. West Virginia Achieves is a comprehensive series of interrelated programs and policies intended to bring both quality and equity to West Virginia public

126

schools.

The Framework is intended to achieve three specific purposes: 1) to provide a guide for transforming local school systems to “learning for all” organizations, 2) to help focus leadership and technical assistance activities of state, regional, and local educational agencies, and 3) to provide a unified approach and common language for school system improvement in West Virginia. The four pillars of the Framework are curriculum management, instructional practices, school effectiveness, and student/parent support. The Framework supports culturally responsive teaching but appropriate resources must be provided and professional development must occur to incorporate these teaching concepts into a systemwide approach.

The Framework was developed by a 100 member committee of West Virginia Department of Education and Regional Education Service Agency staff in a series of nine development sessions. It was reviewed by experts in school and school system improvement and by West Virginia superintendents of schools attending the annual summer Superintendents’ Leadership Institute.

No two school systems are alike, nonetheless, all students deserve the same high quality educational experience wherever they attend school. The West Virginia Board of Education and the West Virginia Department of Education commit to responding to the varied needs of the 55 schools systems through the Framework. The Department has also completed the development for Framework for the High Performing Schools and Classrooms at the elementary, middle, and high school programmatic levels.

School Safety

W. Va. State Code §§16-9A-4; 16-9A-9; 17A-1-4; 18-2-5; 18-2-5Aa; 18- 2-7b; 18-2-9; 18-2-33; 18-2C-1 et seq; 18-5-1; 18-5-13; 18-16-1; 18A-1-1; 18A-5-1; 60A-1-101; 60A-7-11a; 61-2-25; 61-7-2; W. Va. Const. Art. XII, §2 and West Virginia Board Policy 4373, Student Code of Conduct have been developed and approved to set the requirements for the conduct of students in West Virginia schools in order to ensure a nurturing and orderly, safe, and drug/violence/harassment-free learning environment that supports student academic achievement and personal/social development. Additionally, this policy defines the identification process for classifying schools as Persistently Dangerous Schools; this process began in 2003. To date, West Virginia has not identified any schools as persistently dangerous. Studies show schools that are free from threat of physical harm and engage students in the teaching and learning process show increases in school achievement (Moore & Ralph, 2000).

West Virginia Online Five Year Strategic Plans

The West Virginia Department of Education has designed and implemented an online five-year strategic planning process for school and

127

school district systemic planning. The plan unifies various federal and state planning requirements in a unified process designed to improve the equity and quality of student achievement. A main component of the planning process is the review of student performance data disaggregated by subgroups for the purpose of identifying goals, objectives, performance benchmarks (i.e. targets for improvement), and actions taken to close the achievement gaps existing between student subgroups. Annual reviews by the West Virginia Department of Education are completed to analyze and approve the online five-year strategic plans.

Beyond School Programs

The beyond school indicators deal with teaching and learning, as well as with the learning environment during the time the child is outside the school system. The learning environment literature addresses school system expectations and school safety.

To date, the West Virginia Department of Education has worked to provide statewide leadership to close the achievement gap during the beyond school time frame with extracurricular programs through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.

21st Century Community Learning Centers Program

The West Virginia Department of Education has called for the creation of local community learning centers that are operated beyond the school day. The 31 centers (32 counties) provide academic enrichment opportunities fo r 19,445 children, particularly students who attend high poverty and low performing schools, through the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Additionally, this program offers literacy and other educational services to families of participating children. The programs are delivered before school, after school, and during the summer months.

To date, West Virginia has four cohorts receiving funding for proposals that provide academic opportunities for these children and their families. Cohorts A and B include 18 projects, and Cohorts C and D fund 13 projects. Each application requires a local, state, and federal evaluation component. Additionally, the West Virginia Department of Education monitors each program as per the 21st Century Community Learning Centers federal application requirements.

128

Conclusions

The impact data provide school administrators with a foundation for drawing conclusions about achievement and making data-driven decisions through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (Urwick and Gulick 1937) with the goal of bringing all students to Mastery and Beyond and closing the achievement gap. Current national research and state subgroup performance findings suggest school input variables, other than non-low socioeconomic status, are interacting to create improved achievement in the West Virginia subgroups. Administrators from all areas of the educational community should be very deliberate and thoughtful as they examine their school, county, or state achievement data and the factors related to achievement. These types of organizational decisions affect how administrators manage and lead their campuses to become high performing schools in high performing districts.

The conclusions for improving student performance are based on the overall reading/language arts and mathematics results from WESTEST, NAEP, ACT, ACT EXPLORE, ACT PLAN, SAT, CTE, and HSTW, as well as national research. The conclusions for the additional indicators of Advanced Placement, Attendance Rate, Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, College Going Rate, Retention Rate, and CTE Postsecondary Placement are, respectively, based on the West Virginia results and national research. Conclusions are also included for the Closing the Gap Initiatives.

Assessment Impact Data Conclusions

WESTEST

• Data indicated positive trends in the percent of students at Distinguished for various subgroups in mathematics and science.

• Students in the Distinguished category showed erratic trends in reading/language arts and social studies.

• Data indicated positive trends in the percent of students At or Above Mastery for various subgroups in reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science.

• Reading/language arts and mathematics increases were most substantial in the Migrant subgroup in the At or Above Mastery level.

• Mathematics increases were all significant with every subgroup showing positive gains At or Above Mastery.

• Science increases were most significant for various subgroups at the Above Mastery level.

• Students at Partial Mastery indicated slight decreases in all subgroups in both reading/language arts and mathematics.

• Data indicated overall gains in the percent of students at Partial Mastery for various subgroups in social studies and an erratic trend for science.

129

• Social Studies increases were most substantial for the various subgroups at the Partial Mastery level.

• Students in the Novice category showed decreases in almost every subgroup for both reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science.

• Students with Disabilities had the smallest percentage of students performing At or Above Mastery in reading/language arts and mathematics.

• Summative assessments are not available at every grade level.

• Classroom assessments are not part of the comprehensive assessment program.

• Alternate Assessment to WESTEST results are not available due to the revision process to include sound technical support data.

• Students with Disabilities subgroup performance on WESTEST needs improvement.

• Rigor of secondary curriculum and assessments must be increased.

• There is no continuous predictive assessment data in grades 8—12.

• Rigor must be increased in K-12 CSOs to ensure aligned assessments have greater compatibility with WESTEST to other performance measures, i.e. ACT, SAT, AP, and NAEP.

West Virginia NAEP

• Data expressed slight increases in the At or Above Basic level in grade 4 reading for the Black and Students with Disabilities subgroups.

• Data indicated a significant decline in the Female and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups in the At or Above Basic level of grade 4 reading.

• Mathematics grade 4 had a significant increase in the Students with Disabilities subgroup in At or Above Basic.

• Slight increases were indicated for Male, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged in At or Above Basic in grade 4 mathematics.

• Grade 8 reading at the At or Above Basic category showed decreases in all subgroups.

• Grade 8 mathematics indicated an increase in the Students with Disabilities subgroup in At or Above Basic.

• All other subgroups, except Students with Disabilities, showed a decrease in At or Above Basic at grade 8 in mathematics.

• NAEP does not report migrant data as states are required to do, per NCLB.

• NAEP and WESTEST have discrepant percentages of students in their respective test performance levels.

• Alignment of CSOs and WESTEST to NAEP needs to be improved in terms of rigor.

130

National NAEP

• Data expressed slight increases for grade 4 reading for all the various subgroups in the At or Above Basic level.

• Grade 8 reading showed slight increases for Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities subgroups in the At or Above Basic performance.

• All subgroups showed increases for grades 4 and 8 mathematics in the At or Above Basic level.

• Data showed the White and Male subgroups achieved at higher levels in grades 4 and 8 science than all other subgroups in the At or Above Basic performance level.

• Data showed the percentage of students at Mastery on the WESTEST were considerably higher than the percentage of students at Basic on NAEP for reading, mathematics, and science.

ACT

• Scores remained fairly static with no consistent gains for any subgroup in both reading and mathematics.

• Black subgroup performance remained significantly below all other subgroups in both reading and mathematics.

• Females continued to outscore Males in reading but scored below Males in mathematics.

• West Virginia scores fell below the National scores in both reading and mathematics.

• High school course content standards do not have strong alignment to ACT and AP standards.

ACT PLAN

• The Other subgroup showed consistent gains over the past three years in reading, mathematics, and science.

• Black and American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups remained below all other subgroups in reading, mathematics, and science.

• The All, Female, White, Asian, and Other subgroups showed gains from 2004 to 2005 in reading, mathematics, and science.

• West Virginia scores were above the National mean scale scores in the All subgroup for reading, mathematics, and science.

• West Virginia scores met or were above the National scores in reading, except for the Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other subgroups.

131

• West Virginia scores met or were above the national scores in mathematics, except for the Black, Puerto Rican/Hispanic, Mexican American/Chicano, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other subgroups.

• West Virginia scores met or were above the National scores in science, except for the Black, Puerto Rican/Hispanic, Mexican American/Chicano, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other subgroups.

• No interventions were provided to grade 10 students who were not on track to be successful in college according to the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks.

ACT EXPLORE

• Males, Black, and Mexican American/Chicano subgroups indicated positive gains in reading, mathematics, and science.

• Black, Mexican American/Chicano, Puerto Rican/Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other subgroups scored lower than other subgroups on all three exams.

• Black subgroup showed improvement in specific years on all exams but the overall increases were variable.

• West Virginia scores generally fell below the National score in reading except in 2005 when the scores were the same as the national average.

• West Virginia scores generally fell below the National score in mathematics except in 2005 when the scores were above the national average.

• West Virginia scores fell below the National score in science for the Male, Black, Puerto Rican/Hispanic, Mexican American/Chicano, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other subgroups.

• No interventions were provided to grade 8 students who were not on track to be successful in college according to the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks.

SAT

• West Virginia consistently scored above the National mean scale score on the verbal and continually lower on the mathematics.

• All, Male, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups scored higher than the other subgroups on both exams.

• Black, Mexican American, and American Indian subgroups performed lower than other subgroups on both exams.

• West Virginia scores generally fell below the National score in mathematics.

• High school course content standards do not have a strong alignment to SAT and AP standards.

• Predictive and college readiness exams are currently not administered to high school students.

132

CTE

WorkKeys

• Female, Asian, and Nontraditional Enrollees performed higher than the other subgroups.

• Male, Black, Native American/Alaska Native, Students with Disabilities, and Other subgroups performed lower than the other subgroups on ACT WorkKeys.

End-of-Course Exams

• All subgroups showed improvement from 2004 to 2005.

• Asian and Nontraditional Enrollees performed higher than the other subgroups.

HSTW

• Black subgroup performance remained significantly below all other subgroups.

• Female subgroup outperformed Male subgroup in reading.

• Male subgroup outperformed Female subgroup in mathematics and science.

Additional Impact Data Conclusions

Advanced Placement Course Enrollment and Exam Performance

• Enrollment in Advanced Placement courses showed a decline for all subgroups except for the Black, Native American, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups.

• Black subgroups showed the greatest increase in enrollment in Advanced Placement courses.

• Number of students scoring a 3 or higher on Advanced Placement exams has declined.

Attendance Rate Data

• A slight increase in attendance was shown in all reported subgroups.

• The greatest increase in attendance was in the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup.

Dropout Rate Data

• The most significant decrease in the dropout rate was in the Native American subgroup.

• All, Male, White, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups showed slight decreases in the dropout rate.

133

• The Female, Hispanic, Asian, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient subgroups showed increases in the dropout rate.

Graduation Rate Data

• The All, Male, White, Hispanic, and Students with Disabilities subgroups had increased graduation rates.

• The most significant increase in the graduation rate was in the Hispanic subgroup.

• The greatest decline in the graduation rate was in the Native American subgroup.

College Going Rate

• Data are not currently collected for the college going rate.

Retention Rate

• Data are not currently collected for the retention rate.

CTE Postsecondary Placement

• Placement was most successful with the Hispanic and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Placement was least successful with the Asian subgroup.

• Hispanic subgroup showed the highest level of placement in employment or the military.

• Asian subgroup showed the highest level of placement in continued education or training.

Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives

Before School

• Even Start allocations do not provide adequate funding to significantly show improvements and research does not provide a comprehensive picture of gains in family literacy.

• Quality Enhancement for Language and Literature (QELL) currently serves only 287 students in two counties.

• Pre-K programs positively impact academic achievement (reading/language arts and mathematics) of students throughout school.

• Only 38 percent of the total four-year-old population were served in a pre-K programs in the 2004-2005 school year.

• Pre-K programs positively impact long-term achievement.

134

• Impact data for evaluation of pre-K special education instruction need to be summarized.

School

Increasing Student Achievement

• Data are unavailable to draw conclusions for Algebra I Pilot.

• Reading/Language arts and mathematics data show strong improvement from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 for Comprehensive School Reform.

• Expansion of the Differentiated Instruction Cadre and additional professional development is supported by national research and positive portfolio results.

• English Language Proficiency Alignment Study shows linkage to mathematics and science standards, in addition to language arts.

• Needs of state’s students outnumber the capacity of the school nurses currently employed — Health Services.

• The High Schools for West Virginia’s Future Taskforce developed recommendations designed to improve the success of students in high schools and in their postsecondary pursuits. The recommendations were presented to the West Virginia Board of Education.

• High Schools That Work schools that implement the Key Practices continue to show positive gains in student achievement.

• Preliminary results from House Bill 4669 indicate significant gains in student achievement by subgroup.

• Mathematics Education Reform Initiative for Teachers (MERIT) schools demonstrated increases in mathematics performance at each grade level.

• Mathematics Science Partnership Program currently funds five programs within the program.

• Medical Services have a positive educational impact on attendance and academic performance, both due to improved health status.

• Policy 2320—accountability system does not measure all subjects that are assessed, only reading and mathematics in accountability calculations, or on

other assessments. • Policy 2320—The following subgroups did not make AYP in mathematics:

secondary Hispanic and middle and secondary Students with Disabilities. In reading, secondary Black; elementary, middle, and high school Students with Disabilities; and middle and high school Economically Disadvantaged subgroups did not make AYP.

• Reading First initiatives have positively impacted student performance.

135

• Reading Language Arts Standards-Based Units have been implemented in the HB 4669 professional development schools with expansion of the program to begin in the 2006 school year.

• Response to Intervention is being piloted in only 11 elementary schools.

• Responsible Students through School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Program (RS-SWPBS) serves 215 elementary and middle schools in 43 counties.

• School Nutrition served 29 percent of all students in the breakfast meal service with 65 percent routinely taking part in lunch at school.

• School Nutrition served 52 percent of the total student population who qualified for free or reduced price meals while at school.

• Special Education Project to Reduce the Number of Misidentified Minority Students, effective 2005, assists with the identification and implementation of research-based interventions for minority special education students.

• Special Education Reading Project (SERP) is currently in the planning stages with statewide implementation in 2006.

• Special Education Services serves over 50,000 identified students in 55 counties.

• Special Education does not report individual student achievement progress in evaluation reports.

• Statewide Administrative Math Improvement Team has been established to coordinate professional development activities to ensure efficient utilization of resources and maximum benefit of funds, and to implement standards-based instruction.

• Taskforce on Secondary LEP Education developed appropriate resources and documents within the mandated timeframe.

• Title I — NCLB funds 381 public schools in 55 districts.

• Title I — NCLB, funded schools showed achievement gains in reading and mathematics at all levels.

• Title I—NCLB does not report individual student achievement in evaluation reports.

• Title 1— School Improvement, schools are showing increases in reading and mathematics, with greater improvement in mathematics.

• University of Kansas Writing Strategies Project is being piloted in 13 counties and 14 middle schools.

• West Virginia Phonemic Awareness Collaborative Statewide Project has no ongoing monitoring plan but indicated gains in an external evaluation.

• Results of assessments indicate overall student growth in reading during participation in West Virginia READS.

136

• Data are currently not available to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness of the West Virginia State Improvement Grant.

• One year of data is insufficient to draw valid conclusions for WESTELL.

Highly Qualified Personnel

• Alternative Routes to Certification became available during the 2005-2006 school year, so participation data is unavailable.

• Highly Qualified Internship became available during the 2005-2006 school year, so participation data is unavailable.

• Four percent of the core academic classes are not taught by highly qualified teachers.

• Two hundred forty-four West Virginia teachers currently have National Board Certification and 31 percent of the counties have no National Board Certified teachers.

• Percentage of teachers currently participating in the state approved professional development to become highly qualified is unavailable.

• Initiatives to address leadership and staff development programs such as 21st century skills and rigor of curriculum are not currently in place.

Technology Assisted Instruction Projects

• Basic Skills/Computer Education attributed an 11 percent improvement in reading and mathematics to the computer interventions.

• Only 18 percent of the elementary schools have access to the most current (browser-based) Basic Skills software

• West Virginia schools have a 6.29:1 student to computer ratio of Windows XP computers

• E-Learning is currently being implemented as a result of a federal grant.

• Two years of data provided positive findings regarding the impact of Enhancing Education through Technology.

• Student Utilization of Computers in Curriculum for the Enhancement of Scholastic Skills (SUCCESS) effectiveness study has cited that through the integration of technology into the curriculum, students experienced increased learning capacity and development of specific work place skills.

• A 6.2 to 1 student to computer ratio for Windows XP computers

137

• Preliminary results for West Virginia Virtual School indicated substantial gains in the number of participating students and a positive impact on student learning.

School System Expectations

• 21st century skills are not currently included in the CSOs and assessments.

• 21st century cultural elements have been defined and are in the process of being implemented.

• Framework for High Performing School Systems, Schools, and Classrooms has been developed to guide school and school system improvement and promote culturally responsive teaching.

• There is no initiative that specifically addresses the establishment of a comprehensive plan for assessing and supporting culturally responsive schools.

• School Safety has not identified any persistently dangerous schools to date.

• The Five-Year Strategic Plans have been submitted and approved for all 55 counties.

• All schools have developed and submitted a five-year plan to guide school improvement.

Beyond School

• Current allocations only allow for funding in 31 counties for 21st Century Community Learning Centers Programs.

138

Recommendations

The recommendations for improving student performance are based on the overall reading/language arts and mathematics results from WESTEST, NAEP, ACT, ACT EXPLORE, ACT PLAN, SAT, CTE, and HSTW, as well as national research. The recommendations for the additional indicators of Advanced Placement, Attendance Rate, Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, College Going Rate, Retention Rate, and CTE Postsecondary Placement are, respectively, based on the West Virginia results and national research. Recommendations are also included for the Closing the Gap Initiatives.

Assessment Impact Data Recommendations

WESTEST

• Increase rigor in K-12 CSOs to include 21st century skills and to ensure aligned assessments have greater compatibility with WESTEST to other performance measures, i.e. ACT, SAT, AP, and NAEP.

• Provide summative and support classroom assessments to drive increased levels of student achievement at each grade level in reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science in the new 2008-2009 state assessment program.

• Revise the Alternate Assessment to WESTEST to provide technical data.

• Develop modified achievement standards and modified assessment to WESTEST for an additional two percent of the special needs population.

• Combine predictive college admission/statewide assessment measures within middle and high schools.

• Develop structures to enhance rigor of secondary curriculum and assessments and have greater compatibility of WESTEST to other performance measures, i.e. ACT, SAT, and AP.

NAEP – West Virginia and National

• Develop a comprehensive plan for preparing students and teachers for the NAEP assessment.

• Require NAEP to report migrant data as states are required to do, per NCLB.

• Reduce discrepant percentages of students in respective test performance levels on WESTEST and NAEP.

• Improve alignment of WESTEST and NAEP by ensuring the content standards are aligned to NAEP standards.

139

ACT/ACT PLAN/ACT EXPLORE

• Increase West Virginia ACT scores from below the nation to above the nation in reading, mathematics, and science.

• Revise high school course content standards to align with ACT/PLAN/EXPLORE standards.

• Continue to perform above the nation on ACT PLAN.

• Increase West Virginia ACT EXPLORE scores to above the nation in reading, mathematics, and science.

• Provide intervention to 8th and 10th grade students not on track to be successful in college according to the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks.

SAT

• Revise high school course content standards to align with SAT standards.

• Increase West Virginia scores to fall above the National scores in mathematics.

• Administer predictive and college readiness exams to high school students.

CTE

WorkKeys

• Increase ACT WorkKeys scores of Native American/Alaska Native and Students with Disabilities subgroups to be more in line with other subgroups.

End-of-Course Exams

• Continue to show improvement on End-of-Course exams.

HSTW

• Review course taking patterns and align to ACT core and standards of transition.

• Increase scores of lower performing subgroups.

Additional Impact Data Recommendations

• Develop programs to specifically increase availability of and enrollment in Advanced Placement courses.

• Request legislative funding incentives to encourage teachers to be trained to teach Advanced Placement courses.

140

• Modify policies/legislation to ensure attendance requirements that support students graduating and reduce dropout rates.

• mandatory attendance requirements

• monitoring of attendance for at risk subgroups

• establishment of advisory support for students at risk of dropping out

• Improve the graduate rate for the Female, Black, Native American, Asian, Economically Disadvantaged, and Limited English Proficient subgroups.

• Develop WVEIS programs to collect college going rate and retention rate by subgroups.

• Develop program to improve placement thereby increasing the success rate of placement of completers in employment or postsecondary education.

Closing the Achievement Gap Initiatives Recommendations

Before School

• Request increased Even Start funding allocations from the federal government, not a decrease for West Virginia in 2007.

• Expand QELL in one district per RESA for 2006-07 and also with additional pre-K programs in subsequent years if evaluation data indicate a positive impact number.

• Establish Universal Pre-K programs for all students with all deliberate speed.

• Develop an evaluation model to measure the impact of pre-K special education services on school readiness and continued eligibility for services after age five.

School

Increasing Student Achievement

• Articulate recommendations for expansion of the Algebra I Pilot Project based on pilot data and evaluation results due in 2007.

• Continue funding and implementation of (Comprehensive School Reform) research-based, whole school reform programs by utilizing Title I school improvement funds.

• Expand the Differentiated Instruction Cadre through professional development if evaluation supports preliminary results.

• Re-evaluate the alignment of reading/language arts and social studies when the CSO revisions are complete for the English Language Proficiency Alignment Study.

141

• Consider other health care models to develop and update the current school health service delivery systems.

• Implement the High Schools for West Virginia’s Future Taskforce’s recommendations to improve the attendance rate and increase the rigor of the curriculum.

• Continue with the implementation of House Bill 4669 schools, additional professional development, and the evaluation process.

• Continue and expand Mathematics Education Reform Initiative for Teachers (MERIT) to support middle school standards-based mathematics instruction.

• Continue to support the Mathematics Science Partnership Program to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science.

• Continue existing and develop new school-based health care centers through Medical Services.

• Policy 2320 – Establish an accountability structure that is more rigorous than NCLB and that includes monitoring of increased percentages of students scoring at the Above Mastery and Distinguished levels.

• Policy 2320 – Consider an index system of a variety of assessments to use as multiple measures for determining school improvement.

• Expand proven research programs such as Reading First to support early reading and mathematics literacy.

• Develop a large scale monitoring and evaluation plan to fine tune the Reading First model to further promote program effectiveness.

• Continue to support the design of units through the Reading Language Arts Standards-Based Units project.

• Make recommendations based on an evaluation of the project for expansion of Reading Language Arts Standards-Based Units project to grades 10-12 and to also include mathematics.

• Make recommendations based on completed evaluation in April 2006 for expansion of Response to Intervention.

• Articulate recommendations based on completed evaluation results for expansion of Responsible Students through School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Program.

• Continue to identify economically disadvantaged children for school meal benefits through School Nutrition.

• Work proactively to improve school meal quality while eliminating factors that compete with proper nutrition services in the school environment.

• Continue to examine the state and district data to ensure that minority students are appropriately identified through the Special Education Project

142

to Reduce the Number of Misidentified Minority Students.

• Expand Special Education Project to Reduce the Number of Misidentified Minority Students through additional professional development.

• Provide additional training to address outreach and expansion needs for the state’s special education professional development reading plan (SERP).

• Evaluate the effects of SERP professional development by examining gains in the special education reading subgroup.

• Establish a comprehensive work plan for increasing the performance of special education students including:

• professional development for teachers focused on student mastery of content standards and objectives

• utilization of RESA staff for technical assistance to low performing students

• monitoring and accountability of student performance

• evaluation of student performance/progress on an annual basis

• Continue the process of professional development to support standards-based mathematics instruction at all programmatic levels – Statewide Administrative Math Improvement Team.

• Continue the efforts of the Taskforce on Secondary LEP Education to further improve the educational opportunities of limited English proficient students.

• Develop an evaluation tool to measure the impact of Title I – NCLB services on schools identified for improvement.

• Develop a plan to improve state technical assistance to Title I – School Improvement schools identified for improvement (in the areas of reading, mathematics, and school reform).

• Establish a comprehensive formal evaluation process for measuring achievement gains for those students receiving Title I – School Improvement services.

• Evaluate the effects of the University of Kansas Writing Strategies Project by examining student achievement gains in the pilot schools

• Develop a monitoring plan for new and existing participating schools in the Phonemic Awareness Collaborative to ensure continued program fidelity.

• Incorporate the International Phonetic Alphabet Project (IPAP) program into the Phonemic Awareness Collaborative within existing state/district/school K-1 reading plans and those identified for school improvement.

143

• Expand West Virginia Reading Excellence Accelerates Deserving Students (READS) to reach more than 30 (five percent) elementary schools.

• Continue the West Virginia State Improvement Grant, i.e. professional development, and re-evaluate its effectiveness when external evaluation is completed.

• Review WESTELL 2004-05 and 2005-06 results to yield future recommendations.

Highly Qualified Personnel

• Continue Alternative Routes to Certification until all special education teachers are licensed to teach in their areas of primary assignment.

• Continue the Highly Qualified Internship program until all special education teachers are highly qualified in reading mathematics.

• Seek legislative funding to attract highly qualified teachers in the areas of critical shortage by offering recruitment and retention incentives, and increase legislative appropriations for completed coursework in the areas of critical shortage.

• Develop and implement plans for increasing the number of National Board Certified Teachers.

• Develop and implement leadership training initiatives including identified 21st century learning skills, rigor, and student/school improvement.

Technology Assisted Instruction Projects

• Continue Basic Skills/Computer Education funding and increase availability of latest software to all schools.

• Continue with the implementation of E-Learning for Educators.

• Establish a formal evaluation model to measure the success of E-Learning for Educators.

• Provide sufficient number of technology integration specialists for effective implementation of technology for 21st century learning – Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT).

• Continue Student Utilization of Computers in Curriculum for the Enhancement of Scholastic Skills (SUCCESS) funding.

• Increase the availability of computers to students.

• Review West Virginia Virtual School evaluation to yield future recommendations.

144

School System Expectations

• Inclusion of 21st Century Skills into CSOs and state assessments.

• Implement the cultural elements identified by the 21st Century Partnership Plan, including such areas as:

• 21st century learning professional development programs for all educators, including teachers, professionals, and administrators.

• increase the rigor of content standards and objectives include 21st century skills and context.

• enhance technology skills of all educators.

• develop comprehensive summative and classroom assessments to measure and support 21st century learning skills.

• provide equity with availability of rigorous course subjects.

• ensure access to 21st century technology tools for students and teachers.

• Design and implement a system for counties, schools, and classrooms to measure and/or monitor progress of implementing the Framework for High Performing School Systems, Schools, and Classrooms and provide professional development that supports culturally responsive

• Develop an initiative that includes leadership training and teacher professional development programs for assessing and supporting culturally responsive schools.

• Continue to monitor implementation of structures and strategies to address subgroup performance in five-year strategic plans.

• Continue to provide students with a safe learning environment and continue to create environments that do not promote Persistently Dangerous Schools.

Beyond School

• Request additional allocations to fund 50 percent more projects for 21st Century Community Learning Centers Programs.

In conclusion, the West Virginia: Closing the Achievement Gap report has attempted to 1) review the literature and research factors that impact student performance; 2) determine the status and progress of student performance; 3) review programs and strategies to close the achievement gap between subgroups in West Virginia public school initiatives; 4) generate findings and conclusions as relates to student performance; and 5) offer recommendations of considerations as a result of the findings identified.

145

The report provides baseline information that may be used to measure progress and performance of student subgroups in West Virginia. The conclusions and recommendations are meant for consideration as educators, policy makers, and community leaders develop, plan, and strive to improve educational opportunities for all children in West Virginia public schools.

146

References

Abedi, J. (2004). Considering English language learners in the no child left behind act: reporting adequate yearly progress. Retrieved August 18, 2005, from the UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation and The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Web site: http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/Forum14September2004/AbediPaper.pdf

Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Research-supported accommodation for English Language learners in NAEP (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 586). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mironcha, J. (2003). Impact of students’ language background on content-based assessment: Analyses of extant data (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. ACT, Inc. (2000). ACT assessment 2000 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2001). ACT assessment 2001 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2001, January 10). EXPLORE summary report West Virginia public without te. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2002). ACT assessment 2002 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2002, January 10). EXPLORE summary report West Virginia public without te.

Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2003). ACT assessment 2003 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2003, January 10). EXPLORE summary report West Virginia public without te.

Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2003, January 10). PLAN summary report West Virginia public without te. Iowa

City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2004). ACT assessment 2004 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2004, January 14). EXPLORE summary report West Virginia public without te.

Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2004, January 14). PLAN summary report West Virginia public without te. Iowa

City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2005). ACT assessment 2005 results: West Virginia. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2005, January 7). EXPLORE summary report West Virginia public without te. Iowa

City, IA: Author. ACT, Inc. (2005, January 7). PLAN summary report West Virginia public without te. Iowa City,

IA: Author. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality;

a seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23(2), 171-191. Armor, D. (1992, September). Why is black educational achievement rising? The Public

Interest, 65-80. Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox M., King N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly E., &

Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angles minority programs (No. R.2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp.

Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C., & Jung, K. (2005, December). The effects of state prekindergarten programs on young children’s school readiness in five states. New Jersey: The National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.

Barton, P. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Beale, C. L. (2003, March/April). The ethno/racial context of poverty in rural and small town America. [Electronic version]. Poverty & Race Research Action Council. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=804&item_id=7806& newsletter_id=67&header=Search%20Results

147

Becker, H. J. (1987). Addressing the needs of different groups of early adolescents: Effects of varying school and classroom organizational practices on students from different social backgrounds and abilities. (No. 16). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Bidwell, C. E. & Kasarda, J. D. (1975). School district organization and student achievement. American Sociological Review, 40, 55-70.

Bielinski, J. & Ysseldyke, J. (2000, October). Interpreting trends in the performance of special education students (Technical Report 27). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 23, 2005, from http://www.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/TechReport27.htm

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappa International . Retrieved February 6, 2006, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Blum, R.E, Butler, J.A., & Olson, N.L. (1987). Leadership for Excellence: Research-based

training for principals. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 25-29. Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: 6 principles that guide student achievement

in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee. (1982). The instructional management role of the

principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3): 34-64. Brewer, D. J. & Stacz, C. (1996). Enhancing opportunity to learn measures in NCES data.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Brookover, W. B. & Lezotte, L. W.. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with

changes in student achievement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., &

Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Research Journal, 15(3), 01-318.

Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burstein, L. (1993). Validating national curriculum indicators: A conceptual overview of the RAND/CRESST NSF Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educaional Research Association, Atlanta.

Caldas, F. S. (1987). Reexamination of input and process factor effects on public school achievement. Journal of Educational Research 86 (4), 206-214.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-332. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points. New York: Carnegie

Corporation of New York. Chrispeels, J.H. & Rivero E. (2001). Engaging latino families for student success: How parent

education can reshape parent’s sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76 (2), 119-169.

Chubb, J. E. & Loveless, T. (2002). Bridging the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1-10.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

The College Board. (2001). State summary report 2000-2001. New York, NY: Author. The College Board. (2002). 2002 college bound seniors: A profile of SAT program test takers. New York, NY: Author. The College Board. (2003). West Virginia summary report 2002-2003 (2003). New York, NY: Author. The College Board. (2004). State reports College Board 2004. New York, NY: Author. The College Board. (2005). State reports College Board 2005. New York, NY: Author.

148

Cook, M. & Evans, W. N. (2000). Families or schools? Explaining the convergence in white and black academic performance. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 729-754.

Corbett Burris, C. & Weiner, K. G. (2005, April). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 594-598. Cowan, K. T. (2004). The new title I: The changing landscape of accountability. Tampa, FL: Thompson Publishing Group. Crooks, T. J. (1988, Winter). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students.

Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level.” Harvard Educational Review, 54,129-151. Diaz, A. & Lord, J. (2005). Focusing on Student Performance Through Accountability:

Challenge to Lead Series. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board. Dobbs, M. (2005, July 15). School achievement gap is narrowing [Electronic version]. Washington Post, A07. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-

27. Education Commission of the States. (1998). The progress of educational reform: 1997. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Education Trust. (2004, March 9). African American achievement in America. Retrieved

October 3, 2005, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/9AB4AC88-7301-43FF-81A3-EB94807B917F/0/AfAmer_Achivement.pdf

Education Trust. (2005a). The power to change—high schools that help all students achieve. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from www.edtrust.org.

Education Trust. (2005b). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from www.edtrust.org.

Edvantia. (2006). Baseline study of selected professional development schools in West Virginia. Charleston, WV: Author.

Effective Schools Products, Ltd. (2001). Revolutionary and Evolutionary: The effective schools movement. Okemos, MI: Author. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR, Part

99 (1974). Flockton, L. & Crooks, T. (1998). Social studies: Assessment results, 1997. National

Education Monitoring Project Report 8. Dunedin, New Zealand: Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago, Ministry of Education.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gilchrist, C. L., Salgado, D. M., & Holloway, J. L. (2005, October). Baseline study of selected professional development schools in West Virginia. Charleston, WV: Edvantia, Inc.

Ginsberg, J. (2004, March 28). Working to narrow the gap. The Charleston Gazette. Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Series/ Brown +v. + Board+of+Education/200403278

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227. United States Statutes at Large. (1994).

Gordon, E. W. & Bridglall, B. L. (2002, March). The idea of supplementary education. [Electronic version]. Pedagogical Inquiry and Praxis. New York, NY: Institute for Urban

and Minority Education, Columbia University. Grissmer, D. W., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J. & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. F. (1987). Assessing and developing instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 54-61.

149

Hanushek, E. A. (1971, May). Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation using micro data. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 280-288. Retrieved August 18, 2005, from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-

8282%28197105%2961%3A2%3C280%3ATCAGIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational

Researcher (18), 45-51, 62. Hanushek, E. A. (1997, Summer). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164. Hanushek, E. A. (2001, May). Black-white achievement differences and governmental interventions. American Economic Review, 91(2), 24-28. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002, November). Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities?” [Electronic version]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584-599. Haskins, R. & Rouse, C. Closing achievement gaps. Princeton University and Brookings Institution. (2005, Spring). The Future of Children. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Haycock, K. Helping all students achieve: Closing the achievement gap. Retrieved August 18, 2005, from The Center for Development & Learning Web site: http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/achieve_gap.php?type=author&id=15 Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,

family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools.

Herner, J. G., Demczyk, M. J., & Cox, M. L. (2005, January). Leveling the playing field for students with disabilities. Dayton, OH: University of Dayton, State Accountability for All Students. Retrieved August 22, 2005, from http://www.ssco.org/saas/leveling.pdf High School for West Virginia’s Future Task Force. (2005, August). A vision for student

success: High schools for West Virginia’s future. WV: Author. Howard, M.N. (2006, January). Project MERIT final evaluation report. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory research and practice (5th ed). New York: McGraw Hill. Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for

change (middle and secondary schools). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring

organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, H.R. 6, 103rd Congress (1994). Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1994. Pub. L. 105-117 (1997). Jackson, A. W. & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st

Century. A report of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jaynes, G. D. & Williams, R. M. (Eds.) (1990). The schooling of black Americans. A common destiny: Blacks and American society (pp. 329-389). Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyes, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Jesse, D., Davis, A., & Pokorny, N. (2004). High-achieving middle schools for Latino students

in poverty [Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(1), 23 – 45. Kain, J. F. & O’Brien, D. M. (1999, July 15). A longitudinal assessment of reading

achievement: Evidence from the Harvard/UTD Texas schools project. Retrieved August

150

21, 2005, from The Green Center for the Study of Science and Society, The University of Texas at Dallas Web site: http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp/pdfpapers/paper03.pdf

Kent, C. A. (2005, October). The economic impact of early child development programs in West Virginia. Huntington, WV: Center for Business and Economic Research.

Kober, N. (Ed.) (2001). It takes more than testing: closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy Web site: http://www.ctredpol.org Kumar, K. (1991). Quality of education at the beginning of the 21st century: Lessons from

India. New Delhi, India: Central Institute of Education, University of Delhi. Kusimo, P., Petty-Wilson, P. & Body, T. (2004, January). Minority student achievement in

West Virginia. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from State of West Virginia Governor’s Minority Students Strategies Council Web site: http://www.allwvstudents.org/minority_ students_achievement.pdf Kusimo, P., Ritter, M., Busick, K., Ferguson, C., Trumbull, E., & Solano-Flores, G. (2000).

Making assessment work for everyone. Washington, DC: Assessment Laboratory network Project of the Regional Educational Laboratories.

Laine, Sabrina. (2004, September 27). Closing achievement gaps one teacher at a time. Learning Point Associates Web site: http://www.learningpt.org Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?” [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher 31(1), 3-12. Lee, V. & Croninger, R. (1994). The relative importance of home and school in the

development of literacy skills for middle-grade students. American Journal of Education, 102, 286-329.

Lee, V. E. & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute. Levine, D. U. & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of

research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Lewis, R. L. & Hennen, Jr. J. C., (Eds.) (1991). West Virginia: Documents in the History of a Rural-Industrial State (pp. 359-364). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Linn, R. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. (CRESST Policy Brief 8) Los Angeles,

CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.

Loveless, T. (2000, October 22). Searching for a way to close the achievement gap. [Electronic version]. The Washington Post.

Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kelleghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 427087)

Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mattingly, D. J., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriquez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parental involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72 (4), 549-576.

McClellend, D. (1965). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McLaughlin, M. J., Embler, S., & Nagle, K. (2004, September). Students with disabilities and accountability [Electronic version]. Center on Education Policy, 2-12. McLoyd, V. C. (1998, February). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.

American Psychologist 53(2), 185-204. MGT of America, Inc. (2000, September). West Virginia SUCCESS research study final report.

Tallahassee, FL: MGT of American, Inc.

151

Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., Moore, M. T., and Ralph, J. (2000). Monitoring schools quality: An indicators report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Educaiton, National Center for Education Statistics (report 2001-030).

Morton, I. (1992). Increasing the school involvement of Hispanic parents (CUE Digest No. 80). New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350380) Mosteller, F., & Moynihan, D. (Eds). (1972). On equality of educational opportunity: Papers from the Harvard University faculty seminar on the Coleman report. New York: Vintage

Books. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks: changing an American institution. Reston, WV: Author. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1997, October). The full measure report of

the NASBE study group on statewide assessment systems. Alexandria, VA: NASBE Publications. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004a). Long-term trend. Institute of Education

Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004b, December). Digest of education Statistics

2003 Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, February). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G8 countries: 2004. Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for school reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. National School Lunch Act, Pub. L. 79-396 (1946). Neufeld, J. & Freeman, D. (1992, November). Teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s role in

facilitating teacher improvement within the ASU-Tempe PDS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Organization, Phoenix, AZ.

No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, United States Statutes at Large. (2001). NW Regional Educational Laboratory. Culturally Responsive Teaching. Retrieved on February

12, 2006, form www.nwrel.org/cfc/frc/beyus10.html. Osbourne, B. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice. New York:

Teachers College Press. Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. (2003, April) Family literacy programs: Who benefits? Ohio: Kent

State University. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. () Learning for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author. Pew Hispanic Center. (2004, January). Hispanic school achievement: Catching up requires running faster than white youth. http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/pew_hispanic_ education_fact_sheet_achieve.pdf Plan for public education 1996-2000. Retrieved August 19, 2005, from the TEA Web site:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/schedule/0005/longrange.html Popham, W. J. & Stanley, S. J. (n.d.) Norm referenced tests: Uses and misuses. ETVT-32A.

Wilsonville, OR: IOX Assessment Associates. Princeton University & Brookings Institution. (2005, Spring). School readiness: Closing racial

and ethnic gaps. The Future of Children. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. 15(1).

Procedures for the Collection, Maintenance, and Disclosure of Student Data (4350), West Virginia Board of Education, Title 126, § 126-94-1 (2003).

Ravitch, D. (1997). Student performance today. [Electronic version]. The Brookings Institution. (Policy Brief 23)

Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the 21st century. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: A

152

Review of school effectiveness research. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York: Elsevier. Schwartz, W. (2001). Closing the achievement gap: principles for improving the educational success of all students. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (Document Reproduction Service No. ED460191). School Matters. (2005, Fall). The national assessment of educational progress and state

assessments: What do differing student proficiency rates tell us? [Electronic version]. Standard & Poor’s.

Shouse, R. C., & Brinson, Jr, K. H. (1995). Sense of community and academic effectiveness in American high schools: Some cautionary yet promising evidence from NELS:88. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2004, May). Legislative Report, Report No. 3. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.sreb.org/main/LegAction/legrept/2004

Report/04S03-Leg._Report_3.pdf. Standard & Poor’s. (2005). Helping all students learn: Identifying school districts across the

U.S. that are significantly narrowing achievement gaps. [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.schoolmatters.com.

Thernstrom, A. & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: closing the racial gap in learning. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Greenfield P. (2000). A practical framework for understanding cultural differences. [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/bridging/part2.shtml.

Urwick, L, & Gulick, L. (Eds.) (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.

Viadero, D. (2000, May 10). N.C. launches broad assault on the achievement gap. [Electronic version]. Education Week.

Walberg, H.J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H.C. Waxman and H.J. Walberg (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching Practice and Research, 75-104. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation. W. Va. Code, ch 16, §16-9A-4. W. Va. Code, ch 16, §16-9A-A. W. Va. Code, ch 17, §17A-1-4. W. Va. Code, ch 18, art. 1, §18-1-4. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2-23a. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2E-2. W. Va. Code, ch 18 (amended 2004) by High quality educational programs, H.B. 4669, §18-2E-

3g (2004). W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2E-4. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2-5. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2-5a. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2-7b. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2E-8b. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-5-22. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2-33. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-2C-1 et seq. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-5-1. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-5-13. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-16-1. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18A-1-1. W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18A-5-1.

153

W. Va. Code, ch 18, §18-20-1. W. Va. Code, ch 60A, §60A-1-101. W. Va. Code, ch 60A, §60A-7-11a. W. Va. Code, ch 61, §61-2-25. W. Va. Code, ch 61, §61-7-2. W. Va. Const. Art. XII, §2. Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools.

Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Weiss, S. (Ed.). (2004, August). The progress of education reform 2004 Hispanic achievement. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. (Publication No. Sl-04-04) West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2320, A process for improving education: Performance

based accreditation system (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2340, West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress

Program (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2417, Programs of Study for Limited English Proficient

Students, (2004). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2422.7 Standards for Basic and Specialized Health Care

Procedures (2004). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2510, assuring the quality of education: Regulations for

education programs (2000). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2520.1, Reading and English language arts content

standards and electives of West Virginia schools (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2520.2, Mathematics content standards and objectives

for West Virginia schools (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2520.3, Science content standards and objectives for

West Virginia schools (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 2520.4, Social studies standards and objectives for

West Virginia schools (2003). West Virginia Board of Education, Policy 4350, Procedures for the collection, maintenance and

disclosure of student data (2003).

154

Appendix A

ARTICLE 2E. HIGH QUALITY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. §18-2E-3g. Special demonstration professional development school project for improving academic achievement.

155

ARTICLE 2E. HIGH QUALITY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. §18-2E-3g. Special demonstration professional development school project for improving academic achievement. (a) The Legislature makes the following findings: (1) Well-educated children and families are essential for maintaining safe and economically sound communities; (2) Low student achievement is associated with increased delinquent behavior, higher drug use and pregnancy rates, and higher unemployment and adult incarceration rates; (3) Each year, more students enter school with circumstances in their lives that schools are ill-prepared to accommodate; (4) Ensuring access for all students to the rigorous curriculum they deserve requires effective teaching strategies that include, but are not limited to, using a variety of instructional approaches, using varied curriculum materials, engaging parent and community involvement and support in the educational process, and providing the professional development, support and leadership necessary for an effective school; and (5) The achievement of all students can be dramatically improved when schools focus on factors within their control, such as the instructional day, curriculum and teaching practices. (b) The purpose of this section is to provide for the establishment of a special five-year demonstration professional development school project to improve the academic achievement of all children. The program shall be under the direction of the state superintendent and shall be for a period of five years beginning with the two thousand four - two thousand five school year. The intent of this section is to provide a special demonstration environment wherein the public schools included in the demonstration project may work in collaboration with higher education, community organizations and the state board to develop and implement strategies that may be replicated in other public schools with significant enrollments of disadvantaged, minority and under-achieving students to improve academic achievement. For this purpose, the state superintendent has the following powers and duties with respect to the demonstration project: (1) To select for participation in the demonstration project three public elementary or middle schools with significant enrollments of disadvantaged, minority and under-achieving students in each county in which the number of the African American students is five percent or more of the total second month enrollment; (2) To require cooperation from the county board of the county wherein a demonstration project school is located to facilitate program implementation and avoid any reallocation of resources for the schools that are disproportionate with those for other schools of the county of similar classification, accreditation status and federal Title I identification; (3) To require specialized training and knowledge of the needs, learning styles and strategies that will most effectively improve the performance of disadvantaged, minority and under-achieving students in demonstration project schools. These powers include, but not limited to, the authority to craft job descriptions with requirements regarding training and experience and the right to specify job duties which are related to job

156

reflect the mission of the demonstration project school; (4) To provide specifications and direct the county board to post the positions for school personnel employed at the demonstration project school that encompass the special qualifications and any additional duties that will be required of the personnel as established in the job descriptions authorized pursuant to subdivision (3) of this section. The assertion that the job descriptions and postings are narrowly defined may not be used as the basis for the grievance of an employment decision for positions at a demonstration project school; not be used as the basis for the grievance of an employment decision for positions at a demonstration project school; (5) To direct the department of education, the center for professional development and the regional educational service agency to provide any technical assistance and professional development necessary for successful implementation of the demonstration school programs, including, but not limited to, any early intervention or other programs of the department to assist low performing schools; (6) To collaborate and enter into agreements with colleges and universities willing to assist with efforts at a demonstration school to improve student achievement, including, but not limited to, the operation of a professional development school program model: Provided, That the expenditure of any funds appropriated for the state board or department for this purpose shall be subject to approval of the state board; (7) To require collaboration with local community organizations to improve student achievement and increase the involvement of parents and guardians in improving student achievement; (8) To provide for an independent evaluation of the demonstration school project, its various programs and their effectiveness on improving student academic achievement; and (9) To recommend to the state board and the county board the waiver of any of their respective policies that impede the implementation of demonstration school programs. (c) The state superintendent shall make status reports to the legislative oversight commission on education accountability and to the state board annually and may include in those reports any recommendations based on the progress of the demonstration project that he or she considers either necessary for improving the operations of the demonstration project or prudent for improving student achievement in other public schools through replication of successful demonstration school programs. The state superintendent shall make a recommendation to the Legislature not later than its regular session, two thousand ten, for continuation or termination of the program, which recommendation shall be accompanied by the findings and recommendations of the independent evaluation and these findings and recommendations shall be a major factor considered by the superintendent in making his or her recommendation. (d) Nothing in this section shall require any specific level of appropriation by the Legislature.

157

Appendix B

2004-2005 Second Month County Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity

158

Ta

ble

7 :

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Dep

artm

ent

of E

duca

tion

: 20

04-2

005

Seco

nd

Mon

th C

oun

ty E

nro

llmen

t by

Rac

e/Et

hn

icit

y

Coun

ty

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

As

ian

Tota

l En

rolle

d W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

ativ

e Am

eric

an

Asia

n

Barb

our

2,53

4 25

5

26

9 2,

599

97.5

0%

0.96

%

0.19

%

1.00

%

0.35

%

Berk

eley

13

,038

1,

311

507

22

105

14,9

83

87.0

2%

8.75

%

3.38

%

0.15

%

0.70

%

Boon

e 4,

506

46

16

3 1

4,57

2 98

.56%

1.

01%

0.

35%

0.

07%

0.

02%

Brax

ton

2,43

0 12

8

1 6

2,45

7 98

.90%

0.

49%

0.

33%

0.

04%

0.

24%

Broo

ke

3,56

4 52

9

2 11

3,

638

97.9

7%

1.43

%

0.25

%

0.05

%

0.30

%

Cabe

ll 11

,114

92

9 69

35

10

2 12

,249

90

.73%

7.

58%

0.

56%

0.

29%

0.

83%

Calh

oun

1,17

8 2

1 5

1 1,

187

99.2

4%

0.17

%

0.08

%

0.42

%

0.08

%

Clay

2,

095

11

0 0

5 2,

111

99.2

4%

0.52

%

0.00

%

0.00

%

0.24

%

Dod

drid

ge

1,26

8 11

2

2 1

1,28

4 98

.75%

0.

86%

0.

16%

0.

16%

0.

08%

Faye

tte

6,40

6 46

1 33

10

9

6,91

9 92

.59%

6.

66%

0.

48%

0.

14%

0.

13%

Gilm

er

988

11

8 2

0 1,

009

97.9

2%

1.09

%

0.79

%

0.20

%

0.00

%

Gra

nt

1,95

0 23

8

2 5

1,98

8 98

.09%

1.

16%

0.

40%

0.

10%

0.

25%

Gre

enbr

ier

5,05

3 20

6 26

2

10

5,29

7 95

.39%

3.

89%

0.

49%

0.

04%

0.

19%

Ham

pshi

re

3,53

9 44

24

3

8 3,

618

97.8

2%

1.22

%

0.66

%

0.08

%

0.22

%

Han

cock

4,

071

180

16

7 22

4,

296

94.7

6%

4.19

%

0.37

%

0.16

%

0.51

%

Har

dy

2,23

4 56

32

0

8 2,

330

95.8

8%

2.40

%

1.37

%

0.00

%

0.34

%

Har

rison

10

,925

30

8 43

9

71

11,3

56

96.2

0%

2.71

%

0.38

%

0.08

%

0.63

%

Jack

son

4,95

2 22

12

2

34

5,02

2 98

.61%

0.

44%

0.

24%

0.

04%

0.

68%

Jeff

erso

n 6,

572

719

296

18

67

7,67

2 85

.66%

9.

37%

3.

86%

0.

23%

0.

87%

Kana

wha

24

,141

3,

378

118

13

329

27,9

79

86.2

8%

12.0

7%

0.42

%

0.05

%

1.18

%

Lew

is

2,75

4 21

8

3 3

2,78

9 98

.75%

0.

75%

0.

29%

0.

11%

0.

11%

Linc

oln

3,74

8 10

4

0 2

3,76

4 99

.57%

0.

27%

0.

11%

0.

00%

0.

05%

Loga

n 5,

832

187

14

1 16

6,

050

96.4

0%

3.09

%

0.23

%

0.02

%

0.26

%

Mar

ion

7,63

2 46

2 37

21

31

8,

183

93.2

7%

5.65

%

0.45

%

0.26

%

0.38

%

159

C

ount

y W

hite

Bl

ack

His

pani

c N

ativ

e Am

eric

an

Asia

n To

tal

Enro

lled

Whi

te

Blac

k H

ispa

nic

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

As

ian

Mar

shal

l 5,

161

48

16

5 11

5,

241

98.4

7%

0.92

%

0.31

%

0.10

%

0.21

%

Mas

on

4,12

0 65

10

4

10

4,20

9 97

.89%

1.

54%

0.

24%

0.

10%

0.

24%

M

erce

r 8,

407

848

26

11

44

9,33

6 90

.05%

9.

08%

0.

28%

0.

12%

0.

47%

M

iner

al

4,38

5 17

4 19

1

4 4,

583

95.6

8%

3.80

%

0.41

%

0.02

%

0.09

%

Min

go

4,54

5 13

2 5

0 4

4,68

6 96

.99%

2.

82%

0.

11%

0.

00%

0.

09%

M

onon

galia

9,

035

533

72

19

301

9,96

0 90

.71%

5.

35%

0.

72%

0.

19%

3.

02%

M

onro

e 2,

035

24

6 2

1 2,

068

98.4

0%

1.16

%

0.29

%

0.10

%

0.05

%

Mor

gan

2,51

5 24

24

3

8 2,

574

97.7

1%

0.93

%

0.93

%

0.12

%

0.31

%

McD

owel

l 3,

611

491

5 2

3 4,

112

87.8

2%

11.9

4%

0.12

%

0.05

%

0.07

%

Nic

hola

s 4,

187

19

14

0 5

4,22

5 99

.10%

0.

45%

0.

33%

0.

00%

0.

12%

O

hio

4,84

6 44

9 14

1

49

5,35

9 90

.43%

8.

38%

0.

26%

0.

02%

0.

91%

Pe

ndle

ton

1,15

1 31

2

8 9

1,20

1 95

.84%

2.

58%

0.

17%

0.

67%

0.

75%

Pl

easa

nts

1,34

3 9

5 0

3 1,

360

98.7

5%

0.66

%

0.37

%

0.00

%

0.22

%

Poca

hont

as

1,34

5 7

0 0

1 1,

353

99.4

1%

0.52

%

0.00

%

0.00

%

0.07

%

Pres

ton

4,65

9 31

3

2 7

4,70

2 99

.09%

0.

66%

0.

06%

0.

04%

0.

15%

Pu

tnam

8,

657

161

33

5 74

8,

930

96.9

4%

1.80

%

0.37

%

0.06

%

0.83

%

Rale

igh

10,2

78

1,24

4 50

12

10

0 11

,684

87

.97%

10

.65%

0.

43%

0.

10%

0.

86%

Ra

ndol

ph

4,35

9 28

11

7

20

4,42

5 98

.51%

0.

63%

0.

25%

0.

16%

0.

45%

Ritc

hie

1,53

5 7

11

3 5

1,56

1 98

.33%

0.

45%

0.

70%

0.

19%

0.

32%

Ro

ane

2,54

2 12

17

1

9 2,

581

98.4

9%

0.46

%

0.66

%

0.04

%

0.35

%

Sum

mer

s 1,

540

62

5 4

5 1,

616

95.3

0%

3.84

%

0.31

%

0.25

%

0.31

%

Tayl

or

2,38

0 29

3

0 5

2,41

7 98

.47%

1.

20%

0.

12%

0.

00%

0.

21%

Tu

cker

1,

182

2 6

0 7

1,19

7 98

.75%

0.

17%

0.

50%

0.

00%

0.

58%

Ty

ler

1,54

7 8

4 1

1 1,

561

99.1

0%

0.51

%

0.26

%

0.06

%

0.06

%

Ups

hur

3,70

6 31

13

6

9 3,

765

98.4

3%

0.82

%

0.35

%

0.16

%

0.24

%

Way

ne

7,49

4 43

10

5

23

7,57

5 98

.93%

0.

57%

0.

13%

0.

07%

0.

30%

W

ebst

er

1,61

6 7

0 0

1 1,

624

99.5

1%

0.43

%

0.00

%

0.00

%

0.06

%

Wet

zel

3,19

5 16

3

2 24

3,

240

98.6

1%

0.49

%

0.09

%

0.06

%

0.74

%

Wirt

1,

011

3 1

1 1

1,01

7 99

.41%

0.

29%

0.

10%

0.

10%

0.

10%

W

ood

13,3

46

249

43

10

98

13,7

46

97.0

9%

1.81

%

0.31

%

0.07

%

0.71

%

Wyo

min

g 4,

118

55

11

4 1

4,18

9 98

.31%

1.

31%

0.

26%

0.

10%

0.

02%

To

tal

262,

375

13,3

29

1,73

8 30

8 1,

699

279,

449

93.8

9%

4.77

%

0.62

%

0.11

%

0.61

%

Tabl

e 7

cont

inue

d

160

Appendix C

Framework for High Performing School Systems

161

Framework for High Performing School Systems

2004 - 2014

Learning for All . . . Whatever It Takes”

West Virginia Department of Education

West Virginia Achieves Implementation Model

“Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.”

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“There are countless ways of

achieving greatness, but any road to achieving one’s

maximum potential must be built on a bedrock of respect for the individual,

a commitment to excellence and a rejection of mediocrity.”

Revised October 12, 2005

162

Foreward

The Framework for High Performing School Systems represents a major initiative to accomplish the accountability standards of West Virginia Achieves. West Virginia Achieves is a comprehensive series of interrelated programs and policies intended to bring both quality and equity to West Virginia public schools. This Framework is intended to achieve three specific purposes: (1) to provide a guide for transforming local school systems to “learning for all” organizations, (2) to help focus leadership and technical assistance activities of state, regional, and local educational agencies, and (3) to provide a unified approach and common language for school system improvement in West Virginia. The Framework for High Performing School Systems was developed by a 100 member committee of West Virginia Department of Education and Regional Education Service Agency (RESA) staff. Representation was also included from the Office of Education Performance Audits and the Center for Professional Development. Completed during a series of nine development sessions, this Framework reflects research on high performing school systems and a literature review of successful practice. Once drafted, the document was reviewed by experts in school and school system improvement and by West Virginia superintendents of schools attending the annual summer Superintendents’ Leadership Institute.

To accomplish the mission of West Virginia Achieves, it is essential that state, regional, and local educational agencies share a common focus, a unified plan, and a coordinated approach to school system improvement. However, leadership and technical assistance must be customer focused and responsive to locally identified needs. Thus, this Framework is not intended to be a “one size fits all” approach to improvement. Rather, it is a lens through which local school systems can view their overall belief systems, processes, and programs compared to high performing school systems across the nation. Through this self-analysis, School System Leadership Teams can determine future improvements.

Through this Framework, the West Virginia Board of Education and the West Virginia Department of Education commit to responding to the varied needs of the 55 school systems. Differing in size, culture, and organizational capacity, no two school systems are alike. Nevertheless, all students deserve the same high quality educational experience wherever they attend school. Therefore, the Department of Education adopts a “Whatever It Takes” commitment to reaching the West Virginia Achieves mission of “Mastery and Beyond for All” and “Closing the Achievement Gap.”

Dr. Steven L. Paine State Superintendent of Schools

163

Rationale Framework for High Performing School Systems

The West Virginia Achieves accountability standards require widespread transformation of the current educational system. Any reform approach targeted at individual schools, in isolation from the broader system, is not likely to result in either significant transformation or lasting change. The West Virginia Department of Education and the eight Regional Education Service Agencies believe that strong leadership and systemic change must occur across each of the 55 West Virginia school systems. With that belief, the following six premises establish the rationale for a school system approach to improvement:

1. Local boards of education are legally and morally responsible for the results produced in the schools they govern.

2. School systems and individual schools, structured as they are now, are not designed to achieve the

accountability standards of West Virginia Achieves.

3. Bringing all students to mastery and beyond and closing the achievement gap will occur only when there is systemic improvement led by the board of education, superintendent, and central office staff coupled with commitment, innovation, and focus at the school level.

4. In order to transform the current system, all educators must be committed to professional growth

and to creating “learning communities” within the central office and the individual schools. These communities should be focused on finding ways to create high levels of learning for all students.

5. The Framework for High Performing School Systems acts as a guide, not a recipe, for system

improvement. A “Learning for All” school system is not a series of purchased programs or “add-ons.” A “Learning for All” school system must be designed and built through the informed, collaborative, and intentional actions of the local leadership.

6. Systemic change requires a culture of core beliefs, long term planning, commitment to continuous

improvement, and focused transformational leadership at the school and school system level.

164

Framework for High Performing School Systems

This graphic representation illustrates the major components of the Framework for High Performing School Systems. High performing school systems appear to share three broad commonalities: (1) strong core beliefs that shape the culture of the system; (2) system-wide strategies that enhance curriculum, instruction, overall school effectiveness, and student/parent support; and (3) use of a systemic continuous improvement process to bring about change. These commonalities are discussed in detail in the succeeding pages of this document.

165

Framework Mission and Goals

MISSION

By 2014, the West Virginia Department of Education and the eight Regional Education Service Agencies will help create systemic conditions, processes, and structures within the West Virginia public school system that result in (1) all students mastering the essential curriculum and beyond and (2) closing the achievement gap among sub-groups of the student population. GOALS CULTURE Goal 1: To inspire the development of a cohesive organizational culture, based on core beliefs, that enhances staff performance on behalf of all students STRATEGIES Goal 2: To assure that all students master an appropriately prioritized and sequenced K-12 curriculum that develops enduring understanding, essential skills, and critical knowledge as defined through the policies of the West Virginia Board of Education and the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives Goal 3: To assure that each teacher utilizes research-based instructional design, management, delivery, and assessment systems that result in highly engaged students who achieve mastery and beyond of the essential curriculum Goal 4: To assure that all schools exemplify the leadership, culture, and organizational practices consistent with effective schools research and possess the commitment, knowledge, and support to create structures and services that result in all students mastering the essential curriculum Goal 5: To assure that all students receive the support they need to achieve mastery and beyond of the essential curriculum and that all parents are treated as valued partners in their student’s educational process PROCESS Goal 6: To develop knowledgeable and skilled leaders able to use effectively a systemic continuous improvement process to enhance school and school system effectiveness

166

Goal 1: Development of a Culture that Reflects Core Beliefs

The overall beliefs and values in a school system play a powerful role in student achievement. These values and beliefs come together to form an organizational culture that can either enhance or negate student learning. In high performing school systems dedicated to systemic continuous improvement, a first step in improvement is reaching consensus among stakeholders on core beliefs. Once accomplished, these beliefs become public statements that reflect the system’s collective view on such things as student capacity for learning, responsibility of school staff for student learning, role of parent and community, etc. Once defined, core beliefs are often referred to and become a guide for personal and organizational decision-making. Although each school system must define its own beliefs, the following statements represent those commonly held in high performing schools and school systems: • All children will achieve mastery of the essential curriculum, given appropriate time

and conditions. • Schools and school systems are responsible for creating the conditions necessary for

all students to achieve mastery. • Commitment to high standards in all aspects of the organization is essential to

produce mastery for all. • Strong instructional leadership and highly qualified personnel are required to build

the systems and develop the culture to achieve mastery for all. • Parents, treated as valued and respected partners involved in the activities of the

school, enhance student learning. • The primary measures of school and system success are the increase of students who

achieve mastery and beyond and the decrease in the achievement gap among student sub-groups.

• Transforming a school system to produce “mastery for all” requires a systemic

continuous improvement process.

167

Goals 2-5: Implementation of High Yield Strategies Related to Curriculum, Instruction, School Effectiveness and Student/Parent Support

When implementing strategies to improve school and school system effectiveness, systems must answer one pivotal question: “What affects overall student achievement?” Or phrased in improvement terms, “What conditions do we control that can be altered to improve student achievement?” When answered, it is clear that nearly all issues related to student achievement derive from four broad areas. Those areas are: (1) the quality of curriculum, “What we teach”; (2) the quality of instruction, “How we teach”; (3) the overall effectiveness of schools, “Where we teach”; and (4) the unique characteristics and background of the student, “Who we teach.” The quality of each area can either enhance or negate the overall level of student performance. Together these four variables provide a clear organizational model for school system improvement. A review of high performing school systems across the nation and of current literature on successful practice reveals significant commonalities. Schools systems that are closing the achievement gap and bringing increasing numbers of students to mastery use many similar approaches. Though different in

168

curriculum, enhancing instruction, improving overall school effectiveness, and supporting students and parents. The chart below uses these four areas as an organizational structure for displaying “high yield strategies” common among these school systems. The chart provides a very brief description of each high yield strategy; further definitions and explanations of these strategies appear in documents accompanying this Framework. As systems in West Virginia develop Five-Year Strategic Plans, the four areas and the listing of strategies can help guide the decision making of the School System Planning Team. There is no definitive guide from the research as to which practice must come first and in which sequence practices should emerge. These decisions must come from study, from informed debate, and from analysis of local conditions. For each of the high yield strategies, the staffs of the West Virginia Department of Education and the eight Regional Education Service Agencies stand ready to assist with a variety of leadership and technical assistance resources.

Goals 2-5: Implementation of High Yield Strategies Related to Curriculum, Instruction, School Effectiveness and Student/Parent Support (continued)

169

Goal 6: Systemic Continuous

Improvement Process

High performing school systems share not only common strategies for change but also share common methods of bringing about that change. Committed to continuous improvement, to long term planning, and to system-wide implementation, these systems see the process of change as important as the changes themselves. Though different in specifics, the general approach and philosophy seem consistent. The listing below describes the common elements of the change process used by high performing school systems: 1. Transformational leadership that creates a “learning-centered” system

2. An expectation that change will be an on-going continuous process

3. Identification of system-wide core beliefs that drive improvement efforts

4. A well-articulated mission that includes a focus on learning for all

5. A broad understanding and commitment to the need for change based on internal and

external factors

6. A focus on systemic approaches to design and implementation

7. Pervasive use of data both to target and to refine improvement efforts

8. Change initiatives and processes that address the interrelatedness of system activities

and resources

9. An implementation process that reflects the cycle of “Plan, Do, Study, Act”

10. A collaboratively developed strategic plan focused on results

170

Building a Common Language for School System Improvement

Performing School Systems may be new to staff; others may have unique “working definitions” written by the Consensus Committee to align with West Virginia Board of Education policies or recommendations. The following list represents terms frequently used in the Framework document and other supporting resources. 1. Benchmarks - Pre-determined points during the instructional term when student mastery of

specific instructional objectives is assessed 2. Classroom Walkthrough - A non-evaluative but focused classroom observation made for a

brief period of time (3-5 minutes) to observe specific classroom practices; the Walkthrough observation is used to enhance reflective practice and to gather school-wide information regarding professional development and school improvement

3. Continuous Improvement - A set of activities designed to bring gradual, but continual improvement to a process through constant review and refinement

4. Correlates of Effective Schools – The seven characteristics identified from research present in schools able to bring all students to mastery regardless of background factors like poverty, race, gender, or ethnicity: Clear and Focused Mission, Safe Orderly Environment, High Expectations for All, Time On Task/Opportunity to Learn, Strong Instructional Leadership, Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress, and Positive Home/School Partnerships

5. Curriculum Alignment - The on-going process of bringing congruence to the written curriculum, taught curriculum, and assessed curriculum so (1) all that is assessed has been taught, and (2) what is taught encompasses the written curriculum

6. Curriculum Management System - A series of on-going interrelated activities designed to implement, support, monitor, and evaluate the system curriculum to assure that all students have access to and benefit from an aligned, high quality prioritized, and sequenced curriculum

7. Curriculum Map - A graphic representation of the recommended instructional sequence for curriculum objectives during the instructional year and across the grades Pre K-12 which is used as a management tool for enhancing curriculum continuity, communication, and coordination

8. Curriculum Prioritization - The local consensus process of assigning relative value to curriculum objectives in order to make informed instructional decisions about the amount of time allocated to an objective and the degree to which it is an instructional focus Note: It is recommended that no objective be completely eliminated during the prioritization process

9. Differentiated Instruction - A systematic approach to planning curriculum and instruction for academically diverse learners; a blend of whole class, group, and individual instruction, guided by the three principles of differentiation: respectful tasks, flexible grouping, and continual assessment

10. Effective Schools Research – The body of research conducted in the early 70’s and 80’s as a response to the Coleman Report which concluded that schools with certain characteristics or

“correlates of achievement” can bring all students to mastery levels regardless of student background characteristics

171

11. Enduring Understanding - The big ideas and important concepts that are the heart of the content area and have lasting value and application in the student’s life 12. Essential Questions - An expression of inquiry that motivates students to seek broader

understanding and deeper meaning of the content objectives 13. Formative Assessment - Periodic evaluation of the student’s achievement level of the WV

Content Standards and Objectives used to adjust instructional time and strategies so all students will achieve proficiency

14. High Yield Instructional Strategies – Categories of instructional activities that have been verified through research to correlate with high student achievement 15. Instructional Management Practices – Commonly agreed upon practices within a school for conducting routine tasks in the classroom and organizing the instructional process 16. Instructional Management System - A series of on-going interrelated activities designed to implement, support, monitor, and evaluate the system’s instructional process to assure that all students are engaged in and benefiting from the instructional program 17. Learning Community – A group of educators within a school or school system that work to create climate that focuses on reflective practice, collegiality, and ongoing professional development targeted toward improvement of student learning 18. Monitoring System - An on-going system to collect data on a program, designed to provide feedback on whether the program is fulfilling its functions, addressing the targeted population, and/or producing those services intended; monitoring is different from evaluation; its purpose is to help refine and make “in-course” corrections 19. Objective - Grade and subject specific descriptions of the knowledge and skills needed to achieve proficiency of the content standards 20. Organizational Culture – The overall pattern of beliefs and values of an organization that (a) manifests itself in policies, procedures, and organizational structures and (b) ultimately s hapes the behavior of personnel 21. Pacing Guide - A graphic representation or “timeline” illustrating the sequence and amount of time allocated to instructional objectives during the school term 22. Performance Assessment - An evaluative method usually judged with a pre-determined rubric that requires students to demonstrate a level of proficiency of the WV Content Standards and Objectives by applying knowledge to authentic tasks such as projects, presentations, activities, exercises, or problem-solving 23. Performance Descriptors - Narrative explanations of five levels of student achievement (distinguished, above mastery, mastery, partial mastery, and novice) used by the teacher to assess student attainment of the WV Content Standards and Objectives 24. Prioritization Criteria - The basis for assigning relative value to curriculum objectives based on (a) the overall importance for a student’s enduring understanding of the content, (b) the importance of the objective as a prerequisite to the next level of learning, (c) the results of prior assessments of student proficiency, and (d) the value of the objective on high stakes testing 25. Programmatic Level – The organization of educational programs and services for delivery to students according to the students’ common developmental characteristics: Early Childhood (Pre-K to Grade 4), Middle Childhood (Grade 5 to Grade 8), and Adolescent Education (Grade 9 to Grade 12) 26. Proficiency – The level of student achievement for students who achieve at the “mastery, above mastery, or distinguished” levels

172

27. Reading Comprehension – The degree to which students derive not only the facts from a written passage but the degree to which they gain an understanding of its meaning; when all teachers within a school use techniques to develop comprehension (pre-reading vocabulary development, guiding questions, graphic organizers, jig saw activities, etc.) overall achievement improves 28. Reflective Practice – An improvement practice designed to promote the teachers’ self analysis of instructional practice by thoughtfully considering their own classroom practices and comparing the results to those of successful practitioners; reflective practice is often accompanied by coaching from skilled practitioners who guide the reflective process 29. Rubric - A pre-determined detailed scoring guide used by teachers to communicate and evaluate levels of student performance of a complex task 30. School System Transformation – The rethinking, reorganization, and refocusing of school system organizational structures and expectations to achieve the new mission of “Learning for All” 31. Standards-Based Curriculum - A curriculum framework that establishes clear comprehensive exit learning expectations for all students, further defines the expectations through specific grade level and subject objectives, and provides performance descriptors for evaluating student level of achievement relative to the WV Content Standards and Objectives 32. Standards-Based Unit - Extended instructional sequence involving several lessons of related objectives organized around a broad theme, enduring understanding, or essential question that often culminates in a performance assessment 33. Strategic Plan - A document used by an organization to align its overall operation and budget with organizational priorities, missions, and objectives; a strategic plan should include core beliefs, a mission statement, a description of the agency’s long-term goals and evidence of achieving those goals, objectives, strategies or means the organization plans to use to achieve these goals and objectives; the strategic plan may also identify external factors that could affect achievement of long term goals 34. Student Achievement Variables – The major variables controlled and/or influenced by the school system that impact student achievement; these variables are quality of curriculum, quality of instruction, quality of school organization and environment, and the family back ground and characteristics of the student 35. Support System - A network of people who interact and remain in communication for mutual assistance; also, resources, activities, and information that enable staff to accomplish assigned responsibilities 36. System – A series of interrelated components designed to achieve a common goal; as applied to a school system, a series of integrated activities, procedures, policies, and professional development designed to achieve a common purpose 37. Systemic Change - Systemic change is change that occurs in all aspects and levels of a system; systemic change requires redesign of fundamental approaches within an organization while considering the effect on all other aspects of the organization 38. System-Wide School Improvement Cycle – A series of steps and/or processes expected within each school to develop and implement the school’s strategic plan 39. Transformational Leadership –The ability to affect the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of a significant number of individuals through intentional actions and the creation of a body of work 40. Understanding by Design (UbD) - A three stage instructional planning framework that helps teachers develop quality standards-based lessons that result in student proficiency and enduring understanding

173

41. Values and Beliefs – The standards or qualities considered worthwhile and desirable by an organization; the statements, principles, or doctrine that the system accepts as true and uses to guide decisions and shape behavior 42. Writing to Inform – Nonfiction writing assignments used to argue, criticize, define, describe, discuss, evaluate, explain, compare and contrast, or summarize topics in the classroom; consistent use of writing to inform assignments in all content areas and consistent judging by a commonly used rubric correlates with high student achievement 43. WV Written Curriculum - The written scope and sequence of what students should know and be able to do as the result of the instructional process as defined by the WV Content Standards and Objectives (also referred to as the essential curriculum)

174

In West Virginia, we have a history of facing challenges with great commitment and determina-tion. Born from conflict, our state has been the site of great battles and great tragedies. Rugged terrain, economic instability, and rural isolation have all played a role in our collective experi-ence. Certainly, most would find these daunting. But to West Virginians, they define and shape our character. We are people who understand “uphill” battles, who make the most of scarce re-sources, and who have learned to care for and depend on each other. It is with this spirit and character that we will face the challenges of a new era in education. The fundamental mission of public schools has changed. From “Learning for Some” to “Learning for All,” the new federal accountability standards require that all students master the essential curriculum regardless of race, ethnicity, poverty, disability, or language deficits. This legislation establishes a clear mandate: every student not only has the right to go to school, but also has the right to exit with the knowledge and skills necessary for productive citizenry. Whether one agrees with the specifics of the accountability standards or not, two facts remain clear: (1) accountability for both quality and equity in student achievement will certainly con-tinue, and (2) there are increasing numbers of schools and school systems that have been able to bring all students to mastery or beyond. If you can build one, you can build more than one. Thus, it seems prudent to learn from these school systems and to apply their experiences, as appropri-ate, to our own. As we begin this collective journey to build a school system responsive to all students, perhaps our greatest resource will be each other. Though we can learn from those outside our borders, we must also commit to greater collaboration and less competition within our borders. We have a common focus, a common school improvement language, and a common framework; surely then, our collective wisdom and experience can chart the way for collective success. We are not strangers to great challenges. West Virginians are people of great hope, great determination, and great heart. Together, we can continue to build a great school system that assures the best for the students we serve.

REFLECTIONS: Nurturing a Collaborative Spirit