Education Performance Audit Of Grant County Schools

EMBARGOED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and Office of Education Performance Audits Brief for the Education Performance Audit Report November 2009 Title: Grant County Education Performance Audit Report Background West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 provided for on-site reviews of schools and school systems conducted only at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education upon its determination that the performance and progress of the schools or school system are persistently below standard or that other circumstances exists that warrant an on-site review. An announced on-site review (five days in advance) was conducted at the Grant County School District October 6-8, 2009 and October 15-16, 2009. The Team also reviewed each of Grant County’s schools. PURPOSE At its September 10, 2009 meeting, the State Board unanimously voted for the OEPA to conduct an Education Performance Audit of the Grant County School District. PROVISIONS The OEPA audit of the Grant County School System revealed that conditions were present in the school district that prevented a thorough and efficient education system. These conditions are described on page 63 of the Grant County Education Performance Audit Report. IMPACT Based upon the performance data and results of the Education Performance Audits, it is recommended to issue the Grant County School District the approval listed in report and the schools be directed to revise their Five-Year Strategic plans to correct findings noted in their reports.

DRAFT EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

Draft November 2009

Table of Contents Page Grant County School System .......................................................................................... 1 Dorcas Elementary School ............................................................................................ 64 Maysville Elementary School ........................................................................................ 76 Petersburg Elementary School ...................................................................................... 88 Petersburg High School ................................................................................................ 99 Union Educational Complex School ............................................................................ 115

Draft November 2009 INTRODUCTION

An announced (five days in advance) Education Performance Audit of the Grant County School District was conducted on October 6-8, 2009 and October 15-16, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate reasons the county had not achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) during the past five years and other existing circumstances that warranted an on-site review. The Team also reviewed district level high-quality standards in accordance with appropriate procedures to make recommendations to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the high-quality standards as required by W.Va. Code and West Virginia Board of Education policies. The Education Performance Audit Team interviewed the Grant County Board of Education President and board members, school district personnel including the interim superintendent, the Finance official, Director of Elementary Education, and other county office personnel, and teachers. The Team also interviewed the former superintendent, parents, community members, and business leaders. The Team examined documents including the Grant County Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan; agendas and minutes of meetings of the Grant County Board of Education; personnel documents; personnel evaluations; the school system policy manual; regulatory agency reviews, i.e., financial audit, the Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP), etc.; and letters, faxes, and materials of interest to the Education Performance Audit. This report presents the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings regarding the Grant County School District.

2

Draft November 2009

GRANT COUNTY EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM October 6-8, 2009 Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Dr. Donna Davis, Deputy Director. NAME

TITLE

COUNTY

CATEGORY

Denise White

Coordinator, Instruction & Prof. Development

AYP/ /High Quality Office of Instruction, WVDE Standards

David Price

Coordinator

Office of, Organizational Effectiveness & Leadership, WVDE

AYP/Five-Year Strategic Plan

Delores Ranson

Retired Assistant Superintendent, Personnel

Jackson County Schools

Personnel Hiring/Licensure/ Internship

Coordinator, Teacher Quality Chief School Business Official

Office of Professional Preparation, WVDE

Certification

Cabell County Schools

Finance

Dr. Joe Super

Superintendent

Pleasants County Schools

Policy Implementation/ Administration

Bill Elswick & staff

Executive Director

Office of School Facilities, WVDE

Facilities

Carroll Staats

Member, County Board of Education

Jackson County Schools

Evaluation/Leadership

Bernard Hott

Member, County Board of Education

Hampshire County Schools

Leadership

Shawn Hawkins Jody Lucas

3

Draft November 2009

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT INITIATIVES FOR ACHIEVING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS The Education Performance Audit Team reported that Grant County had undertaken initiatives for achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The prominent initiative and activities included the following. Two literacy coaches were located at Petersburg Elementary and assigned primarily (80 percent of their time) to that school and the remaining time at Petersburg High School, the two schools in Grant County that did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the past five years. Their primary duties are to conduct model lessons, provide professional development for county teachers, and analyze data. A central office staff member indicated that the literacy coaches conducted professional development on Acuity, Writing RoadMap and techSteps. Teachers from across the county can request services from a literacy coach through a form on the Grant County website.

4

Draft November 2009

COUNTY PERFORMANCE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and related student performance data. It also presents the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 5.1. ACCOUNTABILITY. 5.1.1. Achievement. Adequate Yearly Progress The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) data for the 2008-2009 school year identified that Grant County did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Grant County failed to achieve AYP for the last five consecutive years. Chart 1 shows the grade span/assessment and subgroup(s) that did not make AYP for 2008-2009. It also shows the percent proficient for each grade span/assessment and subgroup. The Team noted that when the performance of these subgroups listed in Chart 1 compared with the 2007-2008 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) data, all special education (SE) subgroups identified above were less proficient in academic performance in mathematics and reading at both the elementary and secondary programmatic levels. Chart 1

GRADE SPAN/ASSESSMENT Mathematics – Elementary (SE) Mathematics – Secondary (SE) Reading – Elementary (SE) Reading – Secondary (SE)

WESTEST 2008-2009 PERCENT PROFICIENT 29.6% 19.4% 27.6% 16.1%

* SE – Special Education

5

2007-2008 PERCENT PROFICIENT 47.2% 30.1% 49.1% 32.4%

Draft November 2009 Chart 2 showed that in the last five years, the same two Grant County’s schools were identified for not achieving AYP – Petersburg Elementary and Petersburg High School. Chart 2 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS NOT ACHIEVING AYP Number of Schools 2 2 2 2 2

An examination of the achievement gap between subgroups for the 2008-2009 assessment school year revealed a measurable achievement gap between the special education (SE) subgroup when compared to the academic performance of the all students (AS) and racial/ethnicity white (W) subgroups (Charts 3-8). Charts three and five indicated that the 2008-2009 Grant County School District student percent proficient in mathematics was consistently below the State percent proficient, except for the economically disadvantaged (SES) subgroup at the high school level. Student assessment performance in reading/language arts (Charts 6 and 8) was below the 2008-2009 State percent proficient at the elementary level in all subgroups. Performance in reading/language arts at the high school level was above the State percent proficient in all subgroups. Middle school mathematics and reading data were included with the high school data, since both high schools contained Grades 7-12.

Subgroup All Students (AS) White (W) Black (B) Special Education (SE) Economically Disadvantaged (SES)

Chart 3 ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS 2008-2009 District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient 57.3% 65.2% 57.4% 65.7% NA 54.6% 29.6% 40.9% 51.9%

6

56.0%

Draft November 2009

Subgroup All Students (AS) White (W) Black (B) Special Education (SE) Economically Disadvantaged (SES)

Chart 4 MIDDLE MATHEMATICS 2008-2009 District Percent Proficient * * * * *

State Percent Proficient 56.9% 57.6% 42.3% 23.1% 46.4%

* Not Applicable – Middle level students attend the high schools (Grades 7-12).

Subgroup All Students (AS) White (W) Black (B) Special Education (SE) Economically Disadvantaged (SES)

Chart 5 HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS 2008-2009 District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient 56.2% 56.9% 56.6% 57.5% NA 44.3% 19.4% 21.6% 52.5%

46.0%

Chart 6 ELEMENTARY READING/LANGUAGE ARTS 2008-2009 Subgroup District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient All Students (AS) 62.9% 65.5% White (W) 63.0% 65.9% Black (B) NA 57.8% Special Education (SE) 27.6% 32.8% Economically 55.0% 56.1% Disadvantaged (SES)

7

Draft November 2009 Chart 7 MIDDLE READING/LANGUAGE ARTS 2008-2009 Subgroup District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient All Students (AS) * 63.2% White (W) * 63.5% Black (B) * 54.9% Special Education (SE) * 22.6% Economically * 52.8% Disadvantaged (SES) * Not Applicable – Middle level students attend the high schools (Grades 7-12). Chart 8 HIGH SCHOOL READING/LANGUAGE ARTS 2008-2009 Subgroup District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient All Students (AS) 55.6% 52.7% White (W) 55.8% 53.2% Black (B) NA 41.4% Special Education (SE) 16.1% 14.3% Economically 49.3% 41.8% Disadvantaged (SES) SAT/ACT Assessment Results Chart 9 shows the Grant School District’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) results. The SAT math mean score showed a pattern of growth from 2004-05 to 2006-07, then declined in 2007-08. The SAT verbal mean score increased from 2006-07 to 2007-08. The SAT writing score declined from 2006-07 to 2007-08. The percent of test takers declined dramatically from 2004-05 to the following years when test takers remained stable. ACT trend data showed an increased composite from 2004-05 to 2007-08. The ACT Composite decreased by .3 percent in 2008-09. This represents a significant decrease in the ACT examination. The percentage of students taking the ACT decreased from 2004-05 to 2005-06, then increased and remained stable in 2006-07.

8

Draft November 2009 Chart 9 SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (SAT) – Grant County School District County 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 SAT Takers (%) 21.6% 10.4% 9.4% 9.4% * SAT Math Mean Score 423 498 520 494 * SAT Reading Score 477 509 * SAT Writing Score 481 467 * AMERICAN COLLEGE TESTING (ACT) Grant County School District 79 ACT Takers (%) 74.5% 49.2% 60.6% 60.1% students ACT Composite 19.3 19.8 20.2 20.2 19.9 2008-2009 college entrance examination results were not available from the State. Source: State, County and School Data, 2008-2009 West Virginia Report Cards, West Virginia Department of Education. ACT EXPLORE Assessment Results According to the 2008-09 Grade 8 ACT EXPLORE results in Chart 10, Grant County students showed a decrease in the composite score as compared to the 2004-05 results. Five years of trend data showed an increase then a decrease in English, Mathematics, Science, and then the Composite score. Reading scores peaked in 200506 and have declined steadily since then. County personnel indicated that they did not have 2008-09 ACT EXPLORE data at the central office. They said it was kept at the school level, which indicated that the county did not use this data in developing the county strategic plan. The Team contacted the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Assessment and Accountability, to obtain the 2008-09 scores.

English WV English Grant Mathematics WV Mathematics Grant Reading WV Reading Grant Science WV Science Grant Composite WV Composite Grant

Chart 10 ACT EXPLORE RESULTS Grade 8 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 14.2 14.3 14.2 13.3 14.8 14.9 14.2 14.5 14.5 13.7 15.1 14.9 13.8 13.9 13.9 13.3 13.9 13.7 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.2 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.0 15.1 15.0

9

2007-08 14.3 13.6 14.7 14.5 13.9 12.9 16.0 15.6 14.9 14.3

2008-09 13.9 12.7 14.3 13.9 13.6 12.7 15.6 14.8 14.5 13.6

Draft November 2009 ACT PLAN Assessment Results Based on the 2008-09 Grade 10 ACT PLAN results in Chart 11, Grant County test takers showed an increase in the recording years 2004-05 to 2007-08, then a decrease in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 composite score. Three years of trend data showed a decline in English and a significant decline in reading and a slight decline in mathematics and science. County personnel indicated that they did not have 2008-09 PLAN data. They said it was kept at the school level, which indicates that the county did not use this data in the development of the county strategic plan. The Team contacted the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Assessment and Accountability, to get the 2008-09 scores.

English WV English Grant Mathematics WV Mathematics Grant Reading WV Reading Grant Science WV Science Grant Composite WV Composite Grant

Chart 11 ACT PLAN RESULTS Grade 10 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 16.7 16.8 16.7 15.8 16.6 16.2 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.2 15.9 16.6 16.5 16.6 16.5 16.3 16.4 16.4 17.7 17.8 17.7 17.6 17.5 17.9 17.0 17.1 17.0 16.6 16.7 16.9

2007-08 16.3 16.2 16.3 16.8 16.5 16.4 17.5 17.7 16.8 16.9

2008-09 16.3 16.0 16.3 16.6 15.7 15.4 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.4

5.1.2. Participation rate. A minimum of 95 percent in the current or a two or three year average of all students enrolled in a public school/county school district/state at the time of testing, including students in each subgroup as required by NCLB must participate in the statewide assessment WESTEST or the West Virginia Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA) in reading/language arts or mathematics. Students with a significant medical emergency may be exempt by appeal from the calculation of participation rate for AYP provided that the county superintendent has proper documentation. (Policy 2340; Policy 2419; Policy 2510) All five schools in the Grant County School District had participation rates of 98.75 percent or above for reading and mathematics on the WESTEST 2 during the 2008-09 school year.

10

Draft November 2009 5.1.3. Attendance rate (Elementary/Middle). The student attendance rate for elementary and middle schools is at or above 90 percent or the percentage of students meeting the attendance rate show improvement from the preceding year. The student attendance rate will be adjusted for students excluded as a result of the Productive and Safe Schools Act (W.Va. Code §18A-5-1a) and school bus transportation interruptions (W.Va. 126CSR81), West Virginia Board of Education Policy 4110, Attendance Policy, (hereinafter Policy 4110). Additional exclusions include excused student absences, students not in attendance due to disciplinary measures, and absent students for whom the attendance director has pursued judicial remedies to compel attendance to the extent of his or her authority. For the AYP determination, the attendance rate calculation will be used for accountability at the public school/LEA/SEA levels, but will not be calculated for each subgroup. However, for schools/LEAs that use the safe harbor provision to meet AYP for the achievement indicators, the attendance rate standard must be met by the subgroup/s not meeting AYP. Chart 12 indicated the Grant County School District attendance rate remained above the State requirement of 90 percent for the last five reporting years. Chart 12 ATTENDANCE RATE Year Attendance Rate 2004-2005 97.7% 2005-2006 98.3% 2006-2007 98.2% 2007-2008 97.5% 2008-2009 97.7% Chart 12A lists each school’s attendance rate. The attendance rate for all five schools in Grant County was above the required 90 percent. Chart 12A ATTENDANCE RATE BY SCHOOL 200420052006School 2005 2006 2007 Dorcas Elementary 99% 99.11% 99.04% Maysville Elementary 98% 98.99% 98.68% Union Educational Complex Petersburg Elementary 97% 97.99% 97.88% Petersburg High

11

20072008 99.03% 98.84% 97.13% 98.13% 96.51%

20082009 99.03% 99.13% 97.27% 98.16% 96.81%

Draft November 2009 5.1.4. Graduation rate. The student graduation rate is 80 percent or the percentage of students meeting the student graduation rate shows improvement. The graduation rate is calculated according to the high school completer formula recommended by the NCES with the additional condition that graduates include only those students who receive a regular diploma in the standard number of years and does not include students receiving the GED. For the AYP determination, the graduation rate calculation will be used for accountability at the public school/LEA/SEA levels, but will not be calculated for each subgroup. However, for schools/LEAs that use the safe harbor provision to meet AYP for the achievement indicators, the graduation rate standard must be met by the subgroup/s not meeting AYP. Grant County School District’s graduation rate met the State requirement of 80 percent for the last five reporting years (Chart 13). Graduation rates for the Grant County secondary schools are listed in Chart 13A. Chart 13 GRADUATION RATE Year Graduation Rate 2004-2005 81.6% 2005-2006 83.3% 2006-2007 89.4% 2007-2008 85.2% 2008-2009 87.4%

Chart 13A GRADUATION RATE BY SCHOOL 200420052006School 2005 2006 2007 Union Educational Complex 96% 94.74% 95.45% Petersburg High 79% 81.51% 88.33%

12

20072008 96.15% 83.09%

20082009 95.2% 86.2%

Draft November 2009 SECTION II DATA ANALYSIS Chart 14 demonstrated the number of advanced placement (AP), honors, and college credit courses offered in Grant County’s high schools. Chart 14 NUMBER OF ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP), HONORS, AND COLLEGE COURSES OFFERED 2009-2010 Number of AP Number of Number of High School Courses Honors Courses College Credit Offered Offered Courses Offered Petersburg High 0 0 8/6 taken Union Educational Complex 0 0 0

Petersburg High School In 2008 Advanced Human Anatomy and Physiology with 44 seats was offered. In 2008 Advanced Environmental Earth Science with 9 seats was offered. However, no students enrolled in these courses. A minimum of four advanced placement (AP) classes are to be offered as prescribed in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510. Petersburg High School did not offer or teach these courses. Eight college credit courses were offered for the 2009-10 school year and six were being taught on-site at Petersburg High School through Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College and Potomac State College. The Team noted that students do not receive dual credit for these courses, although teachers refer to these classes as “dual credit”. This misunderstanding must be clarified so educators, parents, and the community have a clear understanding of advanced level courses. College courses taught included: 1. College English 2. College History 3. College Algebra 4. Psychology 5. Special Topics Biology 6. Chemistry II Virtual courses or distance learning courses were not available.

13

Draft November 2009 Union Educational Complex School No advanced placement (AP), honors, or college credit courses had been taken since the 2003-04 school year. Personnel at the central office said they did not know what courses (if any) had been offered at the high schools this year. They said there might be virtual course offerings, but it was not known how many students (if any) take these courses. Virtual courses or distance learning offerings were not available. Chart 15 provided college entrance testing information for the American College Test (ACT) and the advanced placement test (AP). Data are listed for each Grant County high school, the county, and the State. The Grant County ACT composite score was .4 percent lower than the State, which is significant. With no AP courses taught at the high schools, AP test takers data reflected 0.0 percent. Chart 15 COLLEGE-ENTRANCE TESTING INFORMATION – ACT & APT 2007-2008 ACT(American College Test) Schools

Petersburg High Union Educational Complex Grant County Schools STATE

Test Takers

Composite Score

63.7% 44.0% 60.1% 66.0%

20.0% 21.1% 20.2% 20.6%

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Test Takers Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Grade Grade Grade

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1%

Chart 16 showed the percentage of advanced placement (AP) test takers decreased from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 in both grades 11 and 12. The percent of Grades 11 and 12 test takers with a score of three or higher has been 0.0 in all of the five recording years.

Grant County 10th Grade Test Takers (%) 11th Grade Test Takers (%) 12th Grade Test Takers (%) 10th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 11th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 12th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher

Chart 16 AP TEST TAKERS 200420052005 2006 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20062007 0.0 0.7 0.4

20072008 0.0 0.0 0.0

20082009 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

14

Draft November 2009

The high school graduate overall college going rate for Grant County reported in fall 2007 was 50.4 percent compared to the State’s overall college going rate of 57.5 percent as presented in Chart 17. County staff reported that fewer students in Grant County indicated they were college bound. Chart 17 ESTIMATED COLLEGE GOING RATE FALL 2007 Number of High School Graduates Overall College Going Rate 2006-07 Percentage 17,914 57.5% 129 50.4%

State Grant Source:

West Virginia College Going Rates By County and High School Fall 2007, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission.

Grant County’s percent of students enrolled in developmental courses (Fall 2008) was measurably higher than the State’s percentage of students taking both English and mathematics developmental courses (Chart 18). The percentage of students taking developmental mathematics courses was 10 percent higher than the State’s average. Thirteen of Grant County’s 74 first-time freshmen or 17.57 percent were enrolled in Developmental English during fall 2008 compared to the State total (15.79 percent). Twenty-eight graduates or 37.84 percent were enrolled in Developmental Mathematics compared to the State (27.55 percent). Chart 18 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES ENROLLED IN DEVELOPMENTAL COURSES FALL 2008

State Petersburg High Union Educational Complex Grant Source:

1st Time WV Freshmen Total #

English Total #

% in Developmental English

Mathematics Total #

% in Developmental Mathematics

8,073 66

1,275 11

15.79% 16.67%

2,224 25

27.55% 37.88%

8

2

25%

3

37.5%

74

13

17.57%

28

37.84%

First-Time Freshmen, Previous Year WV High School Graduates in Developmental Courses by Type of Course Fall 2008 (census).

15

Draft November 2009 SECTION III HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS 7.1. CURRICULUM.

7.1.2. High expectations. Through curricular offerings, instructional practices, and administrative practices, staff demonstrates high expectations for the learning and achieving of all students and all students have equal education opportunities including reteaching, enrichment, and acceleration. (Policy 2510) High expectations for student performance were lacking in the Grant County School District evidenced by the examples that demonstrated a priority was not being placed on students. 1.

Neither high school offered advanced placement (AP), honors, or virtual credit courses. The lack of these courses negatively affected students’ preparation for college level courses as supported by the chart depicting the high percentage of Grant County students taking developmental level college courses.

2.

Reviewers who conducted observations in the schools indicated that many teachers at some schools did not expect much from the students and the students thought the work was “easy”.

3.

Principals of two newly determined Title I schools failed to attend the mandatory statewide Title I training held at Stonewall Jackson.

4.

The lack of an individual in personnel at the county office impeded the hiring process for teachers and other necessary staff. Curriculum directors assumed some of these duties which took time away from their curricular responsibilities.

5.

Counseling services at one high school was limited and a counselor had not visited one elementary school this year (2009-10).

6.

The Grant County Board of Education minutes of meetings indicated that the majority of the board’s time involved employing a position for personnel/secondary education.

7.1.3. Learning environment. School staff provides a safe and nurturing environment that is conducive to learning. (Policy 2510) The learning environment in Grant County stemming from the board of education and central office levels failed to encourage school environments conducive to learning. A lack of a personnel director and secondary curriculum director and a pervasive climate of mistrust and internal issues at the central office have resulted in the county’s lack of attention to providing schools’ environments conducive to learning.

16

Draft November 2009 7.1.4. Instruction. Instruction is consistent with the programmatic definitions in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring the Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs (hereinafter Policy 2510). (Policy 2510) 1.

Petersburg High School. Grades 7 and 8 students received instruction in social studies first semester and science second semester. Policy 2510 clearly indicates that science and social studies must be taught daily during the 180-minute core block.

2.

Petersburg High School. Teachers indicated to the Office of Education Performance Audits (OEPA) Team that they had not received any professional development on implementing the block schedule prior to its inception.

3.

The OEPA school Team indicated that special education staff at Petersburg High School were not used to support student achievement. They did not collaborate with general education teachers. The Team found one class of 11 students, all had been retained the previous year, and five of these students had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).

4.

The OEPA school Team indicated that a credit recovery option was not available to students attending Grant County Schools. Currently, one student at Union Educational Complex will not be able graduate at the end of this year (2009-10) because options are not available to recover credit.

7.1.5. Instructional strategies. Staff demonstrates the use of the various instructional strategies and techniques contained in Policies 2510 and 2520. (Policy 2510; Policy 2520) The school reviewers on the OEPA Team indicated a lack of quality instructional strategies throughout the county’s schools. Individual school reports state specific findings regarding instructional strategies. A secondary curriculum specialist was not in place to guide secondary curriculum and instruction. 7.1.7. Library/educational technology access and technology application. The application of technology is included throughout all programs of study and students have regular access to library/educational technology centers or classroom libraries. (Policy 2470; Policy 2510) 1.

The OEPA school Teams noted that no students were using educational technology during the school visits and classrooms observations.

2.

Union Educational Complex High School students only had access to the library during their lunch period.

17

Draft November 2009 7.1.9. Programs of study. Programs of study are provided in grades K-12 as listed in Policy 2510 for elementary, middle, and high school levels, including career clusters and majors and an opportunity to examine a system of career clusters in grades 5-8 and to select a career cluster to explore in grades 9 and 10. (Policy 2510; Policy 2520) The Programs Studies for Grant County Schools, posted on their website at http://www.grantcountyschools.com/ under “Programs of Study” was not up-to-date with the requirements of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510. The section describing the K-2 subject requirements only mentioned an uninterrupted 90 minute reading block instead of the Policy 2510 language which requires “a daily uninterrupted 90 minute reading/English language arts block.” The section that listed the other content areas in the Grant County Program of Study at K-2 just contained the information that “specific content area instruction in the following content areas may or may not be offered daily.” It did not reflect the language of Policy 2510, “Sufficient emphasis must be placed on the given content areas to ensure that students master content knowledge and skills as specified in the 21st century content standards and objectives for each subject.” The Grant County Program of Study for Grades 3-4 contained the language requiring 60 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction. This is no longer in Policy 2510. The physical education requirement has also changed. The Grant County Program of Study for Grades 5-8 specified a 90-minute reading and English/language arts block within a 225 minute day, while Policy 2510 requires a core block of courses (Reading and English/Language Arts, Mathematics/Algebra I, Science and Social Studies) for no less than 180 minutes. The semester requirement for physical education was also missing in the Grant County Program of Study. Graduation requirements for Grades 9-12 were not according to Policy 2510. This entire section of the Grant County Program of Study needed to be updated and reflect requirements of Policy 2510. This document should be removed from the Grant County Schools website until such time as it is updated to reflect the requirements of Policy 2510. A direct link to the State policy could be used until the updated copy is available.

18

Draft November 2009 7.1.11. Guidance and advisement. Students are provided specific guidance and advisement opportunities to allow them to choose a career major prior to completion of grade 10. (Policy 2510) 1.

Counseling services had not been provided during the 2009-10 school year at Maysville Elementary School.

2.

The counselor at Union Educational Complex School was unofficially filling the role of assistant principal because the principal was also the county attendance director. This limited students’ guidance and advisement services.

7.1.12. Multicultural activities. Multicultural activities are included at all programmatic levels, K-4, 5-8, and 9-12 with an emphasis on prevention and zero tolerance for racial, sexual, religious/ethnic harassment or violence. (Policy 2421) 1.

Teachers at Maysville Elementary were not aware of a Multicultural Plan or its contents.

2.

A Multicultural Plan was not in place at Petersburg High School.

7.2. STUDENT AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE. 7.2.1. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic county strategic improvement plan and an electronic school strategic improvement plan are established, implemented, and reviewed annually. Each respective plan shall be a five-year plan that includes the mission and goals of the school or school system to improve student or school system performance or progress. The plan shall be revised annually in each area in which the school or system is below the standard on the annual performance measures. Grant County Five-Year Strategic Plan Interviews indicated that the County Five-Year Strategic Plan was prepared in isolation. Most often one or two people were involved in developing the plan. A collaborative process was not used for writing, reviewing and/or revising the strategic plan in place in Grant County. 1.

Through an interview with central office staff, the Team found that the county FiveYear Strategic Plan had been prepared and updated by one central office staff member. A team had been established, but had never met. Another member of the central office staff updated the plan on the day before the OEPA Team arrived. The objectives under the goals for the county were the same for both goals. The objectives did not specifically target the goal for improvement.

19

Draft November 2009 2.

The Team reviewed the professional development opportunities offered at the various schools and reported that many schools had not planned professional development that would support the goals of the school and/or county.

Plan Committee. Staff indicated that a new plan committee had been selected and meetings had been scheduled to rewrite the plan. It was also stated that in July the superintendent had scheduled several meetings to work on the strategic plan with the committee but had canceled all of the meetings for various reasons not given. Core Beliefs and Mission. The core beliefs of the county had been reviewed and revised. They could be internalized and easily remembered by staff and reflected qualities of highly effective schools and school systems. The mission statement should be reviewed and written in future oriented language that conveys what the school system is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the 21st Century. The county plan did not do an adequate job of analyzing data and identifying areas of need. Data Analysis. Student achievement data analysis was limited to WESTEST 2 data and very limited at that. Charts had been copied and pasted with limited analysis cited. No analysis of external trends, culture, conditions, and practices, or other student outcomes, such as, attendance, discipline, dropout rates, etc., was included in the strategic plan. Prioritized strategic issues listed were not related to the data analysis. Goals and Objectives. The goals were not derived from the data analysis or the prioritized strategic issues. The goals were related to improving student achievement but the objectives could not be measured by quantifiable evidence. Action Steps and Professional Development. Action steps were limited in detail and high yield strategies were limited. Professional development was not targeted at goal achievement. Only three of 17 professional development opportunities were goal oriented. Special education achievement was cited as the reason for not making AYP but no collaborative action had taken place at the county level to address this need. Special education professional development listed in the plan was not focused on improving student achievement through improving instructional practices for all teachers. The plan did not include objectives/action steps that supported guiding principles for parental involvement as stated in Policy 2200.

20

Draft November 2009 Schools’ Five-Year Strategic Plans UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL Plan Committee. The Five-Year Strategic Planning committee met bi-weekly to create and modify the Five-Year Strategic Plan for Union Educational Complex School. The committee was made up of the principal, each school's learning community chair, Title I teacher, special education teacher, general education teachers, technology coordinator, and a parent. Information was updated and analyzed to ensure progress. All teachers and several parents were invited to each meeting to keep them up-to-date on the progress. Core Beliefs and Mission. Core beliefs were few in number and could be internalized and easily remembered. Core beliefs were written in a language that conveyed the school’s values. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. Data Analysis. The narrative describing data analysis was very limited. However, the school indicated they had conducted data analysis for student achievement and other student outcomes, including attendance, graduation rate, and external trend data. An analysis of culture conditions and practices was not included in the data analysis. The data analysis did not include a summary of the overall implication for the strategic plan. Core Beliefs. Core beliefs were written in language that strongly conveyed the schools values. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. Mission Statement. The mission was the same as the county’s mission. It was not written in a future oriented language and did not describe what the school is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the future. Prioritized Strategic Issues. The prioritized strategic issues were not directly related to the data analysis. Goals and Objectives. The goals focused the school on improved student achievement. The goals were not derived from data analysis and prioritized strategic issues. The goal statements were measured by quantifiable evidence at the objective level. Action Steps and Professional Development. These were limited in detail and sequential steps were not described to implement high yield strategies. No discussion was included of the purpose for taking a particular action step. Professional development opportunities listed did not occur over time. Professional development activities were limited to trainer led sessions. Professional development sessions listed did not relate directly to goal achievement. Parental Involvement. The plan did not include objectives or action steps that supported the implementation of the guiding principles for parental involvement as stated in Policy 2200. Actions were not included to encourage embedded parental 21

Draft November 2009 involvement. Actions were not included for celebrating student success to encourage success. Actions were not included for utilizing the community to provide resources to strengthen school programs, families, and community members in improving student achievement. Current school parent involvement initiatives were not listed in the plan. DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Plan Committee. The school identified a sufficient number of participants to efficiently complete the Five-Year Strategic Plan. The stakeholders included on the membership team provided a broad and knowledgeable perspective regarding the preparation of students for the 21st Century. Dorcas Elementary School staff worked together through dialogue reviewing the plan and updating it accordingly. Local school improvement council (LSIC) meetings were also scheduled and stakeholders were invited to review the plan. The strategic plan was also discussed at a faculty senate meeting for review and revisions. Core Beliefs. Core beliefs were written in language that strongly conveyed the school’s values. The core beliefs listed were numerous (13) and hard to internalize and remember. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. Mission Statement. The mission was the same as the county’s mission. It was not written in a future oriented language and did not describe what the school is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the future. Data Analysis. Test data were provided to principals at the beginning of the school year and then provided to teachers. The depth of the analysis that occurred was not evident. Data analysis for student achievement and other student outcomes including attendance, graduation rate, and external trend data were included. An analysis of culture conditions and practices was not included in the data analysis. The data analysis did not include a summary of the overall implication for the strategic plan. Goals and Objectives. The goals focused the school on improving student achievement. The goals were not derived from data analysis and prioritized strategic issues. The goal statements were measured by quantifiable evidence at the objective level. Action Steps and Professional Development. Action steps were limited in detail and sequential steps were not described to implement high yield strategies. Professional development opportunities listed did not occur over time. Professional development activities were limited to trainer led sessions. Professional development sessions listed did not relate directly to goal achievement. Action steps for math had not been updated since September of 2008. Action steps for reading described the school’s purpose for taking a particular action step. Reading actions had been updated and implemented high yield strategies. Parental involvement was embedded in the actions for improved student achievement.

22

Draft November 2009 MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Plan Committee. The plan committee had a sufficient number of participants to efficiently complete the Five-Year Strategic Plan. The stakeholders represented various school and community groups to assist in aligning improvement efforts toward common goals. The narrative described how the plan was written, but did not identify how it will be reviewed or revised during the upcoming year. Core Beliefs. Core beliefs were written in language that strongly conveyed the school’s values. The core beliefs listed were numerous (13) and hard to internalize and remember. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. Mission Statement. The mission was the same as the county’s mission. It was not written in a future oriented language and did not describe what the school is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the future. Data Analysis. Data analysis had been completed and interpretations added to the plan when appropriate. Student achievement data was reviewed from several data sources and were cited in the plan. Prioritized Strategic Issues. The list was not from the data sources examined. Goals and Objectives. The goals focused the school on improving student achievement. The goals were not derived from data analysis and prioritized strategic issues. The goal statements were measured by quantifiable evidence at the objective level. Action Steps and Professional Development. Action steps and professional development activities had not been updated since September 2008. Parental Involvement. The plan did not include objectives or action steps that supported the implementation of the guiding principles for parental involvement as stated in Policy 2200. Actions were not included that encouraged or embedded parental involvement. Actions were not included for celebrating student success to encourage further success. Actions were not included for utilizing parents and community members to provide resources to strengthen school programs for improving student achievement. Current school parent involvement initiatives were not listed in the plan. PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Plan Committee. A review of the Five-Year Strategic Plan committee did not show parents involved on the committee, although the narrative described how parent advisory groups will be involved in the committee’s review. The narrative provided a description of how parents, community, and other appropriated stakeholder member were involved in the plan’s development and/or revisions. 23

Draft November 2009

Core Beliefs. Core beliefs were written in language that strongly conveyed the school’s values. The core beliefs listed were numerous (13) and hard to internalize and remember. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. Mission Statement. The mission was the same as the county’s mission. It was not written in a future oriented language and did not describe what the school is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the future. Data Analysis. A comprehensive data analysis was completed by Petersburg Elementary School and a variety of sources was identified. The vital survey was mentioned in the narrative as related to the culture, conditions, and practices of the school. Other student outcomes, such as, student attendance and other important student outcome data were mentioned. Prioritized Strategic Issues. The list of strategic issues was included from the data sources examined. Goals/Objectives. Goal statements could be measured by quantifiable evidence at the objective level and the goals focused the school on improving student achievement. The achievement goals were derived from data analysis. Action Steps and Professional Development. Professional development indicated a plan for activities to occur over time to build knowledge and skill of the participants. The activities reflected a variety of delivery methods. Although professional development had been updated, there was no indication that the action steps had been updated or modified since September 2008. Parental Involvement. The plan did not include objectives or action steps that supported the implementation of the guiding principles for parental involvement stated in Policy 2200. Actions were not included that encouraged or embedded parental involvement. Actions were not included for celebrating student success to encourage success. Actions were not included for utilizing the community to provide resources to strengthen school programs, families, and community members in improving student achievement. Current school parent involvement initiatives were not identified in the plan. PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL Plan Committee. The narrative provided a brief summary of how the plan was developed but lacked information of how it will be monitored, reviewed, and/or revised. The committee had a sufficient number of participants to efficiently complete the plan. Core Beliefs. Core beliefs were written in language that strongly conveyed the school’s values. The core beliefs listed were numerous (13) and hard to internalize and remember. The beliefs reflected qualities of highly effective schools. 24

Draft November 2009 Mission Statement. The mission was the same as the county’s mission. It was not written in a future oriented language and did not describe what the school is striving to accomplish to prepare students for the future. Data Analysis. The data analysis was limited to WESTEST 2 results. No other achievement data, such as, ACT PLAN and ACT EXPLORE were analyzed according to the narrative. External trend data or other important student outcome data such as dropout rates, attendance rates, discipline, and college attendance rate were not mentioned. Other data not mentioned in the narrative included results of classroom walkthroughs, monitoring reports, or data completed by the staff or external evaluators that described the overall culture, conditions, and practices that existed. Prioritized Strategic Issues. The list of prioritized issues was data analysis from WESTEST 2. The special education (SE) subgroup was cited for improvement as well as the low economically disadvantaged (SES) subgroup in reading and math. Goals/Objectives. Goals focused the school on improving student achievement. The goal statements were not written in a bold and challenging language. The goals were not derived from data analysis or the prioritized strategic issues. Action Steps/Professional Development. A professional development plan for the goals was not provided in the plan. Action steps had not been updated since September 2008. Parental Involvement. The plan did not include objectives or action steps that supported the implementation of the guiding principles for parental involvement stated in Policy 2200. Actions were not included to encourage or embed parental involvement. Actions were not included for celebrating student success to encourage success. Actions were not included for utilizing the community to provide resources to strengthen school programs, families, and community members in improving student achievement. Current school parent involvement initiatives were not listed in the plan. 7.2.2. Counseling services. Counselors shall spend at least 75 percent of the work day in a direct counseling relationship with students, and shall devote no more than 25 percent of the work day to counseling-related administrative activities as stated in W.Va. Code §18-5-18b. (W.Va. Code §18-5-18b; Policy 2315) 1.

The OEPA school Team reported that counseling services had not been provided at Maysville Elementary.

2.

The OEPA school Team reported that the counselor at Union Educational Complex School was unofficially filling the role of assistant principal because the principal was also the county attendance director. This impeded the 75 percent direct counseling relationship with students.

25

Draft November 2009 7.2.3. Lesson plans and principal feedback. Lesson plans that are based on approved content standards and objectives are prepared in advance and the principal reviews, comments on them a minimum of once each quarter, and provides written feedback to the teacher as necessary to improve instruction. (Policy 2510; Policy 5310) 1.

The OEPA school Team reported that one of 17 teachers at Maysville Elementary did not have lesson plans and that the existing plans of the remaining teachers were so vague they could not be followed by a substitute.

2.

The OEPA school Team noted that the lesson plans of teachers at Petersburg Elementary were too vague to be followed by a substitute.

3.

The OEPA school Team reported that the lesson plans of the special educators at Union Educational Complex were not adequate.

7.2.4. Data analysis. Prior to the beginning of and through the school term the county, school, and teacher have a system for analyzing, interpreting, and using student performance data to identify and assist students who are not at grade level in achieving approved state and local content standards and objectives. The county, principal, counselors, and teachers assess student scores on the American College Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test and develop curriculum, programs, and/or practices to improve student and school performance. (Policy 2510) 1.

The Team interviewed staff and found that principals usually received the WESTEST data for their school and then held a meeting at the beginning of the school year at which time teachers looked at the test data for their grade level.

2.

The OEPA school Team reported that several teachers at Petersburg High School expressed concern that the data analysis was not done until the school year was well under way.

3.

The Team’s review of the Data Analysis section of the Grant County Five-Year Strategic Plan noted that student achievement data analysis was limited to WESTEST 2 data and very limited. The Team further stated that charts had been copied and pasted with limited analysis cited. Other student outcomes, such as, attendance, discipline, dropout rates were not included in the strategic plan.

26

Draft November 2009 7.3. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION. 7.3.1. Alternative education. Alternative education programs meet the requirements of Policy 2418. (W.Va. Code §18-2-6 and §18-5-19; Policy 2418) The Team interviewed county office staff and determined an alternative school was located at Petersburg High School last school year (2008-09) that met for four hours each evening. One teacher and one administrator operated the program. RESA VIII provided NOVA Net and trained the teacher and administrator. Students were referred to the alternative school based on their behavior. The alternative school was not in operation this school year (2009-10) because the teacher left the county.

7.4. REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEWS. 7.4.1. Regulatory agency reviews. Determine during on-site reviews and include in reports whether required reviews and inspections have been conducted by the appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, the State Fire Marshal, the Health Department, the School Building Authority of West Virginia, and the responsible divisions within the West Virginia Department of Education, and whether noted deficiencies have been or are in the process of being corrected. The Office of Education Performance Audits may not conduct a duplicate review or inspection nor mandate more stringent compliance measures. (W.Va. Code §§18-9B-9, 10, 11, 18-4-10, and 18-5A-5; Policy 1224.1; Policy 8100; W.Va. Code §18-5-9; Policy 6200; Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 §104.22 and §104.23; Policy 4334; Policy 4336) 1.

Finance

The Team reviewed the annual financial audit of Grant County Schools and found the auditors noted the following conditions. Central Office Fiscal Year 2008 Audit report reviewed No findings or deficiencies in internal control were reported. The general fund balance decreased by $93,500 from Fiscal Year 2007. Grant County spent 64.5 percent of total expenditures in the general fund toward direct instruction. The Team reviewed unaudited financial statements for Fiscal Year 2009. Grant County recorded $136,826.63 for other post employment benefits, OPEB, for the year. In spite of this additional liability, the county’s general fund balance remained a positive number of $64,116.77, although the general fund undesignated amount is a

27

Draft November 2009 negative of $3,376.06. Expenditures in the general fund for direct instruction were 66.1 percent of total expenditures, an increase of 1.6 percent over Fiscal Year 2008. The Team reviewed the Treasurer’s Report to the Board along with the September 2009 bank reconciliation and reported the following findings. 1.

The treasurer provides a detailed listing of expenditures each month to the board. The report did not contain information required by West Virginia Board of Education Policy 8100, Handbook for School Finance in West Virginia. Requirements are shown in detail on page 53 of the handbook.

2.

A “schedule of checks already written” was provided to the board each month. Payments were being made prior to board approval. The board must be given a list of invoices to approve before payment is actually made as required by (West Virginia Codes §12-3-18 and §18-9-3).

Food Service The Team examined the annual financial report prepared by the food service director for the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Child Nutrition. This report revealed that the cost to prepare a breakfast during Fiscal Year 2009 was $2.60 and the cost for lunch was $3.46. Grant County charged adults $2.50 for breakfast and $3.25 for lunch during the year. 3.

The county was subsidizing adult meals. The food service director said the board would be asked to increase the price charged to adults for breakfast and lunch to at least the cost to prepare the meals in the near future. The Team recommended that the board take action at their next meeting to increase the amount charged for adult meals to at least the cost to prepare and serve the meals.

Individual Schools An audit of Grant County’s schools was conducted by The Fyffe Jones Group for the year ended June 30, 2008. Dorcas Elementary School A corrective action plan was prepared by school officials showing action taken to cure findings in the 2008 audit report. Faculty Senate. The budget was recorded in the minutes. The Team recommended that the faculty senate budget show more detail.

28

Draft November 2009 Parent Teacher Associations; Booster Groups Finding 1. West Virginia Board of Education Policy 1224.1, section 5.1 and 5-7, requires the board to approve a list of all groups collecting funds in the name of the school. No record of such board action was available.

Union Educational Complex School Finding 1. A corrective action plan was not available regarding findings from the 2008 audit. Faculty Senate Budget. The budget was recorded in the minutes. recommend that the faculty senate budget show more detail

The Team

Expenditures. Check 3947 dated October 6, 2009, was issued and the purchase requisition was signed by the principal, but the actual purchase order was not. Finding 2. Purchase orders were not approved prior to the order being placed. Finding 3. Parent Teacher Associations, Booster Groups. The athletic booster annual report did not show a beginning or an ending balance. Finding 4. West Virginia Board of Education Policy 1224.1, section 5.1 and 5-7, requires the board to approve a list of all groups collecting funds in the name of the school. No record of such board action was available. Interview with principal. The principal asked that the county business office invoice transportation cost due the county office by the school in a timely manner. The principal did not have an accurate unencumbered balance without knowing that liability. He said the invoice of all last year had not been received until the end of the school year. The Team recommended the county business office take action to invoice the schools at least monthly.

Maysville Elementary School Parent Teacher Associations; Booster Groups. The PTO annual financial statement to the principal did not show the beginning balance for their savings account. The Team recommend that the PTO modify their reporting format to show beginning balances for their checking and savings accounts. Finding 1. West Virginia Board of Education Policy 1224.1, section 5.1 and 5-7, requires the board to approve a list of all groups collecting funds in the name of the school. No record of such board action was available.

29

Draft November 2009

Petersburg Elementary School Faculty Senate. The faculty senate budget was recorded in their minutes, but did not show categories of planned expenditures. The Team recommended that the faculty senate budget show more detail. Parent Teacher Associations; Booster Groups. The PTO annual statement to the principal did not show beginning or ending balances. The Team recommends that the PTO annual financial statement show beginning and ending balances. Finding 1. West Virginia Board of Education Policy 1224.1, section 5.1 and 5-7, requires the board to approve a list of all groups collecting funds in the name of the school. No record of such board action was available.

Petersburg High School Finding 1. A corrective action plan was either not prepared or not available that addressed the six audit findings reported in the 2008 audit. Finding 2. Expenditures. Check 9101 was issued to a game official September 9, 2009 for services and travel. Boards of Education have the statutory authority to reimburse travel only to employees, not independent contractors or vendors. In this case the school reimbursed travel expense to a non-employee. Check 9112 was issued to Image Express. Neither invoice nor other document indicated the product had been received by the purchaser. The secretary was comfortable that products were received. The Team recommended the invoice or packing slip be signed by the purchaser acknowledging receipt of goods or services before payment is made. Finding 3. Parent Teacher Associations; Booster Groups. West Virginia Board of Education Policy 1224.1, section 5.1 and 5-7, requires the board to approve a list of all groups collecting funds in the name of the school. No record of such board action was available.

2.

Facilities

The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Grant County Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEFP), interviewed the Director of School Facilities, the county superintendent, and visited schools. A narrative of the Team’s observations follows. School administrators were able to locate the most recent Fire Marshal reports and the Asbestos Management Plan; however, they were only able to locate the old

30

Draft November 2009 Pest Inspection Log. The Pest Inspection contract has been handled by a new company for the past couple of years and the log book was located in the kitchen area of each school. Through conversation, Grant County Maintenance Director, stated that the schools had all been made aware of the change in companies and location of the log book. Dorcas Elementary School Dorcas Elementary was constructed in 1950 with additions in 1971, 1975, and 1985. The teachers had access to the thermostats and fan control for their spaces. The Team found multiple rooms with fans in the "Auto" position. Fans must remain in the "On" position during occupied times to allow adequate ventilation to the classrooms. The site did not have five usable acres. The media center did not have electronic card catalogs, automated circulation capacity, or online periodical indexes. The art room did not have counter space, mechanical ventilation, a ceramic kiln or blackout areas. The music room did not have music chairs with folding arms, a podium or acoustical treatment. The physical education facility did not have a data projector, network connections or Internet access. There was no teachers' dining area of adequate space. The food service area did not have locker/dressing rooms. There was no dedicated space designated for a health services area and the furnishings and equipment were not adequate. The furnace room door was not kept locked. The door had warped due to age and was difficult to open. The playground equipment needed proper ground cover in fall protection areas. Most rest room exhaust fans were inoperable. An electrical panel in a storage room located off the gymnasium was blocked at the time of the visit.

Maysville Elementary School Maysville Elementary was constructed in 1950 with additions in 1971, 1976, and 1986. The building was not mechanically ventilated and did not meet ventilation code requirements. The thermostats throughout the facility contained mercury and should be updated. The site did not have five usable acres. The media center did not have electronic card catalogs, automated circulation capacity, online periodicals, or newspapers. The art room was not adequate in size and did not have two deep sinks, hot and cold water, counter space, mechanical ventilation, a ceramic kiln, or blackout areas. The music facility did not have adequate storage space, music chairs with folding arms, a podium, recording devices, or acoustical treatment. The physical education facility did not have provisions for two or more teaching stations, a data projector, network connections, Internet access, or audio equipment. The food service area did not have lockers/dressing rooms. The health service area was not adequate in size and did not have adequate equipment and furnishings. The radiators throughout the hall had damaged and missing grilles that allowed access to the units.

31

Draft November 2009 Petersburg Elementary School Petersburg Elementary School was constructed in 1974 as an open concept school with partition walls added at a later date. An addition was constructed in 2004. The playground equipment needed proper ground cover in fall protection areas. The art room did not have blackout areas. The physical education facility did not have a data projector, network connections, or Internet access. The health service area was not adequate in size and did not have adequate equipment and furnishings. The health service door was unlocked during the Team’s visit, at a time when the nurse was not scheduled to be in the facility. Kindergarten classrooms were inadequate in size. Teachers had access to the thermostats and fan control in the original building for their spaces. Multiple rooms were found with fans in the "Auto" position. Fans must remain in the "On" position during occupied times to allow adequate ventilation to classrooms.

Petersburg High School Petersburg High was originally constructed in 1949 with additions in 1952, 1957, 1968, 1971, and 2001. The media center did not have electronic card catalogs or automated circulation capacity. The primary gymnasium did not have a data projector and the secondary/practice gymnasium did not have a drinking fountain, provisions for two or more teaching stations, a display case, a data projector, network connections, or Internet access. The music facilities did not have acoustical treatment. There was no auditorium/stage facility at this site. The food service area did not have a teachers' dining area. The health services area did not have a toilet.

Union Educational Complex School Union Educational Complex School was originally constructed in 1968 with additions in 1975, 1979, 1980, and 1985. The building was not mechanically ventilated and did not meet ventilation code requirements. This site was not handicap accessible. Evidence of multiple roof leaks existed and the site was not well drained. The Team observed signs of efflorescence throughout the facility from the roof leaks and problems with the gutters. The media center did not have electronic card catalogs or automated circulation capacity. The first/second grade split classroom was excessively cluttered with materials that reduced the free area of the classroom. The art room did not have mechanical ventilation or blackout areas. The music room did not have music chairs with folding arms or acoustical treatment and did not have adequate storage. The elementary physical education facility was not adequate in size and did not have adequate materials and equipment. The food services area did not have adequate storage space, a teachers’ dining area, lockers, and dressing rooms or chairs. There was no dedicated space designated for a health services area and the furnishings and equipment available were not adequate. The high school science facilities were not isolated to keep odors from the remainder of the building and did not have AC and DC current, compressed air, or ventilation fume hoods. The high school gymnasium served as the auditorium for this facility. Most rest room exhaust fans were inoperable. There

32

Draft November 2009 was water infiltration in the boiler room. Electrical panel P2 was missing a blank cover, which was reported to the county and a blank was installed during the visit. Teachers throughout the facility were storing items in direct contact with baseboard heater cabinets. The area directly around these units is to be kept clear for adequate air flow and to prevent flammable materials from becoming overheated and igniting. The elementary rooms had the original carpeting. This carpet should be replaced with tile or other appropriate floor covering. The floor in the sprinkler valve room was gravel over dirt. A vapor barrier needed to be put in place in this room.

Countywide The county did not use a preventive maintenance program or an automated work order system. The Team recommended that a preventive maintenance program be implemented and used to improve maintenance efforts and reduce equipment failures. The School Building Authority (SBA) requires all SBA funded equipment projects to have a documented preventive maintenance program. The Petersburg Elementary and Petersburg High School Gymnasium and addition were SBA funded projects in Grant County. The current work order system used by the county was cumbersome and difficult to track progress and completion of projects. The Team recommended a computerized work order system to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the work order system. Stained ceiling tiles remained in place longer than 24-48 hours. This allowed possible mold growth. Tiles should be replaced after each occurrence of wetting and roofs needed to be repaired/replaced to prevent future instances of water infiltration.

7.5. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS. 7.5.1. Parents and the community are provided information. Staff members provide parents and the community with understandable information and techniques for helping students learn. The Grant County Schools’ website contained links to all five schools. The website space was furnished by Hardy.net. Each school maintained its own site. Some sites were up-to-date with individual teachers posting announcements and weekly homework assignments. Other sites contained little or no information for parents. This would only be useful to parents with Internet access.

33

Draft November 2009 7.6. PERSONNEL. 7.6.1. Hiring. County boards follow hiring practices set forth in W.Va. Code. (W.Va. Code §§18A-4-7a, 18A-4-8, and 18-2E-3a) Interviews with board of education members, central office staff, and school personnel throughout the county revealed a high degree of conflict surrounding the hiring of a personnel director for the county. This position was still vacant as of October 7, 2009. There was no director of personnel in Grant County Schools or a secretary assigned the responsibility for specific personnel office tasks, such as postings, certification, filing personnel documents (contracts, board correspondence), etc., that are the tasks of a personnel secretary. The superintendent’s secretary did receive and stamp-in job applications. Prior to July 1, 2009, the county had a director of personnel as one of his titles. This individual resigned and to date (October 7, 2009) the position had not been filled. Board minutes indicated the board approved posting the position at its August 11, 2009 meeting. It was rescinded at the board’s October 1, 2009 meeting so that the interim superintendent would have more time to review applications. The vacant office of the former personnel director contained the personnel files, records of postings, applicant files, etc. However, documents had not been maintained in a manner that allowed someone from the office staff to pull a requested document. (No office staff member knew where specific documents were located.) Additionally, no one had the authority to look for documents. This made monitoring of personnel practices difficult. Stacks and boxes of applicant files, etc., were on the personnel desk that the Team reviewed. The documents contained information which occurred after July 2009. Documents prior to that date were not reviewed. It appeared that the superintendent employed from July 1 through September 30, 2009 handled all personnel. The interim superintendent’s employment was effective October 1, 2009. Coming from the position of a classroom teacher, the interim superintendent did not have administrative experience and had limited knowledge of school personnel requirements. She appeared to be highly motivated and determined; however, at this time she stated that she will be the only individual handing personnel including preparing postings, filing documents in personnel files, etc. No other staff member, including the superintendent’s secretary, was permitted to see or handle personnel files. Prior to the resignation of the personnel director, the superintendent’s secretary filed contracts and correspondence in employee personnel files. The interim superintendent expressed a lack of trust of county office staff members, and therefore, did not feel comfortable with those individuals working with personnel matters. Unfortunately, handling all personnel procedures, as required by school law, will most likely become an impossible task for one individual who has other responsibilities such as those of a superintendent. The interim superintendent also taught a high school class each morning at Petersburg High School. It would appear 34

Draft November 2009 that this method of leadership will not make for a positive and productive working environment and the development of relationships needed for success. The Team observed the following discrepancies in postings. •

Hiring. Jobs posted for the 2009-10 school year. The Team randomly reviewed more than 30 job postings and their respective applicant pool for teachers, student support personnel, extracurricular personnel, and service personnel. Postings were not numbered. While this is not a requirement, numbering would organize and manage the posting files. Hiring practices were being followed only in part. A separate file was being retained for all postings. The file was identified only by the name of the vacancy, location, and posting date. The file included the posting and applications. A few files included a partially completed matrix. Interview questions were found in four files.

•

Postings. As per the interim superintendent, all postings and reposting of positions not filled are approved by the board prior to the actual posting of a vacant position. Positions are posted on the West Virginia K-12 Jobs Bank for a period of five days. Individuals may go the county website to review vacancies. When individuals click on the county website it will automatically link them to the State website. Vacancies were also posted in schools and at the county board office (inside and outside). Vacancies posted within schools included relevant information with the exception of the job description. No professional posting reviewed had specialized training listed. Prior to July 1, 2009, vacancies were posted by the director of personnel or the superintendent of schools. Subsequent to that date and prior to October 1, 2009, postings were done by the superintendent or an individual from outside the county who was contracted to assist the county with personnel. The new interim superintendent stated that she will be responsible for future postings, but has not yet been trained to put postings on the State website. There was no evidence that vacant positions were being continuously posted. Three vacancies identified as long term (more than 30 instructional days) were identified as being filled with individuals who were not certified for their respective assignments. According to West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5202, the county can request a waiver to keep the substitutes in their respective assignments for more than 30 days. The superintendent stated that she will request a waiver from the State Superintendent of Schools.

•

Job descriptions. Job descriptions were not attached or included with the postings. On two extracurricular postings, cheerleader coach and team coaching assistant (formerly known as volunteer coach), a short narrative of the job description, including some duties or responsibilities, was given. However, other

35

Draft November 2009 postings under job description, stated, “detailed description available upon request.” In reviewing job descriptions that could have been made available, the Team found that they were outdated or needed to be revised. For example, the classroom teacher job description was dated August 25, 1992. Job descriptions for service personnel did not list the State competency test as a required qualification, yet this qualification was listed on the posting. •

Application. The professional application (bid sheets) needed to be revised, as they did not include all information needed to evaluate the applicants per W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a. The county had two bid sheets. One was for transfers (regular employees) the other was for substitutes and non-employees. It appeared that the transfer bid sheet would be used when considering qualifications under the second set of factors of W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a. The other applications would be utilized if using the first set of factors to evaluate the qualifications of individuals. Therefore, if the county has two bid sheets the one for substitutes and nonemployees should also be for regular employees who do not meet the standards of the posting as the second set of factors are only used when the applicant is a regular employee and meets the standards of the posting. The transfer bid sheet currently asks for “documented satisfactory evaluations over the previous two years.” The document should read, “Received an overall rating of satisfactory in the previous two evaluations conducted as per W.Va. Code §18A-2-12.” The document also asks for total years of experience in Grant County Schools. It should ask for “seniority” in Grant County Schools. The bid sheet for substitute and non-employees needed to be revised to include the applicant’s grade point average (GPA), relevant specialized training (not just that on the job posting), and past performance evaluations conducted as per W.Va. Code §18A-2-12. Also, components of the transfer bid sheet, such as, seniority must be included on the application in the event a regular employee applied for the posted position and all applicants are evaluated using the second set of factors in W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a. Substitute teachers can gain seniority as a substitute which can be used when applying for a job.

The Team recommended that one application be used by all applicants for a posted position and that all information shown in both sets of factors listed in W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a be provided. Specific postings showing irregularities. 1.

The Title I Reading Specialist/Reading Interventionist was posted as a regular position part-time, effective for the 2009-10 school year. A retired teacher was hired in the position. The intent of the posting was for the job to be part-time (1/2 day) for 115 days at a daily pay rate of $100. However, this was not reflected on the posting or in the board minutes (dated October 1, 2009). Although, it would not 36

Draft November 2009 apply here, since the individual was not employed as a retired substitute teacher, the superintendent was not knowledgeable if the county had a board policy approved by the State Board concerning hiring retired substitute teachers into critical needs areas (W.Va. Code §18A-2-3). As per the superintendent, this position was posted in the absence of the superintendent by a central office director. The employment was currently in place. Neither the posting of the position as a regular position or the hiring of the individual as a regular employee complied with school law. The above position was posted requiring a reading specialist. As per W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a, postings should also be written to ensure that the largest possible pool of qualified applicants may apply. For example, reading certification can be met with a masters degree in reading specialist, completion of a graduate level reading specialist program, a reading authorization, remedial reading, or completion of a reading endorsement program (Policy 5202). 2.

As per the revised agenda dated September 8, 2009, an individual was hired under employment as a “temporary part-time itinerant school based health nurse” for the 2009-10 school year at $20 per hour for up to two days per week; eight hours a day.” It appears that this should have been “Contracted Services”, such as the employment of speech/language services.

3.

The posting of a Medicaid Billing Specialist Itinerant – up to eight hours weekly, was posted as an “Extra-duty Professional Contract” at a salary of $7,500 stipend paid by Medicaid funds. The position should have been posted as “extracurricular” and since the posting was up to eight hours weekly, the salary should have been listed as “up to $7,500.” As written and approved, the individual could work very few hours per week and still receive a total of $7,500. Additionally, the position was posted September 18-25, 2009 with three applicants. Applications were received September 14 and 16. The application for the position received September 16 was marked, “too late.” As per the superintendent’s secretary, applications are often received prior to a position being posted. Applications received outside the posting period are accepted and considered. Applications considered should be only those received during the posting period. If there are no applications, then applications can be received following the closing date.

4.

The Team reviewed several professional job postings and application files such as (English, social studies/ESL, music Petersburg High School; itinerant agriculture teacher, itinerant counselor; itinerant special education and elementary teacher (1/2 time) Petersburg Elementary School and noted that the county was not consistent with using the factors in W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a to determine the most qualified candidates. When a matrix was used, it was not completed (all criteria were not evaluated) and the most qualified applicant, with the exception of one posting, was not identified.

37

Draft November 2009 5.

A matrix using the second set of factors, as one regular employee applied, for a music teacher position (PES) indicated that the applicant who was determined the most qualified and hired was from out-of-state. She was deemed most qualified because she received a “yes” for evaluation of past experiences and had the highest seniority. In reviewing the file, the Team determined that this applicant was given credit for evaluations not performed per W.Va. Code §18A-2-12 and that she was given credit for seniority with the out-of-state school district. Of the seven factors, the matrix showed that this candidate won in two areas (degree level and seniority) and tied in all other areas with the regular employee. Due to this error, the “new” out-of-state applicant was considered the most qualified and recommended for the position. The senior applicant was not selected for the position. There was no documentation that the senior applicant had requested a written statement of reasons as to why she was not selected.

6.

For an itinerant guidance position (as per the job title) posted August 13, 2009, at Union Educational Complex School, the second set of factors was used; however, it was not clear who the most qualified applicant was. It was necessary to review board minutes to determine who received the position. The most qualified candidate could not be identified by reviewing the application pool file.

7.

The Team did not find a matrix for a posted itinerant gifted position, which took place after five days prior to the beginning of the instructional term. (However, the position was most likely posted.) A 4th grade teacher who was not certified in gifted was transferred into the position effective for the 2010-11 school term. He was not certified in gifted education. No applicant was certified. The job had been filled for the remainder of this year with a long-term substitute teacher who was not certified in gifted. She has worked beyond 30 days and a waiver had not been requested. The Team recommended that the county refrain from transferring individuals who are not certified into a position when the transfer will not take effect until the subsequent school year. The position should be filled with a substitute and continued to be posted.

8.

In postings reviewed where the first set of factors was used (new applicants or regular employees not meeting the standards of the posting), a matrix was partially completed. It appeared that the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh factors were not being considered. This was most likely because the majority of this information was not requested on the job application form. (English Teacher, PHS; Itinerant Counselor). However, no matrix was found with the majority of the postings observed. (Social Studies, July 12-22; Itinerant Special Education, August 12–19; Social Studies/ESL, August 9-2, 2009). The interim superintendent provided the team member documents that showed how the county is to use the two matrices to evaluate the qualifications of classroom teachers and other personnel per W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a (using factors one and two). However, it was evident that these procedures were not followed. Note: A matrix is not required when using the first set of factors, but the county must show that all qualification criteria, per §18A-4-7a, were considered. There was no such evidence. 38

Draft November 2009

9.

Interviews. Four of the files reviewed for posted positions had interview questions with interviewers’ notes; however, the files did not contain evidence of ratings of the interviews. The superintendent stated that principals interview applicants and make a recommendation to the superintendent. Faculty senate members may also interview applicants. The new superintendent plans to interview all individuals recommended by the principals prior to making the recommendation to the board.

10. Attendance Director. W.Va. Code §18-8-3 requires counties to employ at least a half-time director of school attendance if such county has a net enrollment equal to or less than four thousand pupils. Grant County Schools has hired a school principal on an extra-duty contract. He stated that he is paid a stipend. This was not in accordance with school law. It also did not meet the definition of “extra-duty” found in W.Va. Code §18A-4-8b for service personnel or W.Va. Code §18-8-3. 11. Extra-Duty Assignments vs. Extracurricular Assignments. Grant County was confused in understanding extra-duty assignments vs. extracurricular assignments. Extra-duty is defined in W.Va. Code §18A-4-8b (f) for service personnel, while extracurricular assignments is defined in W.Va. Code §18A-4-16 (for service and professional). The county hired its coaches under extracurricular assignments (example: October 13, 2009 Board agenda); band and chorus assignments were hired under curricular assignments (see August 11, 2009 board agenda) and all others, such as, county attendance director, transportation supervisor, network technician specialist, co-county technology coordinator, substitute aide caller, senior sponsor, etc., were hired under “extra-duty” assignments. There was some confusion regarding the use of contracted services. For example, mentors of beginning teachers were hired under contract services instead of extracurricular assignments. It appeared that all of the above should have been hired with extracurricular assignment contracts per W.Va. Code §18A-4-16. 12. Recruitment. The Interim superintendent was not knowledgeable of recruitment efforts. Service Professional. 1.

Hiring. Only one service personnel postings was available for the Team to review, (Instructional aide, PHS S09-402-41). Applications were in the file; but, in no order. The service personnel application did not provide a seniority date or information regarding past performance evaluation. There was no identification in the file as to the most qualified candidate. As per school law, a letter was not being sent to each applicant not selected for employment concerning the status of his/her application.

2.

Postings. As required by school law, all postings were posted in conspicuous places for all school service personnel to observe. Positions were posted on the West Virginia Jobs Bank, but required information, such as the length of 39

Draft November 2009 employment, salary, classification, and job descriptions was only posted on the school or board office postings. Under job description for the aide posting, it was stated, “Assist teacher in the instructional program and accept reasonable assignments necessary to a successful program. More information may be obtained from the personnel office or school principal.” Job descriptions needed to be revised or updated. 3.

Substitute Service Personnel Postings. Once substitute personnel are hired for a specific category, the county begins accepting applications for the next employment of substitutes for that classification. The time period could be several months. These applications are included with the applications received during the actual posting period. This procedure could result in requiring the personnel office to administer many individuals the state competency test for the classification area. At the time this area was being reviewed, no one was available to speak with the Team concerning this procedure or how competency tests were administered. Applications should be received during the posting period. The posting period can be greater than five days, if needed.

4.

Substitute Bus Operators. As per the supervisor of transportation, he holds multiclassification of supervisor of transportation and bus operator. The Team did not review his personnel file; however, the April 21, 2009 Board agenda listed under “Extra-duty Assignments,” Transportation Supervisor returning to position from 2008-2009 school year. The county employs 25 bus operators. There were only four substitute bus operators. A bus mechanic substitutes as a bus operator, when needed. It was not determined if he holds multi-classification of mechanic/bus operator.

5.

Calling Substitute Service Personnel. Substitute service personnel are called to work by different individuals. The aides are called by an aide at Petersburg High School, who holds an “extra-duty” contract. When an aide is to be absent, he/she calls this individual who in turn calls for the substitute aide. She carries her “Calling Book” with her at all times and calls aides on a rotating basis. This individual has a phone in her classroom that she can use for this purpose, if needed. Note: The employment contract should be “extracurricular, not extraduty.” Custodians are called by principals or their designee (school secretary). A secretary interviewed from Petersburg High School stated that she had a list of all substitute custodians and calls from the list. However, she stated that she does not know who has been called by other schools and does not know if calls by different individuals result in custodians being called in a rotating manner. If she calls the fourth custodian on the list, for example, she has no idea if that custodian actually worked the previous day and it was the fifth custodian on the list that should have been called. Another secretary, perhaps from Union Educational Complex School or Dorcus Elementary School, stated that she had her own list of custodians that she called on a rotating basis. She does not call from the county 40

Draft November 2009 list. The calling of substitute custodians did not appear to be on a rotating basis which does not comply with school law. Substitute bus operators are called by the transportation supervisor and cooks are called by an individual from the central office. It was not determined who called substitute secretaries. 6.

Positions filled with substitutes per W.Va. Code §18A-4-15. The finance personnel indicated that the county posts and fills all vacancies which result from an approved leave of absence or on the job injuries (workers compensation). The document listing seniority of service personnel, dated September 1, 2009, stated that “Substitutes utilized as temporary long-term substitutes for regular employees on leave of absence may be entitled to an adjusted seniority date once they have obtained regular employee status within the same classification. Employees are encouraged to review their records and bring such involvements to the personnel department’s attention when appointed to a regular position.” Note: Effective July 1, 2007, W.Va. Code §18A-4-15 the temporary long-term substitute no longer accrues regular seniority.

7.

Application. The service personnel application (bid sheet) needed to be revised to list seniority. It should also show if the individual has passed the State competency test or if he/she holds or previously held the classification. It should request information concerning past performance evaluations. The form asked for information that the application would not be able to address. It stated, “If awarded this requested position, would you be required to supervise a spouse; parent; sibling; the spouse of a parent, sibling or child; or an individual with whom you have a relationship that would be regarded as a common law relationship? Yes____ No____ (If yes, provide identities of individual on a separate sheet.)” If an individual takes a supervisory position, how will he/she know if someone who falls into one of the categories listed above will transfer or be hired into an area in which he/she supervises? The application also asks, “Do you have a spouse; parent; sibling or child; or an individual with whom you have a relationship that would be regarded as a common law relationship, who serves in a position at or above the rank of principal or equivalent supervisory position? Yes____ No____. (If yes, provide identities of individuals on a separate sheet.)” Does this mean, if the answer is yes, the individual would not be eligible for employment or transfer? The above requirement did not seem to be a part of the county policy on the Employment of Service Personnel, Policy 4120.

41

Draft November 2009

8.

Other. According to the interim superintendent, the personnel section of the board agenda is not posted prior to the board meeting. Information concerning personnel to be acted on at the board meeting is given only to the board members in advance. Other individuals only become aware of action to be taken at the actual meeting. This may be in violation of the Open Meeting Laws (W. Va. School Law, Chapter 6) or interpretations from the Ethics Commission. In training sessions provided for superintendents and board members, it has been stated that agenda items (including the name of the person to be employed, transferred, etc.,) are to be posted prior to a board meeting. If the name of the person is not available at the time the agenda is prepared, the board agenda item has to be listed, without a name (which will be provided at the meeting). This process provides interested individuals an opportunity to know it will be an agenda item if they wish to attend the meeting. If the specific position is not on the agenda it cannot be added the night of the meeting.

9.

Employment of Interim Superintendent. Board minutes showed that an interim superintendent was appointed September 25, 2009 and effective October 1, 2009. The new superintendent was a classroom teacher and still teaches one period a day. The interim superintendent did not resign her teaching position.

42

Draft November 2009 7.6.2. Licensure. Professional educators and other professional employees required to be licensed under West Virginia Board of Education policy are licensed for their assignments including employees engaged in extracurricular activities. (W.Va. Code §18A-3-2; Policy 5202) The Team found several violations of W.Va. Code §18A-3-2 and West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5202. The following chart explains the certification issues the Team observed through a detailed review of the certified list, WVEIS Master Course Schedule, and the West Virginia Department of Education Certification Database. A majority of the errors were related to WVEIS coding in the Master Schedule. Several waivers and applications were requested to assist in helping the teachers assigned to positions be eligible to continue teaching in the positions. The Coaches’ Database was not up to date and reflected several individuals in positions who in reality were no longer assigned to athletics. CountySchool

Educator Name

Educator Petersburg High School (PHS)

Educator

Courses/ Content Teaching

Certification/ Status

63013I Multi-Cat K-Adult Tech Chem Autism K-Adult 30223I- App Restricted Eng. Math 5-Adult (T/U) 411604 Severe Autism Inst. Disabilities PKAdult

(PHS)

Educator

305030 College Alg. 30473X Statistics

Math 5-12

Educator

6009 Sci. 9

No certification currently held

Educator

400930 English 9

(PHS)

(PHS)

(PHS)

Theatre PK-AD Elem K-6 Oral Communications 5-AD

43

Findings

Recommendations

3022 AND 3023 are no longer valid courses/codes 4116 is an endorsement code, correct to reflect course being taught and requires a U in the sixth position 3050 course/code is indicated as College Alg., is no longer valid Not certified

Rename and label math course with a valid course/title for 3022 and 3023 Please correct name or code for actual course being taught.

4009 requires English End.

Correct course/code to reflect a valid course offering, such as 30210X Make application on Form 20T or Form 1-1A Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received).

Draft November 2009 Educator

163500 Manual/Aut o 163700 Suspension

Application denied 20081208

Not certified

Educator

801300

Elem. K-6

8013 requires a G

Educator

80170R

Multi-Cat 5-Adult

Teaching below 5th grade

Educator

801300

Elem. K-6

8013 requires a G

Educator

80170R

Multi-Cat 5-Adult

Teaching below 5th grade

Educator

2605 Head Start

Community Programs Authorization expired June 30,

Renew

(PHS)

Petersburg Elementary School (PES)

(PES)

Maysville Elementary School (202)

(202)

Dorcas Elementary School (201)

44

Apply for certification or correct position to accurately reflect name of person holding position Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received). Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received) Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received) and Correct course code Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received) Make application Form 50 for Community Programs or

Draft November 2009 2008 (201)

Educator Educator

Speech Lang Path Alg. I

Union Educational Complex School (101)

Unknown General Substitute

Educator

703100 Civic/Gov’t

OK

Educator

801700

Permit for MultiCat

Educator

6302 Adv. Chem

Bio 9-Adult Gen. Sci. 5-Adult

Educator

681100 Driver’s Ed 029070 Ag Explor

Ag. Education

Educator

801700

SLD MI

(101)

(101)

(101)

(101)

(101)

45

Cannot locate certification In position since September 8, 2009

No longer at school, transferred before school 8017 must have a 6th position exceptionality in place 6302course/ code is no longer valid and Chemistry requires Chemistry Endorsement

6811 requires Drivers Ed Endorsement and 0290 is not a valid course code 8017 must have a 6th position exceptionality in place

identify person in position Verify legal name and certification To hold position for longer than 30 days requires a long-term substitute permit. Request Waiver or complete Form 2 Verify person in the teaching assignment Correct course code

Please correct course/code to reflect a valid course offering and Apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received) Apply for FirstClass/Full-Time Permit using Form 1-1A and correct course code Correct course code

Draft November 2009 Educator

801700

Elem K-6 Early Ed. PK-K

8017 must have a 6th position exceptionality in place and requires specific endorsement

Educator

801700

Multi-Cat K-Adult

8017 must have a 6th position exceptionality in place

(101)

(101)

46

Correct course code and apply for Out-offield or permit on Form 1-1A. (Waiver requested and pending in OPP Oct. 20, but no application received) Correct course code

Draft November 2009 The following chart indicates the percent of highly qualified teachers by school, content area and percent. HQT- Highly Qualified by Name, Content Area & Percent 2008-2009

County-School

Educator NameNot Highly Qualified (where applicable)

Dorcas Elem.

Maysville

Educator Educator

Educator Petersburg Elementary

Educator

Educator

Educator Petersburg High

Educator Educator Educator Educator

Educator Educator Educator Union Educational Complex

Courses/Content Teaching

% Highly Qualified

Self-Contained Reading/ Language Arts Overall Self-Contained Mathematics English Science Reading/Language Arts History Arts Collaborative Overall Self-Contained

100 100 100 96.0 50.0 100 100 100 100 100 N/A 96.2 94.8

Mathematics English Science Reading/Language Arts History Arts Collaborative Overall Mathematics English Science Reading/Language Arts Geography Economics History Civics/Government Arts Foreign Languages Overall Self-Contained

100 100 100 96.8 100 100 N/A 97.0 73.7 91.4 85.0 76.2 100 100 85.7 57.1 100 63.6 83.5 100

Mathematics

100

47

Draft November 2009 Educator

English Science Reading/Language Arts Geography History Civics/Government Arts Foreign Languages Collaborative Overall Self-Contained Mathematics English Science Reading/Language Arts Economics Geography History Civics/Government Arts Foreign Languages Overall

Educator

Educator Educator Educator Grant County

55.6 100 62.5 100 100 0.0 94.1 100 90.4 96.4 83.5 89.8 90.9 89.4 100 100 92.6 44.4 99 69.2 91.6

Coaches Database Coach Name not listed in Coaches Database Coach Coach

Coach Name listed in Coaches Database without Coaching Authorization Coach Coach Coach

Date application made to Office of Professional Preparation (Approved) 7-31-2009 6-12-2009

Coaching Authorization Expired 6-30-2008 Expired 6-30-2008 Expired 6-30-2009

48

Draft November 2009 Out-of-Field & First-Class/Full-Time Permits Issued to Grant County 2009-10 Type Out-of-Field- Initial Out-of-Field- Initial Out-of-Field- Renewal First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Initial First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Initial First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Initial First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Initial First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Initial First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Renewal First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Renewal First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Renewal First-Class/Full-Time Permit- Renewal

Teacher Name Educator Educator Educator Educator

Endorsement Autism Multi-Categorical Reading Specialist English

Programmatic Level 5-Adult 5-Adult PK-Adult 5-Adult

Educator

5-Adult

Educator

Family and Consumer Science Autism

K-6

Educator

Autism

5-Adult

Educator

PK-Adult

Educator

School/Library Media School Nurse

Educator

Multi-Categorical

5-Adult

Educator

Spanish

5-Adult

Educator

Math

5-Adult

PK-Adult

**Waivers requested for the 2009-2010 School-Year (First-Class/Full-Time Permits) Teacher Name Educator Educator Educator Educator Educator

Endorsement Gifted Multi-categorical English Chemistry PK Special Needs

Programmatic Level 1-12 K-6 5-Adult 9-Adult PK-K

49

Draft November 2009

7.6.3. Evaluation. The county board adopts and implements an evaluation policy for professional and service personnel that is in accordance with W.Va. Code, West Virginia Board of Education policy, and county policy. (W.Va. Code §18A-2-12; Policy 5310; Policy 5314) The Team reviewed personnel files of a random sampling of 15 teachers, containing teachers from all five schools with 0-5 years of teaching experience. The Team found the following problems. Teacher Evaluations. 1.

2008-2009 school year. The personnel files of seven teachers contained only one evaluation. Principals interviewed reported they had submitted the second evaluation at the end of the year, but apparently the evaluations did not get filed and no one in the central office knew where they were.

2.

2008-2009 school year. evaluations.

3.

2007-2008 school year. The personnel file of one teacher contained no evaluation.

4.

2007-2008 school year. The personnel file of one teacher contained only one evaluation (Two are required for a third year teacher).

5.

2006-2007 school year. The personnel file of one teacher had no evaluation.

The personnel files for three teachers contained no

Support Personnel Evaluations. The random review of files contained five personnel files for professional support personnel (counselors, librarians, speech therapist, etc.,) with the following findings. 1.

One counselor, who according to West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5310 and Grant County Board of Education personal evaluation policy, should have been evaluated twice each year had only one evaluation for the 2007-08 year and only one evaluation for the 2008-09 year.

2.

Two librarians and one speech-language therapist, each had more than five years of experience and should have been evaluated every three (3) years, had not been evaluated for at least seven years.

3.

One counselor should have had two evaluations in the 2008-09 year and only had one evaluation.

50

Draft November 2009 Coach Evaluations. The Team reviewed evaluation files for eight extracurricular coaches/sponsors and interviewed some principals which produced the following findings. 1.

No evaluations were found for the 2008-09 year for five (5) extracurricular coaches/sponsors.

2.

Evaluations for two coaches did not meet the West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5310 requirement of being completed “within a four (4) week period at the conclusion of each sport’s season”.

3.

The required observation forms were not coaches/sponsors at Petersburg High School.

completed

for

extracurricular

Service Personnel. The Team randomly reviewed a sampling of service personal evaluations for the service personnel classifications of custodian, bus operator, cook, mechanic, secretary and secretary/accountant/coordinator. Nineteen (19) evaluations were reviewed for the 2008-09 year, all except one were completed in accordance with State Board Policy 5310 and the service personnel evaluation policy of the Grant County Board of Education. One mechanic did not have an evaluation for the 2008-09 year. School Administrators. Most personnel files for school administrators that the Team reviewed contained a narrative evaluation by the superintendent, but the narrative did not address progress toward meeting a set of agreed upon goals for the 2008-09 year. Interviews with administrators did not produce copies of agreed upon lists of goals for the evaluation process for the 2008-2009 year. The Team found lists of goals for the 2007-2008 administrators’ evaluation with some administrators. Three administrators did not have evaluations for the 2008-09 school year. One administrator had only one evaluation for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 years and should have had two evaluations each year. One administrator’s evaluation for the 2007-08 school year was not signed by the evaluator. Superintendent’s Evaluation. According to the Board Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2009, the superintendent’s evaluation was not completed by the board “Because the September 15, 2008, deadline for establishing agreed upon goals for the superintendent for the 2008-2009 year had not been met (goals were not accepted by the board until September 23, 2008), the board did not complete an evaluation for the superintendent.”

51

Draft November 2009 Additional Evaluation Issue. The OEPA school Team noted that the administrator at Petersburg High School did not have a plan for completing the observation and evaluation of professional personnel by the November 1 deadline.

7.6.4. Teacher and principal internship. The county board develops and implements a beginning teacher internship program and a beginning principal internship program that conform with W.Va. Code and West Virginia Board of Education policies. (W.Va. Code §18A-3-2b and 2d; Policy 5899; Policy 5900) The OEPA school Team noted several teachers who had not gone through the mentorship program. These included four teachers at Petersburg High School and one teacher at Union Educational Complex School. Information concerning the beginning teacher internship program was not available for review. However, the county had employed NEOLA to develop their policies. NEOLA has a policy on the beginning teacher internship program; however, the Team found no policy for a beginning principal internship program. A list showing four mentors for Grant County beginning teachers were hired at the October 14, 2009 board meeting. The postings for the mentors were not available for review; however, the board agenda noted that the mentors were hired under contracted services rather than an extracurricular assignment which would appear to be more appropriate. Two new teachers were hired on July 14, 2009 and two were hired August 11, 2009. No new teacher or principal was interviewed concerning the beginning teacher program. No new principal was identified. Positions for mentors should be posted upon the employment of the new teacher or principal so that mentors will be in place to assist the new teacher at the beginning of the school year. 7.7. SAFE, DRUG FREE, VIOLENCE FREE, AND DISCIPLINED SCHOOLS. 7.7.2. Policy implementation. The county and schools implement: a policy governing disciplinary procedures; a policy for grading consistent with student confidentiality; policies governing student due process rights and nondiscrimination; the Student Code of Conduct policy; the Racial, Sexual, Religious/Ethnic Harassment, and Violence policy; an approved policy on tobacco use; an approved policy on substance abuse; and an approved policy on AIDS Education. (W.Va. Code §18A-5-1 and §18-8-8; Policy 2421; Policy 2422.4; Policy 2422.5; Policy 4373; Policy 2515) W.Va. Code §18A-1-12a (17) states, “All official and enforceable personnel policies of a county board must be written and made available to its employees.” The following areas indicated that the listed policies needed to be reviewed.

52

Draft November 2009

Grant County policies on Programs of Study were not up-to-date with West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, effective date July 7, 2008. The following portions of Grant County’s policies were out-dated. Policy 2230 – Program of Study Early Childhood (revised 10/9/07). The section describing the K-2 subject requirements only mentioned an uninterrupted 90 minute reading block, instead of the language which requires “a daily uninterrupted 90 minute reading/English language arts block.” The section that listed the other content areas in the Grant County Program of Study at K-2 just contained the information that “specific content area instruction in the following content areas may or may not be offered daily. “ It did not reflect the new language of Policy 2510, “Sufficient emphasis must be placed on the given content areas to ensure that students master content knowledge and skills as specified in the 21st century content standards and objectives for each subject.” The Grant County Program of Study for Grades 3-4 contained the language requiring 60 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction. This is no longer in Policy 2510. The physical education requirement has also changed. Policy 2230.01 – Program of Study Middle Level Education (adopted 2005). The Grant County Program of Study for Grades 5-8 required a 90-minute reading and English/language arts block within a 225 minute day, while Policy 2510 requires a core block of courses (Reading and English/Language Arts, Mathematics/Algebra I, Science and Social Studies) for no less than 180 minutes. The semester requirement for physical education was also missing. Policy 2230.02 – Program of Study Adolescent Education (Grades 9-12) (2006). Graduation requirements for Grades 9-12 were not according to the current Policy 2510. This entire section of the Grant County Program of Study needed to be updated and reflect current requirements of Policy 2510.

1000 – ADMINISTRATION 1120 - 1240 no subsection– Evaluation of Superintendent - no date 2000 – PROGRAM 2105 –Mission of the County – no date 2111 – Parent Involvement in the School Program – no date 2220 – Adoption of Programs of Study – 2007 – revised – 10/9/07 (out-dated) 2230 – Program of Study Early Childhood – 2006 – revised 10/9/07 (out-dated) 2230.01 -- Program of Study Middle Level Education – 2005 (out-dated) 2230.02 – Program of Study Adolescent Education (Grades 9-12) – (out-dated) 2250 - no subsection 2312 – Class Size – no date 2350 and 2360 - no subsections 53

Draft November 2009 2412 and 2415 - no subsections 2416 – Student Privacy and Parental Access to Information – 2007 – revised 10/9/07 - please check sentence on page 9 of 18 under Prior Consent for Disclosure Not Required – first “is” – should read “if” 2430.01 - no subsection 2430.02 – Participation in Extra Curricular Activities – 2005 Confusion in Manual -- Top of this subsection reads “Second Reading” “Attachment VIII.7” approved date – 7/10/07 2460 – Special Education Administration of Services – 2005 page 2 – Caseloads – July 16, 2001 -- Check new regulations 3000 – PROFESSIONAL STAFF 3113 and 3114 - no subsections 3120 – Employment of Professional Personnel – 2006 - no subsections for 3120.02, .04, .05, .06, .07 in tab section table of contents but the subsection for .05 was in place 3124 – Probationary Contract – 2005 - no subsection for 3124.01 3132 – Vacancies – Professional Positions – 2005 3133, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 no subsections 3170 – no subsection 3431 – Personal Leave – 2007 – 4/29/08 3432 – Personal Leave Bank – Not in Manual 3432.02 – Personal Leave Donation Program – 2007 – Adopted 7/21/08

5000 – STUDENTS 5130 – Withdrawal from School – Missing first 2 pages 5200 – Attendance – Confusion in Manual – “Seconding Reading” “Attachment VIII.4” – revised 3/13/07 – approved 5/22/07, yet Board of Education Minutes – July 14, 2009 shows Second Reading, but no subsequent BOE minutes showed approval 5410 – Promotion, Acceleration, Placement, and Retention – no date 5460 – Graduation Requirements – no date

8000 – OPERATIONS 8340 – Letters of Reference – Not in Manual 8420 – Emergency Evacuation of School – Not in Manual

54

Draft November 2009 7.8. LEADERSHIP. 7.8.1. Leadership. Leadership at the school district, school, and classroom levels is demonstrated by vision, school culture and instruction, management and environment, community, and professionalism. (Policy 5500.03) W.Va. Code §18A-2-12a (1) provides “The effective and efficient operation of the public schools depends upon the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between county boards and school personnel.” The Office of Education Performance Audits (OEPA) Team interviewed the President of the Grant County Board of Education and the other four board members, the interim superintendent, former superintendent (July 1 to September 30, 2009), superintendent’s secretary, county office staff, principals, teachers, retired teachers, parents, community and business individuals, and Grant County officials. A large number of people requested to talk with the OEPA Team concerning the Grant County School District’s educational system. The Team reviewed agendas and minutes of the Grant County Board of Education meetings, relevant memoranda, letters, and documents; conferred with Team members checking Curriculum, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the County Five-Year Strategic Plan, Facilities, Finance, Personnel; and reviewed the individual school audit reports. Multiple sources were used as the basis for the following conclusions about leadership conditions present in the Grant County School System. Findings 1.

Board Member Training. Only one board member had participated in the required training in boardsmanship, governance effectiveness, and school performance issues as prescribed by W.Va. Code 18-5-1a(f).

2.

Evaluation of Superintendent. The Grant County Board of Education neither developed the former county superintendent’s goals and objectives for the 2008-09 school year as prescribed by W.Va. Code §18-4-6 nor conducted the superintendent’s evaluation.

3.

Local School Improvement Council. Required meetings with the board and each school’s local school improvement council (LSIC) were not held as required by W.Va. Codes §18-5-14 and §18-5A-2. The Team reviewed board agendas from July 2008 to the present (October 2009). There was no evidence that the board received or discussed the schools’ Five-Year Strategic Plans with the LSICs.

55

Draft November 2009

4.

Board of Education Meetings. The Grant County Board did not hold meetings if the county superintendent could not be present. The board rescheduled meetings for the superintendent with the exception of one meeting in which the assistant superintendent was appointed designee. The OEPA Team determined that important board business was delayed due to this practice.

5.

Board Authority. Grant County Board of Education Policy Series 0000 Bylaws, 0110. Identification, Section C states “. . . the Board of Education has been assigned specific authority through statute, and the Board shall not relinquish or fail to exercise that authority.” Board minutes and agendas showed instances in which a member or members of the board of education failed to exercise their statutory obligations pertaining to public education and carrying out the board’s responsibility. Specific board meeting dates and examples are listed.

•

August 26, 2008. The minutes did not show that the board came out of executive session to open session to dismiss the meeting.

•

November 17, 2008. County Office Director appeared before the board during “Delegations” and read a letter of support of the superintendent. The director also handed a letter to the board from the principals in support of the superintendent.

•

December 9, 2008. Motion made and seconded to extend superintendent’s contract for two years. Motion failed 3 to 2. Superintendent’s contract was not extended. This decision was not respected since the item was placed on two future meeting agendas.

•

January 13, 2009. New business – minutes did not record that the superintendent made a recommendation on action taken by the board. Minutes stated the next meeting will be February 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

•

January 22, 2009. Agenda and board minutes were missing.

•

February 10, 2009. Motion to renew superintendent’s contract for one year. Motion failed. Discussion of superintendents goals approval after deadline. One board member requested superintendent’s evaluation be an agenda item at the next meeting.

•

February 14, 2009. Board minutes listed “Superintendent’s Evaluation” as an item. The minutes revealed that the goals for the superintendent were not accepted by the board until September 23, 2008. According to the minutes one member provided data on the date the goals were provided to the board prior to the September 15 deadline for approval. The minutes stated the evaluation for the 56

Draft November 2009 superintendent will not be completed because the board did not accept the goals by the deadline and did not have sufficient time to complete the evaluation by the deadline as well. •

February 24, 2009. Superintendent’s evaluation discussed.

•

March 24, 2009. Minutes indicate adjourned meeting and will convene Tuesday, April 21, 2009. If reconvened, the meeting should have been recessed. Special meetings were held between the March 24, 2009 recess and the April 21, 2009 reconvened meeting. The special meetings occurred March 27, March 30, April 1, and April 9. March 24, 2009. Citizens Appeal hearing listed as January 10, 2009. The date was incorrect. It should have stated February 10, 2009.

•

April 21, 2009. Approved minutes for February 10, March 24, March 22, March 30, April 1, and April 9 meetings.

•

May 26, 2009. The board removed the administrative placement of the out-going superintendent from the personnel list to be voted on separately. This was placed under “unfinished business” and failed with 2 ayes; 3 nays. The board president “noted that in light of the present litigation he hopes everyone has talked with their legal counsel as to whether they can or cannot vote.” It is irregular for the superintendent to place herself on the personnel recommendations and it is further irregular for a board of education to consider this recommendation.

•

June 9, 2009. Agenda item “Letter received by the board from the superintendent was placed on the June 9, 2009 agenda and recorded in the minutes. Three members recused themselves from this item due to “pending litigation by the current superintendent . . . .” Minutes of this meeting indicated that a board member was responding to citizens who had questions about the letter that had been addressed to him and sent to all board members from the newly hired superintendent who would be taking office July 1, 2009. The Team found this item irregular. Since the letter in question was only sent to board members, it was questionable as to how community members had been informed of its existence. Additionally, the public response of two board members, the reading of portions of the letter by a board member in the meeting, and copies of the letter for the public at the board meeting in addition to copies of litigation by the current superintendent against three board members demonstrated a disregard for prudent board of education actions to diffuse a conflicting situation.

57

Draft November 2009 It is highly unconventional for board of education members to publicize correspondence related to personnel issues. The comments in the board minutes during this item said “the letter was threatening . . . .” The OEPA Team felt this discussion established an adversarial climate for the incoming superintendent. •

June 30, 2009. Three board members did not attend this meeting; therefore, a quorum was not present. On July 14, 2009 a board member moved and the motion was seconded to approve the 6-30-09 meeting and the 7-1-09 meeting. The motion passed for 6-30-09 with 5 ayes; 0 nays. For the 7-1-09 meeting, the vote was 3 ayes; 2 abstentions.

•

July 1, 2009. A board meeting was called by the vice president with the purpose to ratify the signing of the new superintendent’s contract on behalf of the board. Two members, the board president and another member were not present. Various reports were made to the Team regarding notification of this meeting. The Team observed a special meeting announcement signed by the three attendees. This announcement was dated July 29, 2009, the day prior to the June 30, 2009 meeting that three members did not attend. The board president never signed the newly hired superintendent’s contract. This constituted an abandonment of the board president’s responsibilities. This superintendent was hired by a 5 ayes member vote.

•

July 23, 2009. The board entered executive session under W.Va. Code §6-9A-4, SubParagraph 2A and 12 and reconvened into open session at 8:06 p.m. Minutes did not include the statement, “No action taken.”

•

September 8, 2009. Minutes reported one board member vacated the meeting after executive session.

•

August 8, 2009. County Office Director appeared before Board during “Delegations” to share information from the previous superintendent who is President of the West Virginia Association of School Administrators (WVASA) on OPEB. Again this was irregular for a county employee (the same employee who spoke during Delegations November 17, 2008) to deliver this message from a former superintendent.

•

October 1, 2009. An emergency meeting was called “mainly to take care of” the posting for a human resources/secondary education director. The interim superintendent, assumed office that day and was not postured to make a recommendation. The board should not be initiating a meeting to hire personnel without the county superintendent’s recommendation (W.Va. Code §18-5-32).

58

Draft November 2009 •

October 13, 2009. A regular meeting of the Grant County Board of Education was announced and held at 7:00 p.m. The announcement and agenda included “A Planning Session at 5:00 p.m.” The “Planning Session” was the Grant County Board of Education’s review and rating of applications for the superintendent’s position for Grant County Schools. The announcement was misleading to the public and the board’s rating of candidates was conducted in a public meeting. While this meeting may or may not have been legal, it demonstrated a veiled attempt of informing the public about the purpose of this meeting relative to hiring a superintendent to replace the one who resigned effective September 30, 2009.

All board members indicated that the superintendent hired to begin July 1, 2009 and was elected by unanimous board vote because the board made an agreement to place the former superintendent into an administrative position and agreed to vote for the appointment of the superintendent. The majority of the board members “reneged” on this agreement and this apparently created the complete split in the board and made it difficult for the incoming superintendent to work with the board. This appears to be an obstacle in the intra-workings of the board as it affects the way board members think about each other and their actions. Discussions relative to this matter have consumed board meetings and resulted in turmoil among board members. It has also negatively affected county board of education as a staff in charge of personnel and secondary curriculum has not be hired. Litigation filed in federal court by a former superintendent as employment discrimination resulted in board division. A former superintendent has sued three members of the county board of education. There is a sharp division in the board with three board members voting together and controlling the actions of the board. Just about all issues involving the former superintendent that come before the board are disposed of on a 3-2 vote.

59

Draft November 2009 8.1 INDICATORS OF EFFICIENCY 8.1.1. Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. No central office staff member was assigned the duties for the secondary level curriculum. This position has been vacant since July 1, 2009. Dorcas Elementary School had a half-time principal assigned from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., after which the principal serves as assistant principal at Petersburg Elementary School. After 10:30 a.m. each day a curriculum and instructional leader is not available at Dorcas Elementary School. Programs of study issues were listed in school reports at Maysville Elementary School, Petersburg High School, and Union Educational Complex School. Distance learning was not being used at the two high schools to meet the schools’ curriculum needs. 8.1.4. Administrative practices. The school district assesses the assignment of administrative personnel to determine the degree to which managerial/administrative services provided to the schools establish and support high quality curriculum and instructional services. Administrative practices in the Grant County School District obstructed managerial/administrative services provided schools and did not support high quality curriculum and instructional services. These practices are included throughout the county level report and the individual school reports. The Team reported that misdirected attention and resources to curriculum and instructional services have not served to improve student performance. The board of education acted on student placement in teachers’ classes for the 2009-10 school term. The assignment process was done at the central office and monitored by two central office directors. This is a school level process and the board should function at a higher level than engage in school-based decisions. Furthermore, valuable time of two central office directors was used by this activity. If student/teacher assignment is problematic at the school level, the appropriate chain of command should be followed. The board should provide the policy for administrators to follow. Other instances were presented by educators and community members indicating that the former superintendent managed school-based issues that again should have proceeded through the progression of employee to supervisor. Several complaints/grievances/litigation issues are now in progress in the county. One has lingered unresolved for over two years.

60

Draft November 2009 8.1.5. Personnel. The school district assesses the assignment of personnel as based on West Virginia Code and West Virginia Board of Education policies to determine the degree to which instructional and support services provided to the schools establish and support high quality curriculum and instructional services. The central office staff seems to be fragmented. Staff interviewed seemed to be unsure of what duties they were assigned. Huge gaps were left unattended, such as, the personnel director and secondary curriculum specialist (currently assigned to the interim superintendent). When the Team asked for certain documentation, many staff members referred to people who were no longer employed by Grant County Schools. A mechanism was not in place to ensure continuity during personnel changes. An interview with the interim superintendent revealed that she recognized the need for the organization of central office personnel with clear assignments of specific duties. The Team noted that the principal at Union Educational Complex also served as the county attendance director. They felt that his duties in this stipend position caused the principal to struggle with the multiple tasks assigned to being a principal. The school did not have an assistant principal; therefore, the principal identified team leaders at each programmatic level to handle the discipline and most instructional issues. Teachers identified them as the “instructional leaders” of the school. Current personnel needs included: A director of personnel or secretary of personnel, secondary curriculum specialist, and additional substitute bus operators.

61

Draft November 2009

CAPACITY BUILDING 18.1. Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. Grant County School District has failed to demonstrate the capacity to operate effectively and efficiently and to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The system has operated without an excess levy for six years. The county office leadership and the Grant County Board of Education has been in a tumultuous state since at least October 2008. Consequently, central office staff, schools, and the community at large are affected by the actions and/or inactions of the local board of education and the county office leadership.

62

Draft November 2009

RECOMMENDATION The Education Performance Audit of the Grant County School District revealed irreconcilable conditions present in the school district that prevent a thorough and efficient education system. These include, but are not limited to, the following conditions. 1.

Leadership stability. calendar year.

Grant County has had three superintendents this

2.

No one has been in charge of personnel from July 1, 2009 to October 1, 2009. An official position remains vacant.

3.

No one has been in charge of secondary curriculum since July 1, 2009.

4.

School-level performance has declined.

5.

Central office staff mistrust has affected cooperative work relationships and time-on-task in responding to schools’ needs.

6.

Serious deficiencies existed in the schools and at the central office level.

7.

The Grant County Board of Education is not exercising its duties and responsibilities according to West Virginia Code.

Due to the preceding conditions and the inability of Grant County to govern itself, the Office of Education Performance Audits finds that students are not being provided a thorough and efficient system of schools as required by law. The provisions of W.Va. Code §18-2E-5(q) state, Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the state board may intervene immediately in the county school system with all the powers, duties, and responsibilities contained in subsection (p) of this section if the state board finds the following: (1) That the conditions precedent to intervention exist . . . and that delaying intervention for any period of time would not be in the best interest of the county school system. The Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education issue the Grant County School System Nonapproval status and declare a state of emergency in the school system. It is further recommended that the State Board intervene immediately in the operation of the school system and exercise full intervention as authorized by W.Va. Code §18-2E5 (p)(C).

63

INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009 WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

64

Initial November 2009 INTRODUCTION An announced Education Performance Audit of Dorcas Elementary School in Grant County was conducted on October 6, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate the reasons for performance and progress that are persistently below standard and to make recommendations to the school and school system, as appropriate, and to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the standard. The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan, interviewed school personnel and school system administrators, observed classrooms, and examined school records. The review was limited in scope and concentrated on the subgroups that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Allen D. Brock, Coordinator West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – Steve Higgins, CAG, Office of Title II - School and School System Improvement TEAM MEMBERS Name

Title

School/County

Brad A. Fittro

Elementary School Assistant Principal

Anna Jarvis Elementary School Taylor County

Jeff A. Pancione

Elementary School Principal

Augusta Elementary School Hampshire County

65

Initial November 2009 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

201 DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed Dewayne Hedrick, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 132 (2nd month 2007-2008 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2007-2008 Met Part. Met Number Number Met Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Enrolled Enrolled on Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard for FAY Test Week Mathematics Confidence All 44 46 45 97.82 61.36 Yes Interval White 43 45 44 97.77 60.46 NA NA NA Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Hispanic * * * * * * * * Indian * * * * * * * * Asian * * * * * * * * Low 25 26 25 96.15 60.00 NA NA NA SES Spec. 14 14 14 100.00 42.85 NA NA NA Ed. LEP * * * * * * * * Reading/Language Arts Confidence All 44 46 45 97.82 65.90 Yes Interval White 43 45 44 97.77 65.11 NA NA NA Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Hispanic * * * * * * * * Indian * * * * * * * * Asian * * * * * * * * Low 25 26 25 96.15 68.00 NA NA NA SES Spec. 14 14 14 100.00 28.57 NA NA NA Ed. LEP * * * * * * * * Group

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 99.0%

66

Initial November 2009 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

201 DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed Dewayne Hedrick, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 126 (2nd month 2008-2009 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2008-2009 Number Met Part. Met Number Met Enrolled Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Group Enrolled on Test Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard for FAY Week Mathematics Confidence All 40 40 40 100.00 42.50 Yes Interval White 39 39 39 100.00 41.02 NA NA NA Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Hispanic * * * * * * * * Indian * * * * * * * * Asian * * * * * * * * Low 24 24 24 100.00 37.50 NA NA NA SES Spec. ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Ed. LEP * * * * * * * * Reading/Language Arts All 40 40 40 100.00 62.50 Yes Yes White 39 39 39 100.00 61.53 NA NA NA Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Hispanic * * * * * * * * Indian * * * * * * * * Asian * * * * * * * * Low 24 24 24 100.00 54.16 NA NA NA SES Spec. ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA Ed. LEP * * * * * * * *

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 99.0%

67

Initial November 2009 DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class Mathematics (2009) Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 10 10 10 10 100.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 04 13 13 13 13 100.00 0.00 53.85 38.46 7.69 0.00 46.15 05 * * * 7 100.00 14.29 42.86 42.86 0.00 0.00 42.86 06 10 10 10 10 100.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 10.00 0.00 60.00 Reading (2009) Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 10 10 10 10 100.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 04 13 13 13 13 100.00 15.38 38.46 30.77 7.69 7.69 46.15 05 * * * * 100.00 0.00 14.29 42.86 42.86 0.00 85.71 06 10 10 10 10 100.00 0.00 10.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 90.00 Enr. - Enrollment FAY - Full Academic Year Part. - Participation

Note: Cells with less than 10 are reported as *.

68

Initial November 2009 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 5.1.1.

Achievement. The WESTEST results of schools with a number (N) of 50 are averaged for a three year period to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP). Even considering this factor, mathematics subgroups only achieved AYP by confidence interval and experienced a dramatic decline from the 20072008 school year to the 2008-2009 school year. The reading/language arts percent proficient declined only slightly for the all students (AS) and racial/ethnicity white (W) subgroups and declined by about 14 percentage points for the economically disadvantaged (SES) subgroup. These performance results provide compelling data for Dorcas Elementary School and Grant Count to vigorously devote attention to the declining performance of affected subgroups and to improve curriculum and instruction. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class indicated scores below mastery in both mathematics and reading: Grade 3 – 80.00 percent in mathematics and 60 percent in reading; Grade 4 – 53.85 percent in mathematics and 53.85 percent in reading; Grade 5 – 57.14 percent in mathematics; Grade 6 - 40.00 percent in mathematics. These scores have implication for the Five-Year Strategic Plan and school improvement, in particular, Grade 3, percent proficient in mathematics at 20 percent was unacceptable. Class scores improved from Grade 4 to Grade 6. This should compel the county to immediately investigate causes and take appropriate action. Reading class percent proficient fared better; however, Grades 3 and 4 results were substantially less than Grades 5 and 6. The following professional development and/or training opportunities were provided as reported by the principal. 1. Analyzing WESTEST 2 Data to Plan Instruction. 2. Deconstructing the West Virginia 21st Century Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). 3. Curriculum Mapping. 4. Lexile and Quantile Training/Global 21. 5. Response to Intervention (RTI) in Mathematics and Reading. 6. Cheryl Ware Writing Workshop. 7. Unpacking the West Virginia 21st Century Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). 8. Collaboration/Cross Grade Planning. 9. Whiteboard Training/Websites. 10. Test Item Analysis. 11. Teach 21 Website.

69

Initial November 2009 The student percent at mastery in mathematics at all grade levels and reading for Grades 3 and 4 failed to indicate that the stated professional development/training activities positively affected student achievement.

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress. 7.1. Curriculum 7.1.3.

Learning environment. School staff provides a safe and nurturing environment that is conducive to learning. (Policy 2510) The playground did not have mulch or pea gravel (fall protection) under or near playground equipment. Exposed concrete and rock-hard ground created safety hazards for students in the event of a fall. Individual classroom teachers did not have a mechanism to call the office in an emergency. While the Team observed a few two-way radios in the building, teachers stated that there was no way to contact the office. It is essential that teachers have available sources to get help to the classrooms in an emergency situation and for daily operations.

7.1.4.

Instruction. Instruction is consistent with the programmatic definitions in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring the Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs (hereinafter Policy 2510). (Policy 2510) One Grade 1 teacher took the class to the gymnasium for play time during the 90 minute uninterrupted reading block. This was disruptive to the educational process. Dorcas Elementary School has three split-grade classrooms (Grades 2/3, 3/4, and 5/6). Although the teachers indicated that they were teaching the West Virginia 21st Century content standards and objectives (CSOs), this number of combined classrooms presented challenges to both teachers and students. Class WESTEST percent proficient assessment scores underscored this issue.

7.1.7.

Library/educational technology access and technology application. The application of technology is included throughout all programs of study and students have regular access to library/educational technology centers or classroom libraries. (Policy 2470; Policy 2510) Technology was utilized minimally. The Team observed less than 20 computers being used during the day of the Education Performance Audit. Additionally, a computer laboratory log did not show that technology was used to a great extent.

70

Initial November 2009 7.2. Student and School Performance 7.2.1.

County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic county strategic improvement plan and an electronic school strategic improvement plan are established, implemented, and reviewed annually. Each respective plan shall be a five-year plan that includes the mission and goals of the school or school system to improve student or school system performance or progress. The plan shall be revised annually in each area in which the school or system is below the standard on the annual performance measures. The school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan was weak and needed to be revised. It did not meet the school’s needs and did not specifically address the school’s low performance data. 7.8. Leadership

7.8.1.

Leadership. Leadership at the school district, school, and classroom levels is demonstrated by vision, school culture and instruction, management and environment, community, and professionalism. (Policy 5500.03) Schoolwide challenges existed that were embedded in the processes or structures that showed leadership at Dorcas Elementary School needed to be improved. The first factor was the very low percent mastery of students in mathematics (Grades 3 through 6). This mathematics deficiency was profound at Grade 3. A second factor involved instructional leadership in which the principal was one-half time at Dorcas Elementary School from around 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and then served as assistant principal at Petersburg Elementary School. This affected instructional leadership at the school. Finally, the high quality standards identified for improvement showed that school level leadership needed to be improved.

71

Initial November 2009

Indicators of Efficiency Indicators of efficiency for student and school system performance and processes were reviewed in the following areas: Curriculum delivery, including but not limited to, the use of distance learning; facilities; administrative practices; personnel; utilization of regional education service agency, or other regional services that may be established by their assigned regional education service agency. This section contains indicators of efficiency that the Education Performance Audit Team assessed as requiring more efficient and effective application. The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Dorcas Elementary School in providing a thorough and efficient system of education. Grant County is obligated to follow the Indicators of Efficiency noted by the Team. Indicators of Efficiency shall not be used to affect the approval status of Grant County or the accreditation status of the schools. 8.1.1.

Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. While test scores dramatically declined, the Team found a constant turnover in the Grades 3 and 4 split-grade teaching position over the past four years. The teacher currently in that position appeared to hold high expectations for all students. All students were on task with high quality instruction throughout the day of the Education Performance Audit. Also, the school had implemented high quality professional development to address the low achievement at the school. The Team believed that student achievement will increase if the stability given by this teacher remains and the staff development is properly implemented.

72 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Building Capacity to Correct Deficiencies West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 establishes that the needed resources are available to assist the school or school system in achieving the standards and alleviating the deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Dorcas Elementary School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended. 18.1.

Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The Team recommended that the Grant County School System Superintendent and the school administrator contact Dr. Karen Huffman, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Educator Quality and System Support at 304-558-3199 to arrange a School Support System for correcting the deficiencies and improving student and school performance.

Identification of Resource Needs A thorough and efficient system of schools requires the provision of an adequate level of appropriately managed resources. The West Virginia Board of Education adopted resource evaluation as a part of the accreditation and evaluation process. This process is intended to meaningfully evaluate the needs for facilities, personnel, curriculum, equipment and materials in each of the county’s schools and how those impact program and student performance. 19.1.

Facilities, equipment, and materials. Facilities and equipment specified in Policy 6200, Chapters 1 through 14, are available in all schools, classrooms, and other required areas. A determination will be made by using the Process for Improving Education (W.Va. Code §18-2E-5) whether any identified deficiencies adversely impact and impair the delivery of a high quality educational program if it is below the West Virginia Board of Education standards due to inadequacies or inappropriate management in the areas of facilities, equipment, and materials. The Education Performance Audit Teams shall utilize an assessment instrument for the evaluation of school facilities which generally follows the requirements of Policy 6200. Note: Corrective measures to be taken in response to any identified resource deficiency will of necessity be subject to the feasibility of modifying existing facilities, consideration of alternative methods of instructional delivery, availability of funding, and prioritization of educational needs through Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plans and the West Virginia School Building Authority. This policy does not change the authority, judgment, or priorities of the School 73 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Building Authority of West Virginia who is statutorily responsible for prioritizing “Need” for the purpose of funding school improvements or school construction in the State of West Virginia or the prerogative of the Legislature in providing resources. (Policy 6200 and Tomblin v. Gainer) According to the items checked in the School Facilities Evaluation Checklist, the school was below standard in the following areas. The principal checked and the Team confirmed the following school facility resource needs. 19.1.1.

School location. The school did not have five usable acres plus one acre for each 100 students over 240.

19.1.5.

Library/media and technology center. Electronic card catalogs, automated circulation capacity, and on-line periodical indexes were not available for student use.

19.1.10. Specialized instructional areas. The art facility did not have a work counter, mechanical ventilation, a ceramic kiln, or black-out areas. The music facilities did not have music chairs with folding arms, a podium, an instructor’s station, or acoustical treatment. The physical education facilities did not have a data projector or 50” screen monitor, network connection, or internet access. 19.1.15. Health service units. A health services unit of adequate size was not available. The following equipment and furnishings were not available: Curtained or small rooms with cots, bulletin board, toilet, lavatory, scales, medicine chest, refrigerator with locked storage, first aid kit, work counter, desk and chair, and locked medication box.

Early Detection and Intervention One of the most important elements in the Education Performance Audit process is monitoring student progress through early detection and intervention programs. Given the small number of students at Dorcas Elementary School, it is imperative that all students have high quality instruction to ensure that overall school performance increases. The administration must ensure that high quality professional development is implemented and that stability is provided at all grade levels.

74 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Education Performance Audit Summary The Team identified five high quality standards necessary to improve performance and progress. They include the following: 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.1.7. 7.2.1. 7.8.1.

Learning environment. Instruction. Library/educational technology access and technology application. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. Leadership.

The Team noted an indicator of efficiency, offered capacity building resources, and noted an early detection and intervention concern. Dorcas Elementary School’s Education Performance Audit was limited in scope to the performance and progress standards related to student and school performance. The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Dorcas Elementary School in improvement efforts. Section 17.10. of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320 states: If during an on-site review, a school or county board is found to be in noncompliance with one or more standards, the school and county electronic strategic improvement plans must be revised and shall be submitted to the West Virginia Board of Education within 30 days of receipt of the draft written report. The plans shall include objectives, a time line, a plan for evaluation of the success of the improvements, a cost estimate and a date certain for achieving full accreditation and/or full approval status as applicable. Based upon the results of the Education Performance Audit, the Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education direct Dorcas Elementary School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan within 30 days and correct the findings noted in the report.

75 Office of Education Performance Audits

INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009 WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

76

Initial November 2009 INTRODUCTION An announced Education Performance Audit of Maysville Elementary School in Grant County was conducted on October 6, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate the reasons for performance and progress that are persistently below standard and to make recommendations to the school and school system, as appropriate, and to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the standard. The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan, interviewed school personnel and school system administrators, observed classrooms, and examined school records. The review was limited in scope and concentrated on the subgroups that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Allen D. Brock, Coordinator West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – D. Dewayne Duncan, Assistant Director, Office of Institutional Education Programs TEAM MEMBERS Name

Title

School/County

Paula J. Athey

Primary School Principal

Wiley Ford Primary School Mineral County

Lynda J. Sago

Administrative Liaison

Marion County Schools

77

Initial November 2009 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

202 MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed Mark Nicol, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 209 (2nd month 2007-2008 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2007-2008 Group

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

Number Met Part. Met Number Met Enrolled Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Enrolled on Test Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard for FAY Week Mathematics 106 108 108 100.00 75.47 Yes Yes 106 * * * *

White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

100.00 * * * *

75.47 * * * *

Yes * * * *

Yes * * * *

* * * *

62

62

100.00

71.66

Yes

Yes

25

25

25

100.00

32.00

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

* 106

108

* * Reading/Language Arts 108 100.00 82.07

106

108

108

* * * *

*

108 * * * *

60

*

All

108 * * * *

*

* * * *

* * * *

Yes

Yes

100.00 * * * *

82.07 * * * *

Yes * * * *

Yes * * * *

* * * *

60

62

62

100.00

78.33

Yes

Yes

25

25

25

100.00

52.00

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 98.8%

78

Initial November 2009 24202 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed Mark Nicol, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 205 (2nd month 2008-2009 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2008-2009 Number Met Part. Met Met Number Enrolled Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Group Enrolled on Test Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard for FAY Week Mathematics Confidence All 102 106 105 99.05 56.43 Yes Interval Confidence White 102 106 105 99.05 56.43 Yes Interval Black * * * * * * * * Hispanic * * * * * * * * Indian * * * * * * * * Asian * * * * * * * * Low 61 65 64 98.46 60.00 Yes Yes SES Spec. 19 21 20 95.23 16.66 NA NA NA Ed. LEP * * * * * * * * Reading/Language Arts All 102 106 105 99.05 71.28 Yes Yes White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

102 * * * *

*

106 * * * *

105 * * * *

99.05 * * * *

71.28 * * * *

Yes * * * *

Yes * * * *

* * * *

61

65

64

98.46

68.33

Yes

Yes

19

21

20

95.23

22.22

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 99.1%

79

Initial November 2009 MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class Mathematics Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 24 21 24 21 100.00 0.00 42.86 33.33 19.05 4.76 57.14 04 30 29 29 28 96.67 0.00 39.29 46.43 10.71 3.57 60.71 05 28 28 28 28 100.00 7.14 39.29 39.29 10.71 3.57 53.57 06 24 24 24 24 100.00 12.50 33.33 29.17 16.67 8.33 54.17 Reading Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 24 21 24 21 100.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 0.00 0.00 71.43 04 30 29 29 28 96.67 0.00 35.71 46.43 14.29 3.57 64.29 05 28 28 28 28 100.00 10.71 17.86 46.43 21.43 3.57 71.43 06 24 24 24 24 100.00 0.00 20.83 37.50 33.33 8.33 79.17 Enr. - Enrollment FAY - Full Academic Year Part. - Participation

80

Initial November 2009 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY Achieved Standard. 5.1.1.

Achievement. Maysville Elementary School achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the all students (AS) and the racial/ethnicity white (W) subgroups in mathematics only by application of the confidence interval. It is further noted that the special education (SE) subgroup with the number (N) less than 50, scored far below the State’s percent proficient in mathematics and reading/language arts. The school’s percent proficient declined significantly in mathematics from 2007-2008 (AS – 75.47 percent) to 20082009 (AS – 56.43 percent). Reading/language arts percent proficiency also declined from 2007-2008 (AS – 82.07 percent) to 2008-2009 (AS – 71.28 percent). The county curriculum staff and school staff are urged to address these subgroups in the county and school Five-Year Strategic Plan and apply interventions to improve achievement of all students. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class indicated scores below mastery in both mathematics and reading: Grade 3 – 42.86 percent in mathematics and 28.57 percent in reading; Grade 4 – 39.29 percent in mathematics and 35.71 percent in reading; Grade 5 – 46.43 percent in mathematics and 28.57 percent in reading; Grade 6 – 45.83 percent in mathematics. These scores have implication for the Five-Year Strategic Plan and school improvement. The following professional development and/or training opportunities were provided as reported by the principal. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Curriculum Alignment. Response to Intervention (RTI). Teaming/Curriculum Collaboration. Five-Year Strategic Plan. WESTEST 2 Training. TechSteps. Vital School Survey. Exploring Teach 21. Deconstructing the West Virginia 21st Century Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). 21. Curriculum Mapping. 22. Lexile and Quantile Training. 23. Global 21. The significant decline in mathematics percent proficient indicates that county and school staffs must evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development and/or its application.

81

Initial November 2009 EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress 7.1. Curriculum 7.1.2.

High expectations. Through curricular offerings, instructional practices, and administrative practices, staff demonstrates high expectations for the learning and achieving of all students and all students have equal educational opportunities including enrichment and acceleration. (Policy 2510) The Team could not verify that all teachers exhibited high expectations for all students. At least half the teachers could not explain how they expected students to do their best work and at least half the students stated that instruction was “very easy”. Although teachers were utilizing a variety of instructional strategies, the instructional strategies were not of high quality. Relevance and rigor were not evident in the instruction that the Team observed. Instruction was not challenging throughout the school.

7.1.7.

Library/educational technology access and technology application. The application of technology is included throughout all programs of study and students have regular access to library/educational technology centers or classroom libraries. (Policy 2470; Policy 2510) The Team did not observe any students utilizing technology throughout the day of the Education Performance Audit. Several computers were turned on; however, students were not using them. A computer log was not available for the Team to review to determine that instruction in technology was applied throughout all programs of study or being used regularly.

7.1.9.

Programs of study. Programs of study are provided in grades K-12 as listed in Policy 2510 for elementary, middle, and high school levels, including career clusters and majors and an opportunity to examine a system of career clusters in grades 5-8 and to select a career cluster to explore in grades 9 and 10. (Policy 2510; Policy 2520) Science teachers did not provide the 50 percent investigation, inquiry, experimentation required by Policy 2510. When questioned, the reason given was attributed to a lack of materials in the science laboratories. Funding from the central office for supplies was not provided in amounts to make an impact on the material needs.

82

Initial November 2009 7.1.11. Guidance and advisement. Students are provided specific guidance and advisement opportunities to allow them to choose a career major prior to completion of grade 10. (Policy 2510) Counseling services had not been provided or scheduled at the time of the Education Performance Audit. A counselor was hired three weeks earlier and only recently reported to the school. 7.2. Student and School Performance 7.2.3.

Lesson plans and principal feedback. Lesson approved content standards and objectives are the principal reviews, comments on them a quarter, and provides written feedback to the improve instruction. (Policy 2510; Policy 5310)

plans that are based on prepared in advance and minimum of once each teacher as necessary to

The Team reviewed lesson plans and reported that all teachers’ lessons plans reviewed were extremely vague and did not provide enough information for a substitute to follow. One teacher out of 17 teachers did not have lesson plans upon request during the Team’s classroom observation. 7.8. Leadership 7.8.1.

Leadership. Leadership at the school district, school, and classroom levels is demonstrated by vision, school culture and instruction, management and environment, community, and professionalism. (Policy 5500.03) Due to the number and degree of deficiencies the Team reported at Maysville Elementary School, the Team determined that administrator and teacher instructional leadership needed to be developed. Declining WESTEST results further indicated the necessity of instructional leadership.

RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1.3.

Learning environment. Cleaning chemicals were stored under the sink in the kindergarten classroom and accessible to students. The Team recommended that all cleaning supplies be stored in a locked cabinet out of students’ reach.

7.1.12. Multicultural activities. Although a written Multicultural Plan existed, teachers did not have a copy of this plan and could not address its contents. The Team recommended that the teachers and principal develop a plan and implement the Multicultural Plan schoolwide.

83

Initial November 2009 Indicators of Efficiency Indicators of efficiency for student and school system performance and processes were reviewed in the following areas: Curriculum delivery, including but not limited to, the use of distance learning; facilities; administrative practices; personnel; utilization of regional education service agency, or other regional services that may be established by their assigned regional education service agency. This section contains indicators of efficiency that the Education Performance Audit Team assessed as requiring more efficient and effective application. The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Maysville Elementary School in providing a thorough and efficient system of education. Grant County is obligated to follow the Indicators of Efficiency noted by the Team. Indicators of Efficiency shall not be used to affect the approval status of Grant County or the accreditation status of the schools. 8.1.1.

Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. The lack of evidence of high expectations and high quality, challenging curriculum had a dramatic effect on student achievement. The principal must monitor and evaluate teacher performance to ensure that all students are challenged and provided high quality, research-based instruction. The principal stated that intense data analysis had been completed and all teachers had been provided the necessary data to guide the classroom curriculum. A 60 minute block of time (8:00 - 9:00 a.m.) had been created to address specific curricular needs. Each Monday, primary, special education, Title I teachers, and the principal meet to review benchmark data and student progress. The same plan will be used with intermediate teachers on Friday. Tier II was being implemented from 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. with 24 students identified to receive Tier II instruction. This instruction will be given by the Title I, special education, and two teachers in reading. The remaining students, by grade, will participate in educational activities addressing mathematics and reading/language arts West Virginia 21st Century content standards and objectives (CSOs). They will be instructed by regular classroom and enrichment teachers. Students will rotate every two weeks into a different area of instruction. The school purchased educational games and activities for the students. The technology teacher and classroom teacher will team teach techSteps to Grades K-6 on Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. The schedule provided for each teacher to have this technology support for one month during the instructional year. With the above stated actions, the deficient standards noted in the report should not have been observed. It is questionable that the actions presented by the principal are being applied effectively. 84 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009 Building Capacity to Correct Deficiencies West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 establishes that the needed resources are available to assist the school or school system in achieving the standards and alleviating the deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Maysville Elementary School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended. 18.1.

Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The Team recommended that the Grant County School System Superintendent and the school administrator contact Dr. Karen Huffman, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Educator Quality and System Support at 304-558-3199 to arrange a School Support System for correcting the deficiencies and improving student and school performance.

Identification of Resource Needs A thorough and efficient system of schools requires the provision of an adequate level of appropriately managed resources. The West Virginia Board of Education adopted resource evaluation as a part of the accreditation and evaluation process. This process is intended to meaningfully evaluate the needs for facilities, personnel, curriculum, equipment and materials in each of the county’s schools and how those impact program and student performance. 19.1.

Facilities, equipment, and materials. Facilities and equipment specified in Policy 6200, Chapters 1 through 14, are available in all schools, classrooms, and other required areas. A determination will be made by using the Process for Improving Education (W.Va. Code §18-2E-5) whether any identified deficiencies adversely impact and impair the delivery of a high quality educational program if it is below the West Virginia Board of Education standards due to inadequacies or inappropriate management in the areas of facilities, equipment, and materials. The Education Performance Audit Teams shall utilize an assessment instrument for the evaluation of school facilities which generally follows the requirements of Policy 6200. Note: Corrective measures to be taken in response to any identified resource deficiency will of necessity be subject to the feasibility of modifying existing facilities, consideration of alternative methods of instructional delivery, availability of funding, and prioritization of educational needs through Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plans and the West Virginia School Building Authority. This policy does not change the authority, judgment, or priorities of the School Building Authority of West Virginia who is statutorily responsible for prioritizing 85 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009 “Need” for the purpose of funding school improvements or school construction in the State of West Virginia or the prerogative of the Legislature in providing resources. (Policy 6200 and Tomblin v. Gainer) According to the items checked in the School Facilities Evaluation Checklist, the school was below standard in the following areas. The principal checked and the Team confirmed the following school facility resource needs. 19.1.1.

School location. The school site was not 11 usable acres plus one acre for each 100 students over 600, as required for Grades 5 and 6 students.

19.1.5.

Library/media and technology center. Electronic card catalogs, automated circulation capacity, and on-line periodical indexes were not available for student use.

19.1.10. Specialized instructional areas. The art facility was not adequate in size and did not have the following equipment and material: Two deep sinks, hot and cold water, counter space, mechanical ventilation, ceramic kiln, and blackout areas. The music facility did not have adequate storage, music chairs with folding arms, music stands, a podium, recording devices, microphones, stereo sound system piano, instructional technology equipment, and acoustical treatment. The physical education facility did not have provisions for two or more teaching stations, a data projector or 50” screen monitor, network connection, internet access, or audio equipment. 19.1.14. Food service. A locker/dressing room was not available. 19.1.15. Health service units. A health service unit of adequate size was not available. The following equipment and furnishings were not available: Curtained or small room with cots, bulletin board, toilet, lavatory, scales, medicine chest, work counter, and desk and chair.

Early Detection and Intervention One of the most important elements in the Education Performance Audit process is monitoring student progress through early detection and intervention programs. The School Support System presented under the Capacity Building Section will be an invaluable resource in guiding school improvement.

86 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Education Performance Audit Summary The Team identified six high quality standards necessary to improve performance and progress. They include the following: 7.1.2. 7.1.7. 7.1.9. 7.1.11. 7.2.3. 7.8.1.

High expectations. Library/educational technology access and technology application. Programs of study. Guidance and advisement. Lesson plans and principal feedback. Leadership.

The Team presented two recommendations, noted an indicator of efficiency, offered capacity building resources, and noted an early detection and intervention concern. Maysville Elementary School’s Education Performance Audit was limited in scope to the performance and progress standards related to student and school performance. The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Maysville Elementary School in improvement efforts. Section 17.10. of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320 states: If during an on-site review, a school or county board is found to be in noncompliance with one or more standards, the school and county electronic strategic improvement plans must be revised and shall be submitted to the West Virginia Board of Education within 30 days of receipt of the draft written report. The plans shall include objectives, a time line, a plan for evaluation of the success of the improvements, a cost estimate and a date certain for achieving full accreditation and/or full approval status as applicable. Based upon the results of the Education Performance Audit, the Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education direct Maysville Elementary School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan within 30 days and correct the findings noted in the report.

87 Office of Education Performance Audits

INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION 88

Initial November 2009

INTRODUCTION An announced Education Performance Audit of Petersburg Elementary School in Grant County was conducted on October 7, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate the reasons for performance and progress that are persistently below standard and to make recommendations to the school and school system, as appropriate, and to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the standard. The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan, interviewed school personnel and school system administrators, observed classrooms, and examined school records. The review was limited in scope and concentrated on the subgroups that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Allen D. Brock, Coordinator West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – D. Dewayne Duncan, Assistant Director, Office of Institutional Education Programs TEAM MEMBERS Name

Title

School/County

Paula J. Athey

Primary School Principal

Wiley Ford Primary School Mineral County

Brad A. Fittro

Elementary School Assistant Principal

Anna Jarvis Elementary School Taylor County

Jeff A. Pancione

Elementary School Principal

Augusta Elementary School Hampshire County

Lynda J. Sago

Administrative Liaison

Marion County Schools

89

Initial November 2009

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

203 PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Needs Improvement Mitchell Webster, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 606 (2nd month 2007-2008 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2007-2008 Group

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

Number Number Met Part. Met Met Number Participation Percent Enrolled Enrolled on Rate Assessment Subgroup Tested Rate Proficient for FAY Test Week Standard Standard Standard Mathematics 330 346 344 99.42 74.77 Yes Yes 323 ** ** * **

Spec. Ed. LEP

White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

99.40 ** ** * **

74.53 ** ** * **

Yes NA NA * NA

Yes NA NA * NA Confidence Interval

178

176

98.87

70.73

Yes

67

69

69

100.00

53.73

Yes

No

** ** ** Reading/Language Arts 345 99.71 80.90

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

337 ** ** * **

80.49 ** ** * **

Yes NA NA * NA

Yes NA NA * NA

** 330

346

323 ** ** * **

**

336 ** ** * **

165

**

All

338 ** ** * **

338 ** ** * **

99.70 ** ** * **

165

178

177

99.43

75.75

Yes

Yes

67

69

69

100.00

52.23

Yes

Safe Harbors

**

NA

NA

**

**

**

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 98.1%

90

NA NA * NA

NA

NA NA * NA

NA

Initial November 2009

24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

203 PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Needs Improvement Mitchell Webster, Principal Grades PK - 06 Enrollment 609 (2nd month 2008-2009 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2008-2009 Group

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

Number Number Met Part. Met Met Number Participation Percent Enrolled Enrolled on Rate Assessment Subgroup Tested Rate Proficient for FAY Test Week Standard Standard Standard Mathematics 339 358 356 99.44 59.94 Yes Yes 334 ** ** * **

Spec. Ed. LEP

White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

**

346 ** ** * **

99.42 ** ** * **

59.93 ** ** * **

Yes NA NA * NA

Yes NA NA * NA Confidence Interval

171

189

189

100.00

52.04

Yes

70

76

76

100.00

34.28

Yes

No

** ** Reading/Language Arts 356 99.44 60.83

NA

NA

**

**

339

358

334

348

** ** * **

Spec. Ed. LEP

** ** * **

**

All

348

** ** * **

346 ** ** * **

99.42 ** ** * **

Yes

Yes

60.84 ** ** * **

Yes NA NA * NA

Yes NA NA * NA Confidence Interval

171

189

189

100.00

50.87

Yes

70

76

76

100.00

30.00

Yes

No

**

NA

NA

**

**

**

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Attendance Rate = 98.2%

91

NA NA * NA

NA

NA NA * NA

NA

Initial November 2009

PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class Class 03 04 05 06

Tested FAY FAY Tested Enr. Enr. Tested 96 92 95 91 86 82 86 82 90 84 89 83 86 81 86 81

Mathematics Part. Below Above Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Rate Mastery Mastery 98.96 1.10 32.97 27.47 34.07 4.40 65.93 100.00 1.22 26.83 31.71 34.15 6.10 71.95 98.89 4.82 48.19 32.53 9.64 4.82 46.99 100.00 16.05 29.63 29.63 19.75 4.94 54.32

Reading Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 96 92 95 91 98.96 3.30 34.07 50.55 8.79 3.30 62.64 04 86 82 86 82 100.00 3.66 32.93 35.37 26.83 1.22 63.41 05 90 84 89 83 98.89 7.23 27.71 40.96 21.69 2.41 65.06 06 86 81 86 81 100.00 6.17 41.98 24.69 20.99 6.17 51.85 Enr. - Enrollment FAY - Full Academic Year Part. - Participation

92

Initial November 2009

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 5.1.1.

Achievement. Petersburg Elementary School failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the special education (SE) subgroup in mathematics and reading/language arts. Petersburg Elementary School achieved AYP in the economically disadvantaged (SES) subgroup in mathematics and reading/language arts only by application of the confidence interval. The county curriculum staff and school staff are urged to address these subgroups in the county and school Five-Year Strategic Plan and apply interventions to improve achievement of all students. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class indicated scores below mastery in both mathematics and reading: Grade 3 – 34.07 percent in mathematics and 37.36 percent in reading; Grade 4 – 28.05 percent in mathematics and 36.59 percent in reading; Grade 5 – 53.01 percent in mathematics and 34.94 percent in reading; Grade 6 – 45.68 percent in mathematics and 48.15 percent in reading. The following professional development and/or training opportunities were provided as reported by the principal. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Teacher Leadership Institute. Response to Intervention (RTI). West Virginia Reading Conference. National Title I Reading Conference. Five-Year Strategic Plan. Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Training.

These class scores also declined from Grade 3 to Grade 6 in both mathematics and reading. Grant County curricular staff and the school staff must examine the systemic reasons for the decline in student achievement and actively pursue instruction and curriculum.

93

Initial November 2009

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress. 7.1. Curriculum 7.1.5.

Instructional strategies. Staff demonstrates the use of the various instructional strategies and techniques contained in Policies 2510 and 2520. (Policy 2510; Policy 2520) Although the Team observed a variety of instructional strategies, instruction was not rigorous or relevant to the varying student academic levels. The students were on task, for the most part; however, the curriculum was not challenging to all students and did not encourage higher level skill development. The Team considered this the major reason for students’ low achievement. 7.2. Student and School Performance

7.2.1.

County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic county strategic improvement plan and an electronic school strategic improvement plan are established, implemented, and reviewed annually. Each respective plan shall be a five-year plan that includes the mission and goals of the school or school system to improve student or school system performance or progress. The plan shall be revised annually in each area in which the school or system is below the standard on the annual performance measures. The school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan was weak and needed revision in some areas. It did not meet the school’s need and did not specifically address the school’s data.

7.2.3.

Lesson plans and principal feedback. Lesson approved content standards and objectives are the principal reviews, comments on them a quarter, and provides written feedback to the improve instruction. (Policy 2510; Policy 5310)

plans that are based on prepared in advance and minimum of once each teacher as necessary to

Teacher lessons plans reviewed were vague and did not provide enough information for a substitute to follow. Lesson plans also needed to be available for review. Three or four teachers did not have lesson plans on the day of the Education Performance Audit.

94

Initial November 2009

Indicators of Efficiency Indicators of efficiency for student and school system performance and processes were reviewed in the following areas: Curriculum delivery, including but not limited to, the use of distance learning; facilities; administrative practices; personnel; utilization of regional education service agency, or other regional services that may be established by their assigned regional education service agency. This section contains indicators of efficiency that the Education Performance Audit Team assessed as requiring more efficient and effective application. The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Petersburg Elementary School in providing a thorough and efficient system of education. Grant County is obligated to follow the Indicators of Efficiency noted by the Team. Indicators of Efficiency shall not be used to affect the approval status of Grant County or the accreditation status of the schools. 8.1.1.

Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. The administration must actively and aggressively pursue high quality professional development geared toward increasing the rigor and relevance of the classroom curriculum. All students must be challenged and encouraged to do their best and teachers must provide rigorous 21st Century instruction.

95 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Building Capacity to Correct Deficiencies West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 establishes that the needed resources are available to assist the school or school system in achieving the standards and alleviating the deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Petersburg Elementary School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended. 18.1.

Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The Team recommended that the Grant County School System Superintendent and the school administrator contact Dr. Karen Huffman, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Educator Quality and System Support at 304-558-3199 to arrange a School Support System for correcting the deficiencies and improving student and school performance.

Identification of Resource Needs A thorough and efficient system of schools requires the provision of an adequate level of appropriately managed resources. The West Virginia Board of Education adopted resource evaluation as a part of the accreditation and evaluation process. This process is intended to meaningfully evaluate the needs for facilities, personnel, curriculum, equipment and materials in each of the county’s schools and how those impact program and student performance. 19.1.

Facilities, equipment, and materials. Facilities and equipment specified in Policy 6200, Chapters 1 through 14, are available in all schools, classrooms, and other required areas. A determination will be made by using the Process for Improving Education (W.Va. Code §18-2E-5) whether any identified deficiencies adversely impact and impair the delivery of a high quality educational program if it is below the West Virginia Board of Education standards due to inadequacies or inappropriate management in the areas of facilities, equipment, and materials. The Education Performance Audit Teams shall utilize an assessment instrument for the evaluation of school facilities which generally follows the requirements of Policy 6200. Note: Corrective measures to be taken in response to any identified resource deficiency will of necessity be subject to the feasibility of modifying existing facilities, consideration of alternative methods of instructional delivery, availability of funding, and prioritization of educational needs through Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plans and the West Virginia School Building Authority. 96 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

This policy does not change the authority, judgment, or priorities of the School Building Authority of West Virginia who is statutorily responsible for prioritizing “Need” for the purpose of funding school improvements or school construction in the State of West Virginia or the prerogative of the Legislature in providing resources. (Policy 6200 and Tomblin v. Gainer) According to the items checked in the School Facilities Evaluation Checklist, the school was below standard in the following areas. The principal checked and the Team confirmed the following school facility resource needs. 19.1.7.

K classrooms. All Kindergarten classes did not have adequate space.

19.1.10. Specialized instructional areas. The art facility did not have black-out areas. The physical education facilities did not have a data projector or 50” screen monitor, network connections, or internet access. 19.1.11. Grades 6-12 science facilities. The science facilities did not have AC and DC current, compressed air, ventilation fume hood, demo table, laboratory workspace, fire extinguisher, blanket, emergency showers, first aid kit, and main gas shut-off. 19.1.14. Food service. A locker/dressing room was not available. 19.1.15. Health service units. A health services unit of adequate size was not available. The following equipment and furnishings were not available: Toilet, lavatory, scales, and refrigerator with locked storage.

Early Detection and Intervention One of the most important elements in the Education Performance Audit process is monitoring student progress through early detection and intervention programs. The School Support System presented under the Capacity Building Section will be an invaluable resource in guiding school improvement.

97 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Education Performance Audit Summary The Team identified three high quality standards necessary to improve performance and progress. They include the following: 7.1.5. 7.2.1. 7.2.3.

Instructional strategies. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. Lesson plans and principal feedback.

The Team noted an indicator of efficiency, offered capacity building resources, and noted an early detection and intervention concern. Petersburg Elementary School’s Education Performance Audit was limited in scope to the performance and progress standards related to student and school performance. The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Petersburg Elementary School in improvement efforts. Section 17.10. of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320 states: If during an on-site review, a school or county board is found to be in noncompliance with one or more standards, the school and county electronic strategic improvement plans must be revised and shall be submitted to the West Virginia Board of Education within 30 days of receipt of the draft written report. The plans shall include objectives, a time line, a plan for evaluation of the success of the improvements, a cost estimate and a date certain for achieving full accreditation and/or full approval status as applicable. Based upon the results of the Education Performance Audit, the Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education direct Petersburg Elementary School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan within 30 days and correct the findings noted in the report.

98 Office of Education Performance Audits

INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

99

Initial November 2009

INTRODUCTION An announced Education Performance Audit of Petersburg High School in Grant County was conducted on October 7, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate the reasons for performance and progress that are persistently below standard and to make recommendations to the school and school system, as appropriate, and to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the standard. The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan, interviewed school personnel and school system administrators, observed classrooms, and examined school records. The review was limited in scope and concentrated on the subgroups that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Allen D. Brock, Coordinator West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – Monica Beane, Assistant Director, Office of Instruction West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – Steve Higgins, CAG, Office of Title II - School and School System Improvement TEAM MEMBERS Name

Title

School/County

Timothy S. Derico

High School Principal

Lewis County High School Lewis County

Ann M. Downs

Middle School Principal

Capon Bridge Middle School Hampshire County

Claude Steve Malnick

Middle School Principal

Monongah Middle School Marion County

Ronald E. Stephens

High School Principal

Musselman High School Berkeley County

100

Initial November 2009

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

501 PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL – Needs Improvement Garry Moore, Principal Grades 07 - 12 Enrollment 756 (2nd month 2007-2008 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2007-2008 Group

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

Met Part. Met Met Number Number Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Enrolled Enrolled on Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard for FAY Test Week Mathematics 381 392 389 99.23 75.98 Yes Yes 370 11

377 11

180 69

* * **

Spec. Ed. LEP

380 11

189

* * ** 186

99.21 100.00 * * ** 98.41

75.81 81.81 * * ** 68.53

Yes NA * * NA Yes

Yes NA * * NA Yes

71

71

100.00

27.53

Yes

No

*

*

Yes

Yes Yes NA * * NA Confidence Interval

* * **

*

*

All

381

392

White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

370 11

380 11

* * **

Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

*

* * **

* * * Reading/Language Arts 387 98.72 78.51 375 11 * * **

98.68 100.00 * * **

78.96 63.63 * * **

Yes NA * * NA

180

189

184

97.35

70.45

Yes

69

71

70

98.59

26.47

Yes

No

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Graduation Rate = 83.1%

101

NA * * NA

*

NA * * NA

*

Initial November 2009

24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

501 PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL – Needs Improvement Garry Moore, Principal Grades 07 - 12 Enrollment 748 (2nd month 2008-2009 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2008-2009 Group

Number Enrolled for FAY

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

LEP

White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES

367

345 10

358 10

357 10

* * *

*

Mathematics 99.72

* * *

Met Part. Met Met Rate Assessment Subgroup Standard Standard Standard

61.40

Yes

Yes

99.72 100.00 * * *

62.02 40.00 * * *

Yes NA * * *

Yes NA * * *

170

180

180

100.00

58.82

Yes

Yes

60

64

64

100.00

16.66

Yes

No

*

*

Yes

Yes

* 355

368

* * Reading/Language Arts 367 99.72 56.61

345 10

358 10

357 10

99.72 100.00 * * *

56.81 50.00 * * *

Yes NA * * *

Yes NA * * *

* * *

Spec. Ed. LEP

368

*

All

Number Participation Percent Tested Rate Proficient

355

* * *

Spec. Ed.

Number Enrolled on Test Week

*

* * *

* * *

170

180

180

100.00

47.64

Yes

Yes

60

64

64

100.00

18.33

Yes

No

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Graduation Rate = 86.2 %

102

NA * * *

*

NA * * *

*

Initial November 2009

PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class Class 07 08 11

Tested FAY FAY Tested Enr. Enr. Tested 130 125 130 125 120 116 120 116 118 114 117 114

Mathematics Part. Below Above Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Rate Mastery Mastery 100.00 8.00 25.60 52.80 10.40 3.20 66.40 100.00 18.97 19.83 49.14 11.21 0.86 61.21 99.15 13.16 30.70 42.11 11.40 2.63 56.14

Reading Above Below FAY Part. Tested FAY Distinguished Proficient Mastery Novice Tested Class Mastery Mastery Tested Rate Enr. Enr. 07 130 125 130 125 100.00 2.40 34.40 52.80 9.60 0.80 63.20 08 120 116 120 116 100.00 4.31 40.52 49.14 6.03 0.00 55.17 11 118 114 117 114 99.15 7.89 41.23 35.09 15.79 0.00 50.88

Enr. - Enrollment FAY - Full Academic Year Part. - Participation Note: Cells with less than 10 - are reported as *.

103

Initial November 2009

PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL

NUMBER OF ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP), HONORS, AND COLLEGE COURSES OFFERED 2009-2010 Number of College Number of AP Number of Honors High School Credit Courses Courses Offered Courses Offered Offered Petersburg High 0 0 8 (6 taught) A minimum of four advanced placement (AP) classes are to be offered as prescribed in West Virginia Board Policy 2510. Honors courses must be investigated and implemented to increase rigor and relevance and to increase student achievement. Petersburg High School did not offer or teach these courses. Eight college credit courses were offered for the 2009-10 school year and six were being taught on-site at Petersburg High School through Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College and Potomac State College. The Team noted that students do not receive dual credit for these courses, although teachers in school refer to these classes as “dual credit”. This misunderstanding must be clarified so educators, parents, and the community have a clear understanding of advanced level courses. College courses taught included: 7. College English 8. College History 9. College Algebra 10. Psychology 11. Special Topics Biology 12. Chemistry II ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST (APT) (COLLEGE BOARD) Petersburg High

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

10 Grade Test Takers (%) 11th Grade Test Takers (%) 12th Grade Test Takers (%) 10th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 11th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 12th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher

1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

th

The absence of advanced placement (AP) test takers was indicative of the need for higher expectations for students. Students must be encouraged to excel in academics and pursue classes that will challenge them and promote greater student achievement.

104

Initial November 2009

State Grant County Petersburg High

Source:

ESTIMATED COLLEGE GOING RATE FALL 2007 Number of High School Graduates Overall College Going Rate 2006-07 Percentage 17,914 57.5% 129 50.4% 106 58.5%

West Virginia College Going Rates By County and High School Fall 2007, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission.

Petersburg High School had a slightly higher college going rate than the State average in the Fall of 2007 and a higher college going rate than Grant County.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES ENROLLED IN DEVELOPMENTAL COURSES FALL 2008

State Grant County Petersburg High Source:

1st Time WV Freshmen Total #

English Total #

% in Developmental English

Mathematics Total #

% in Developmental Mathematics

8,073 74 66

1,275 13 11

15.79% 17.57% 16.67%

2,224 88 25

27.55% 31.84% 37.88%

First-Time Freshmen, Previous Year WV High School Graduates in Developmental Courses by Type of Course Fall 2008 (census).

Petersburg High School had a slightly higher percentage of students enrolled in developmental English and a dramatically higher percentage of students enrolled in developmental mathematics than the State for the Fall of 2008. Some parents interviewed stated that their children in college were finding college courses challenging. The teachers and administration must use this information to increase the rigor and relevance of classroom curriculum to prepare students for the college curriculum. A greater emphasis on student achievement, enhanced instructional strategies, higher student expectations, and an increased knowledge of what is expected at the college level would benefit all students that enroll in post-secondary education.

105

Initial November 2009

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 5.1.1.

Achievement. Petersburg High School failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the special education (SE) subgroup in both mathematics and reading/language arts. Student achievement declined in both mathematics and reading/language arts in all individual subgroups. The county curriculum staff and school staff were urged to address these subgroups in the county and school Five-Year Strategic Plan and apply interventions to improve achievement of all students. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class indicated scores below mastery in both mathematics and reading: Grade 7 – 33.60 percent in mathematics and 36.80 percent in reading; Grade 8 – 38.79 percent in mathematics and 44.83 percent in reading; Grade 11 – 43.86 percent in mathematics and 49.12 percent in reading. These scores have implication for the Five-Year Strategic Plan and school improvement. The student percent proficient for Grades 7, 8, and 11 declined in both mathematics and reading from the Grade 7 class to the Grade 11 class. The following professional development and/or training opportunities were provided as reported by the principal. 30. Deconstructing the West Virginia 21st Century Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs) and Curriculum Mapping. 31. Global 21/Lexile and Quantile Training. 32. Exploring Teach 21. 33. Podcasting. 34. Test Item Analysis/Concept Emphasis.

106

Initial November 2009

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT INITIATIVES FOR ACHIEVING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS The Education Performance Audit Team reported that Petersburg High School had undertaken initiatives for achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The prominent initiatives and activities included the following. 7.1.1.

Curriculum based on content standards and objectives. The Team commended the 9-12 mathematics department for outstanding planning and delivery of instruction. The West Virginia 21st Century content standards and objectives (CSOs) were documented in the teachers’ lesson plans and evident during teacher observations.

7.1.3.

Learning environment. The Team commended the school for the implementation of the Positive Behavior Program (Behavior Intervention Form – BIF) schoolwide. Previously, bullying was a major issue at Petersburg High School. This year, there was evidence of a 50 percent decrease in behavior referrals.

107

Initial November 2009

HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress. 7.1. Curriculum 7.1.4.

Instruction. Instruction is consistent with the programmatic definitions in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring the Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs (hereinafter Policy 2510). (Policy 2510) The Team found the special education teachers were not being utilized in a manner that supported identified weaknesses in student achievement. In addition, the special education teachers were not fully collaborating with general education teachers to provide support to special education students in re-teach classes. The Team found through classroom teacher interviews that professional development to implement a block or modified block schedule was not conducted prior to the change to a block schedule format. Technical support for teachers on block scheduling should have occurred prior to its implementation to enhance and improve the instructional practices during the instructional block periods. Furthermore, the middle level grades also followed a block schedule. This organizational structure of the school was not producing positive performance results. Student and school declining achievement provided further evidence that instructional practices and the curriculum were not producing improved student performance.

7.1.7.

Library/educational technology access and technology application. The application of technology is included throughout all programs of study and students have regular access to library/educational technology centers or classroom libraries. (Policy 2470; Policy 2510) The school’s Technology Plan portion of the Five-Year Strategic Plan needed to be revised, as indicated by the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Instructional Technology. The school was provided the items that needed to be revised.

7.1.8.

Instructional materials. Sufficient numbers of approved up-to-date textbooks, instructional materials, and other resources are available to deliver curricular content for the full instructional term. (Policy 2510) Students were required to wear red shirts and black shorts or pants in physical education courses. According to student, teacher, and the principal interviews, students were penalized a point in their grades if they did not have a red shirt and black pants/shorts. Staff indicated that students were provided these items if they were not available to them; however, many students interviewed stated that they were not aware that these were provided. Student grades cannot be lowered due to particular clothing items not being worn.

108

Initial November 2009

7.1.9.

Programs of study. Programs of study are provided in grades K-12 as listed in Policy 2510 for elementary, middle, and high school levels, including career clusters and majors and an opportunity to examine a system of career clusters in grades 5-8 and to select a career cluster to explore in grades 9 and 10. (Policy 2510; Policy 2520) The Team found that social studies and science were not being offered to all students in Grades 7 and 8 daily as required by West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510. Four classes of Advanced Placement (AP) classes were not offered. Honors courses were not offered. The percentage of Petersburg High School’s graduates enrolled in developmental level college courses in West Virginia show that these courses are needed to prepare students for college education courses. 7.2. Student and School Performance

7.2.1.

County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic county strategic improvement plan and an electronic school strategic improvement plan are established, implemented, and reviewed annually. Each respective plan shall be a five-year plan that includes the mission and goals of the school or school system to improve student or school system performance or progress. The plan shall be revised annually in each area in which the school or system is below the standard on the annual performance measures. The Team found the majority of the teachers could not discuss any component of the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan. One teacher stated that she was on the revision team list; however the team had not met yet. With eight days left before the final plan is due, the plan had not been finalized.

7.2.4.

Data analysis. Prior to the beginning of and through the school term the county, school, and teacher have a system for analyzing, interpreting, and using student performance data to identify and assist students who are not at grade level in achieving approved state and local content standards and objectives. The county, principal, counselors, and teachers assess student scores on the American College Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test and develop curriculum, programs, and/or practices to improve student and school performance. (Policy 2510) The Team found that the staff had not completed adequate data analysis. When asked about how data analysis had impacted instructional strategies, teachers stated they did not receive their WESTEST data until well after the start of the instructional year. No significant improvement in WESTEST percent proficient, low American College Test (ACT) scores, and a high percentage of students enrolled in college developmental level courses indicated that intense data analysis followed by planning and action were imperative.

109

Initial November 2009

7.8. Leadership 7.8.1.

Leadership. Leadership at the school district, school, and classroom levels is demonstrated by vision, school culture and instruction, management and environment, community, and professionalism. (Policy 5500.03) Due to the number of deficiencies at Petersburg High School, the Team determined that curricular and instruction leadership needed to be developed at both the administrative and classroom levels. The decline in WESTEST percent proficient in mathematics and the severe decline in reading/language arts indicated this need. Additionally, the percentage of students enrolled in developmental courses in West Virginia institutions of higher education also indicated the need for instructional leadership.

RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1.12. Multicultural activities. The Team found that a written Multicultural Plan was not in place. The principal reported, “There is no written Multicultural Plan, but we use the Arts Council activities, Rachael’s Challenge, and the Positive School Climate Program.” The Team recommended the staff draft a Multicultural Plan or adopt the county plan. 7.6.3.

Evaluation. The Team found that the principal did not have a plan for completing teachers’ observations and evaluations. Due to the deadline for completion (November 1) and the number of staff requiring evaluations, the Team felt the principal should already have a schedule in place for the observations. The Team recommended that the principal collaborate with the assistant principal and devise a strategy and a plan of action for conducting the required observations/evaluations in a timely manner. In addition, the Team recommended the principal and assistant principal conduct informal observations of new teachers prior to October 1.

110

Initial November 2009

Indicators of Efficiency Indicators of efficiency for student and school system performance and processes were reviewed in the following areas: Curriculum delivery, including but not limited to, the use of distance learning; facilities; administrative practices; personnel; utilization of regional education service agency, or other regional services that may be established by their assigned regional education service agency. This section contains indicators of efficiency that the Education Performance Audit Team assessed as requiring more efficient and effective application. The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Petersburg High School in providing a thorough and efficient system of education. Grant County is obligated to follow the Indicators of Efficiency noted by the Team. Indicators of Efficiency shall not be used to affect the approval status of Grant County or the accreditation status of the schools. 8.1.1.

Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. Co-teaching at Petersburg High School was an area of great concern. With the high number of special education students, it is imperative that the special educators and the general education teachers collaborate effectively and the special educators take an active, participatory role in curriculum delivery. The school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan was not being implemented and data were not effectively analyzed and applied to improve student achievement. These two areas appeared to be extremely detrimental to student achievement. Social studies not offered to all students in Grades 7 and 8 daily and the absence of advance placement (AP), honors, and dual credit courses demonstrated that the overall school curriculum was devoid of minimum school curriculum requirements of Policy 2510.

111 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Building Capacity to Correct Deficiencies West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 establishes that the needed resources are available to assist the school or school system in achieving the standards and alleviating the deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Petersburg High School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended. 18.1.

Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The Team recommended that the Grant County School System Superintendent and the school administrator contact Dr. Karen Huffman, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Educator Quality and System Support at 304-558-3199 to arrange a School Support System for correcting the deficiencies and improving student and school performance.

Identification of Resource Needs A thorough and efficient system of schools requires the provision of an adequate level of appropriately managed resources. The West Virginia Board of Education adopted resource evaluation as a part of the accreditation and evaluation process. This process is intended to meaningfully evaluate the needs for facilities, personnel, curriculum, equipment and materials in each of the county’s schools and how those impact program and student performance. 19.1.

Facilities, equipment, and materials. Facilities and equipment specified in Policy 6200, Chapters 1 through 14, are available in all schools, classrooms, and other required areas. A determination will be made by using the Process for Improving Education (W.Va. Code §18-2E-5) whether any identified deficiencies adversely impact and impair the delivery of a high quality educational program if it is below the West Virginia Board of Education standards due to inadequacies or inappropriate management in the areas of facilities, equipment, and materials. The Education Performance Audit Teams shall utilize an assessment instrument for the evaluation of school facilities which generally follows the requirements of Policy 6200. Note: Corrective measures to be taken in response to any identified resource deficiency will of necessity be subject to the feasibility of modifying existing facilities, consideration of alternative methods of instructional delivery, availability of funding, and prioritization of educational needs through Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plans and the West Virginia School Building Authority. 112 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

This policy does not change the authority, judgment, or priorities of the School Building Authority of West Virginia who is statutorily responsible for prioritizing “Need” for the purpose of funding school improvements or school construction in the State of West Virginia or the prerogative of the Legislature in providing resources. (Policy 6200 and Tomblin v. Gainer) According to the items checked in the School Facilities Evaluation Checklist, the school was below standard in the following areas. The principal checked and the Team confirmed the following school facility resource needs. 19.1.5.

Library/media and technology center. Electronic card catalogs and automated circulation capacity were not available.

19.1.10. Specialized instructional areas. The physical education facilities did not have instructional technology equipment, a data projector, or a 50” screen monitor; drinking fountain; provisions for two or more teaching stations; display case; network connection; or internet access. The music facilities did not have acoustical treatment. 19.1.12. Grades 7-12 auditorium/stage. The auditorium was not of adequate size and not conveniently located for access to language arts and music instructional areas and close to seating. Speakers and projector, acoustical treatment, broadcast capabilities, controlled illumination, and outlets were not available. 19.1.14. Food service. A teachers’ dining area of adequate size was not provided.

Early Detection and Intervention One of the most important elements in the Education Performance Audit process is monitoring student progress through early detection and intervention programs. The School Support System presented under the Capacity Building Section will be critical for school improvement.

113 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Education Performance Audit Summary The Team identified seven high quality standards necessary to improve performance and progress. They include the following: 7.1.4. 7.1.7. 7.1.8. 7.1.9. 7.2.1. 7.2.4. 7.8.1.

Instruction. Library/educational technology access and technology application. Instructional materials. Programs of study. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. Data analysis. Leadership.

The Team presented two commendations, two recommendations, noted an indicator of efficiency, offered capacity building resources, and noted an early detection and intervention concern. Petersburg High School’s Education Performance Audit was limited in scope to the performance and progress standards related to student and school performance. The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Petersburg High School in improvement efforts. Section 17.10. of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320 states: If during an on-site review, a school or county board is found to be in noncompliance with one or more standards, the school and county electronic strategic improvement plans must be revised and shall be submitted to the West Virginia Board of Education within 30 days of receipt of the draft written report. The plans shall include objectives, a time line, a plan for evaluation of the success of the improvements, a cost estimate and a date certain for achieving full accreditation and/or full approval status as applicable. Based upon the results of the Education Performance Audit, the Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education direct Petersburg High School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan within 30 days and correct the findings noted in the report.

114 Office of Education Performance Audits

INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM NOVEMBER 2009

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

115

Initial November 2009 INTRODUCTION An announced Education Performance Audit of Union Educational Complex School in Grant County was conducted on October 6, 2009. The review was conducted at the specific direction of the West Virginia Board of Education. The purpose of the review was to investigate the reasons for performance and progress that are persistently below standard and to make recommendations to the school and school system, as appropriate, and to the West Virginia Board of Education on such measures as it considers necessary to improve performance and progress to meet the standard. The Education Performance Audit Team reviewed the Five-Year Strategic Improvement Plan, interviewed school personnel and school system administrators, observed classrooms, and examined school records. The review was limited in scope and concentrated on the subgroups that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM Office of Education Performance Audits Team Chair – Allen D. Brock, Coordinator West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – Monica Beane, Assistant Director, Office of Instruction TEAM MEMBERS Name

Title

School/County

Timothy S. Derico

High School Principal

Lewis County High School Lewis County

Ann M. Downs

Middle School Principal

Capon Bridge Middle School Hampshire County

Claude Steve Malnick

Middle School Principal

Monongah Middle School Marion County

Ronald E. Stephens

High School Principal

Musselman High School Berkeley County

116

Initial November 2009 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE This section presents the Annual Performance Measures for Accountability and the Education Performance Audit Team’s findings. 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

101 UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL – Passed David Judy, Principal Grades PK - 12 Enrollment 296 (2nd month 2007-2008 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2007-2008 Group

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

Met Part. Met Met Number Number Participation Percent Rate Assessment Subgroup Enrolled on Tested Rate Proficient Standard Standard Standard Test Week Mathematics Confidence 150 160 158 98.75 58.38 Yes Interval Confidence 150 159 157 98.74 58.38 Yes Interval ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Confidence 108 117 116 99.14 55.14 Yes Interval

Number Enrolled for FAY

34 *

38 *

37

97.36

35.29

* * * Reading/Language Arts

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

All

150

160

158

98.75

73.15

Yes

White

150

159

157

98.74

73.15

Yes

** * * *

NA * * *

Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

** * * *

*

** * * *

** * * *

** * * *

Confidence Interval Confidence Interval NA * * * Confidence Interval

NA * * *

108

117

116

99.14

72.89

Yes

34

38

37

97.36

44.11

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Graduation Rate = 96.2%

117

Initial November 2009 24 GRANT COUNTY Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, Superintendent

101 UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL – Passed David Judy, Principal Grades PK - 12 Enrollment 287 (2nd month 2008-2009 enrollment report)

WESTEST 2008-2009 Group

Number Enrolled for FAY

Number Enrolled on Test Week

Number Participation Percent Tested Rate Proficient

Met Part. Met Met Rate Assessment Subgroup Standard Standard Standard

Mathematics All

155

160

158

98.75

44.15

Yes

White

154

159

157

98.74

44.44

Yes

** * * *

NA * * *

Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

** * * *

** * * *

NA * * *

113

111

98.23

42.59

Yes

34

35

33

94.28

24.24

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

*

*

155

160

154 ** * * *

159

*

** * * *

109

*

All White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Low SES Spec. Ed. LEP

** * * *

Confidence Interval Confidence Interval NA * * * Confidence Interval

** * * *

* * Reading/Language Arts 158 98.75 53.24

157 ** * * *

98.74 ** * * *

Yes

Yes

53.59 ** * * *

Yes NA * * *

Yes NA * * *

NA * * *

109

113

111

98.23

51.85

Yes

Yes

34

35

33

94.28

12.12

NA

NA

NA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

FAY -- Full Academic Year * -- 0 students in subgroup ** -- Less than 10 students in subgroup Passed Graduation Rate = 95.2%

118

Initial November 2009 UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class Class 03 04 05 06 07 08 11

FAY Tested FAY Tested Tested Enr. Enr. 23 23 23 23 18 18 18 18 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 26 27 24 27 24 23 21 21 20 15 15 15 15

Mathematics Above Below Part. Distinguished Proficient Mastery Novice Mastery Mastery Rate 100.00 0.00 21.74 21.74 34.78 21.74 78.26 100.00 11.11 38.89 38.89 11.11 0.00 50.00 100.00 10.71 60.71 28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 100.00 0.00 65.38 30.77 3.85 0.00 34.62 100.00 8.33 54.17 37.50 0.00 0.00 37.50 91.30 15.00 35.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 40.00 26.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 33.33

Reading Tested FAY FAY Part. Below Above Class Tested Novice Mastery Distinguished Proficient Enr. Enr. Tested Rate Mastery Mastery 03 23 23 23 23 100.00 8.70 17.39 47.83 26.09 0.00 73.91 04 18 18 18 18 100.00 5.56 77.78 11.11 5.56 0.00 16.67 05 28 28 28 28 100.00 7.14 46.43 28.57 17.86 0.00 46.43 06 26 26 26 26 100.00 0.00 23.08 30.77 42.31 3.85 76.92 07 27 24 27 24 100.00 0.00 37.50 41.67 20.83 0.00 62.50 08 23 21 21 20 91.30 0.00 45.00 50.00 5.00 0.00 55.00 11 15 15 15 15 100.00 13.33 66.67 20.00 0.00 0.00 20.00

Enr. - Enrollment FAY - Full Academic Year Part. - Participation

UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL

NUMBER OF ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP), HONORS, AND COLLEGE COURSES OFFERED 2009-2010 Number of College Number of AP Number of Honors High School Credit Courses Courses Offered Courses Offered Offered Union Educational Complex 0 0 0 Advanced placement (AP) classes, honors, and college credit courses were not available at Union Educational Complex. Grant County and the school must provide the 119

Initial November 2009 students at Union Educational Complex the opportunity and experiences of higher level courses. ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST (APT) (COLLEGE BOARD) Union Educational Complex

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

10th Grade Test Takers (%) 11th Grade Test Takers (%) 12th Grade Test Takers (%) 10th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 11th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 12th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

The lack of advanced placement (AP) classes was detrimental to student achievement.

State Union Educational Complex

Source:

ESTIMATED COLLEGE GOING RATE FALL 2007 Number of High School Graduates Overall College Going Rate 2006-07 Percentage 17,914 57.5% 21

14.3%

West Virginia College Going Rates By County and High School Fall 2007, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission.

The overall college going rate for Union Educational Complex was dramatically lower than the State average. This was further indicative of the lack of high expectations for students and the lack of college preparatory courses. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES ENROLLED IN DEVELOPMENTAL COURSES FALL 2008

State Union Educational Complex

Source:

1st Time WV Freshmen Total #

English Total #

% in Developmental English

Mathematics Total #

% in Developmental Mathematics

8,073

1,275

15.79%

2,224

27.55%

8

2

25%

3

37.5%

First-Time Freshmen, Previous Year WV High School Graduates in Developmental Courses by Type of Course Fall 2008 (census).

The percentage of Union Educational Complex graduates enrolled in Developmental English and Developmental Mathematics was measurably higher than the State percentage. The school staff must investigate means to reverse this trend to increase student achievement.

120

Initial November 2009 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 5.1.1.

Achievement. Union Educational Complex School achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the all students (AS), the racial/ethnicity white (W), and the economically disadvantaged (SES) subgroups in mathematics only by application of the confidence interval. It is further noted that the special education students (SE) subgroup with the number (N) less than 50, scored far below the State’s percent proficient level in mathematics and reading/language arts. The county curriculum staff and school staff are urged to address these subgroups in the county and school Five-Year Strategic Plan and apply interventions to improve achievement of all students. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information by Class indicated scores below mastery in both mathematics and reading: Grade 3 – 26.09 percent in reading; Grade 4 – 50.00 percent in mathematics and 83.33 percent in reading; Grade 5 – 71.43 percent in mathematics and 53.57 percent in reading; Grade 6 – 65.38 percent in mathematics; Grade 7 – 62.50 percent in mathematics and 37.50 percent in reading; Grade 8 – 50.00 percent in mathematics and 45.00 percent in reading; Grade 11 – 66.67 percent in mathematics and 80.00 percent in reading. These scores have implication for the Five-Year Strategic Plan and school improvement. The number of students by class at the proficient level declined at an alarming rate in both mathematics and reading from Grade 3 to Grade 11. The following professional development and/or training opportunities were provided as reported by the principal. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

21st Century Learning Policies and Procedures. WESTEST Analysis. Professional Learning Communities. TechSteps. Writing Road Map 2. Acuity.

121

Initial November 2009 EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress. 7.1. Curriculum 7.1.2.

High expectations. Through curricular offerings, instructional practices, and administrative practices, staff demonstrates high expectations for the learning and achieving of all students and all students have equal educational opportunities including enrichment and acceleration. (Policy 2510) While the teachers had lesson plans and the principal reviewed the plans, the Team observed limited evidence of varied instructional strategies and high expectations for all students. It was evident that the faculty and staff were passionate and truly care about the school and the students; however, the expectations set by the administration at both the county and school levels were not innovative to adequately prepare the graduates for a global environment. Teachers were not challenging students and making them apply higher order thinking skills. All students must be challenged to achieve and teachers must provide rigorous instruction that was not evident buildingwide.

7.1.3.

Learning environment. School staff provides a safe and nurturing environment that is conducive to learning. (Policy 2510) The Team found that one classroom was not conducive to learning. Specifically, the Grades 1 and 2 split-grade classroom was a safety hazard. There were multiple spaces in the room from which the teacher could not see the students and the students could not see the teacher. During the classroom observations, students were off task and “on lookout” for the teacher.

7.1.4.

Instruction. Instruction is consistent with the programmatic definitions in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring the Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs (hereinafter Policy 2510). (Policy 2510) The Team found that the special education teachers were not maintaining adequate lesson plans and were not actively instructing in the collaboration classrooms. Although schedules indicated special educators were collaborating with general educators, the teachers were not fully delivering instruction in all grade levels. A credit recovery option was not available for students. This year (2009-10), one specific student will not be able to graduate because there was no option for him to recover credit. The Team found Union Educational Complex School did not offer the minimum course requirements according to West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510 and West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2520, including: Advanced 122

Initial November 2009 placement (AP) courses, honors, dual credit, fine arts courses and science and social studies courses in all grades. Virtual School was not available at the time of the review. 7.1.7.

Library/educational technology access and technology application. The application of technology is included throughout all programs of study and students have regular access to library/educational technology centers or classroom libraries. (Policy 2470; Policy 2510) During the Education Performance Audit, the Team found that the library was not used by high school students during the school day. High school students could only use the library at lunch. The library must be accessible to all students on a regular basis. 7.2. Student and School Performance

7.2.1.

County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic county strategic improvement plan and an electronic school strategic improvement plan are established, implemented, and reviewed annually. Each respective plan shall be a five-year plan that includes the mission and goals of the school or school system to improve student or school system performance or progress. The plan shall be revised annually in each area in which the school or system is below the standard on the annual performance measures. The school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan did not address the specific needs of the school and did not provide adequate direction for increasing student achievement. Teachers were not aware of the goals contained in the school plan.

7.2.2. Counseling services. Counselors shall spend at least 75 percent of the work day in a direct counseling relationship with students, and shall devote no more than 25 percent of the work day to counseling-related administrative activities as stated in W.Va. Code §18-5-18b. (W.Va. Code §18-5-18b; Policy 2315) The guidance counselor had been embraced as an assistant principal in nature, which limited the 75 percent direct student counseling relationship guidance requirement. The principal and the guidance counselor had a plan to transition to the 75 percent direct student counseling, but they indicated the school’s current need was to focus on the developmental guidance program and ensure teachers had students scheduled in correct courses leading to graduation. A counseling log was not available for the Team to review.

123

Initial November 2009 7.2.2.

Lesson plans and principal feedback. Lesson approved content standards and objectives are the principal reviews, comments on them a quarter, and provides written feedback to the improve instruction. (Policy 2510; Policy 5310)

plans that are based on prepared in advance and minimum of once each teacher as necessary to

The Team found the special education teachers were not maintaining adequate lesson plans. 7.4. Regulatory Agency Reviews 7.4.1.

Regulatory agency reviews. Determine during on-site reviews and include in reports whether required reviews and inspections have been conducted by the appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, the State Fire Marshal, the Health Department, the School Building Authority of West Virginia, and the responsible divisions within the West Virginia Department of Education, and whether noted deficiencies have been or are in the process of being corrected. The Office of Education Performance Audits may not conduct a duplicate review or inspection nor mandate more stringent compliance measures. (W.Va. Code §§18-9B-9, 10, 11, 18-4-10, and 18-5A-5; Policy 1224.1; Policy 8100; W.Va. Code §18-59; Policy 6200; Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 §104.22 and §104.23; Policy 4334; Policy 4336) One item from the most recent general sanitation inspection report (10-23-06) had not been corrected: Broken windows remained in the front of the building. 7.8. Leadership

7.8.1.

Leadership. Leadership at the school district, school, and classroom levels is demonstrated by vision, school culture and instruction, management and environment, community, and professionalism. (Policy 5500.03) Due to the number and quality of deficiencies at Union Educational Complex School and the low student performance, the Team determined that leadership needed to be developed at the county, school, and classroom levels. The school was not functioning as a 21st Century school or providing a 21st Century curriculum or instruction.

124

Initial November 2009

Indicators of Efficiency Indicators of efficiency for student and school system performance and processes were reviewed in the following areas: Curriculum delivery, including but not limited to, the use of distance learning; facilities; administrative practices; personnel; utilization of regional education service agency, or other regional services that may be established by their assigned regional education service agency. This section contains indicators of efficiency that the Education Performance Audit Team assessed as requiring more efficient and effective application. The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Union Educational Complex School in providing a thorough and efficient system of education. Grant County is obligated to follow the Indicators of Efficiency noted by the Team. Indicators of Efficiency shall not be used to affect the approval status of Grant County or the accreditation status of the schools. 8.1.1.

Curriculum. The school district and school conduct an annual curriculum audit regarding student curricular requests and overall school curriculum needs, including distance learning in combination with accessible and available resources. The administration must actively and aggressively seek assistance to increase expectations for student achievement. The predominate staff perception of mediocrity was a major cause of the low student achievement across all grade levels. Co-teaching was another area of high concern. It is imperative that the special educator and the general educator work together collaboratively to provide instruction for all students. The administration must seek professional development for all teachers in the proper implementation of co-teaching. Limited library availability for high school students impeded the use of this invaluable resource. Furthermore, the lack of secondary programs of study and program delivery by Virtual School showed that Grant County and the school had not actively pursued available resources for students.

125 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Building Capacity to Correct Deficiencies West Virginia Code §18-2E-5 establishes that the needed resources are available to assist the school or school system in achieving the standards and alleviating the deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Union Educational Complex School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended. 18.1.

Capacity building is a process for targeting resources strategically to improve the teaching and learning process. School and county electronic strategic improvement plan development is intended, in part, to provide mechanisms to target resources strategically to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school, and school system performance. The Team recommended that the Grant County School System Superintendent and the school administrator contact Dr. Karen Huffman, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Educator Quality and System Support at 304-558-3199 to arrange a School Support System for correcting the deficiencies and improving student and school performance.

Identification of Resource Needs A thorough and efficient system of schools requires the provision of an adequate level of appropriately managed resources. The West Virginia Board of Education adopted resource evaluation as a part of the accreditation and evaluation process. This process is intended to meaningfully evaluate the needs for facilities, personnel, curriculum, equipment and materials in each of the county’s schools and how those impact program and student performance. 19.1.

Facilities, equipment, and materials. Facilities and equipment specified in Policy 6200, Chapters 1 through 14, are available in all schools, classrooms, and other required areas. A determination will be made by using the Process for Improving Education (W.Va. Code §18-2E-5) whether any identified deficiencies adversely impact and impair the delivery of a high quality educational program if it is below the West Virginia Board of Education standards due to inadequacies or inappropriate management in the areas of facilities, equipment, and materials. The Education Performance Audit Teams shall utilize an assessment instrument for the evaluation of school facilities which generally follows the requirements of Policy 6200. Note: Corrective measures to be taken in response to any identified resource deficiency will of necessity be subject to the feasibility of modifying existing facilities, consideration of alternative methods of instructional delivery, availability of 126 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

funding, and prioritization of educational needs through Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plans and the West Virginia School Building Authority. This policy does not change the authority, judgment, or priorities of the School Building Authority of West Virginia who is statutorily responsible for prioritizing “Need” for the purpose of funding school improvements or school construction in the State of West Virginia or the prerogative of the Legislature in providing resources. (Policy 6200 and Tomblin v. Gainer) According to the items checked in the School Facilities Evaluation Checklist, the school was below standard in the following areas. The principal checked and the Team confirmed the following school facility resource needs. 19.1.1.

School location. The school site did not have stable, well-drained soil free of erosion.

19.1.4.

Counselor’s office. The counselor’s office did not have adequate space.

19.1.5.

Library/media and technology center. Electronic card catalogs and automated circulation capacity were not available.

19.1.10. Specialized instructional areas. The art facilities did not have mechanical ventilation or black-out areas. The physical education facilities did not have forced ventilation, network connection, or internet access. The music facilities did not have music chairs with folding arms or acoustical treatment. 19.1.11. Grades 6-12 science facilities. All science facilities did not have AC and DC current, a first aid kit, and compressed air. 19.1.12. Grades 7-12 auditorium/stage. The middle school auditorium was not of adequate size, was not located to have convenient access to language arts and music instructional area and close to seating, and did not have broadcast capabilities. 19.1.14. Food service. The food service area was not of adequate size. A teacher dining area, locker/dressing room, and chairs were not provided. 19.1.15. Health service units. A health service unit of adequate size was not provided. The following equipment and furnishings were not available: Curtained or small rooms with cots, bulletin board, toilet, scales, and refrigerator with locked storage.

127 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Early Detection and Intervention One of the most important elements in the Education Performance Audit process is monitoring student progress through early detection and intervention programs. The School Support System presented under the Capacity Building Section will be an invaluable resource in guiding school improvement.

128 Office of Education Performance Audits

Initial November 2009

Education Performance Audit Summary The Team identified nine high quality standards necessary to improve performance and progress. They include the following: 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.1.7. 7.2.1. 7.2.2. 7.2.3. 7.4.1. 7.8.1.

High expectations. Learning environment. Instruction. Library/educational technology access and technology application. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. Counseling services. Lesson plans and principal feedback. Regulatory agency reviews. Leadership.

The Team noted an indicator of efficiency, offered capacity building resources, and noted an early detection and intervention concern. Union Educational Complex School’s Education Performance Audit was limited in scope to the performance and progress standards related to student and school performance. The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Union Educational Complex School in improvement efforts. Section 17.10. of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2320 states: If during an on-site review, a school or county board is found to be in noncompliance with one or more standards, the school and county electronic strategic improvement plans must be revised and shall be submitted to the West Virginia Board of Education within 30 days of receipt of the draft written report. The plans shall include objectives, a time line, a plan for evaluation of the success of the improvements, a cost estimate and a date certain for achieving full accreditation and/or full approval status as applicable. Based upon the results of the Education Performance Audit, the Office of Education Performance Audits recommends that the West Virginia Board of Education direct Union Educational Complex School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year Strategic Plan within 30 days and correct the findings noted in the report.

129 Office of Education Performance Audits