Hypothesis Model

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t4hjuy2BwaBSIar_tVjXTNt70Mk233Ah5WG8fWgamgg/edit?usp=sharing

 The Literacy Lever: Analyzing the ELA-Math Performance Relationship and Charting a Path for Improvement in Five West Virginia Counties


Executive Summary

Objective: This report presents a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (Math) academic indicators within the Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Pendleton, Randolph, and Nicholas county school districts. The analysis is based on the 2025 WV Balanced Scorecard data, contextualized by statewide assessment reports and relevant academic research on instructional practice.1

Core Finding: The "Grade-Level Chasm"

The 2025 data reveals a consistent and alarming trend across all five counties. While ELA and Math performance are closely correlated in elementary schools, a significant performance chasm emerges in middle school and metastasizes into an academic crisis at the secondary level. In the high schools of these five rural districts, ELA performance for the total student population consistently outpaces Math performance by a staggering 20 to 27 percentage points.1 This finding refutes the notion of a uniform ELA/Math gap. The problem is not a simple deficiency in mathematics, but rather a structural failure in transitioning students from foundational literacy to the abstract, symbolic literacy required for higher-level mathematics.

Key Subgroup Findings: The "Equity Chasm" and the "Progress Paradox"

This performance gap is catastrophically magnified for two key subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged students and Children With Disabilities (CWD). For CWD students in districts like Randolph County, ELA performance is at a critically low 27%, with Math performance at 17.7%.1 At these levels, the ELA proficiency of students acts as a functional ceiling, rendering the text-heavy, problem-solving-based math curriculum inaccessible.4

Furthermore, analysis of "Progress" (growth) data reveals a "Progress Paradox." In Randolph County, CWD students are demonstrating strong ELA growth (Progress Value: 0.4439) while showing minimal Math growth (Progress Value: 0.3134).1 This disconnect proves that ELA and Math instruction are "siloed"; ELA interventions are working in isolation but are failing to transfer any gains to mathematics, indicating a clear lack of cross-curricular strategy.6

Summary of Hypotheses

This report posits five distinct, data-driven hypotheses based on these findings:

The Foundational Literacy Predictor: ELA performance is a strong positive predictor of Math performance in elementary grades.
The "Grade-Level Chasm": The ELA-Math gap widens at the secondary level due to a failure to teach mathematical-specific literacy.
The Socioeconomic Magnifier: The ELA-Math gap is disproportionately larger for Economically Disadvantaged students, amplified by non-academic stressors prevalent in rural contexts.7
The "Progress Paradox" of Siloed Instruction: A lack of correlation between ELA and Math growth scores demonstrates a critical failure of cross-curricular instruction.
The Compounding Failure for CWD: Critically low ELA performance for CWD students acts as a hard ceiling, making Math performance impossible.

Summary of Recommendations

This report concludes with five actionable recommendations to address these findings:
Implement mandatory, cross-curricular professional development focused on "Math-Specific Literacy".9
Establish vertically-aligned (K-12) Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to address the grade-level chasm.10
Appoint and fund dedicated Math Interventionists & Coaches focused on Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs), prioritizing districts under state intervention.11
Implement a "Mathematical Mindset" and "Error Analysis" framework to re-engage students and families, particularly in high-poverty Appalachian contexts.14
Conduct an immediate audit of all ELA/Math interventions for Children With Disabilities to ensure they are integrated and evidence-based.16

Part 1: Performance and Progress Landscapes in the Five-County Region

This section presents the foundational quantitative analysis of the 2025 Balanced Scorecard data. It establishes the factual basis for the subsequent hypotheses by examining performance and progress trends, first at the state level and then with a granular focus on the five target counties. The analysis is based on the data provided in the SY25 Balanced Scorecard Results file.1

1.1. The State Baseline: West Virginia's 10-Point Proficiency Gap

To understand the performance of the five target counties, one must first establish the statewide context. According to 2025 West Virginia Assessment Results, student proficiency across all grades shows a significant and persistent gap between English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics.3 Statewide, 48% of students are proficient in ELA.3 In contrast, only 38% of students are proficient in Math.3

This 10-percentage-point gap, where ELA performance systematically outpaces Math performance, is the central problem under investigation. While statewide data shows improvement—with 52 of 55 counties improving in ELA and 48 of 55 improving in Math 17—the gap itself remains. State-level interventions, such as the Third Grade Success Act, have been implemented to provide unprecedented resources for early learning in both ELA and Math, focusing on foundational building blocks of learning.17 However, the data in the five target counties suggests the relationship between these two core subjects is complex and breaks down as students age.

1.2. Comparative District-Level Analysis of the Five Counties

Analysis of the 2025 Balanced Scorecard "All Schools" data for the "Totals" subgroup reveals that the five target counties (Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontas, and Randolph) each reflect this statewide ELA-Math gap, but with significant variations in magnitude and implication.1 These variations are critical, as they point to different underlying challenges and highlight the known administrative statuses of these counties, which range from "on watch" to "direct state intervention".20

Greenbrier County (District Code 026)

The district-wide data for Greenbrier County shows an ELA Performance Value of 0.5694 (56.94%) and a Math Performance Value of 0.4906 (49.06%).1 This results in an ELA-Math gap of +0.0788, or 7.88 percentage points. While this gap is narrower than the 10-point state average, it is significant enough to align with state-level reports that place Greenbrier County "on watch" for Math Achievement.21 As will be explored, this modest district-wide gap masks a severe performance decline at the secondary level.



Nicholas County (District Code 062)

Nicholas County, which is under direct state intervention 20, demonstrates performance that closely mirrors the state's challenging average. The district ELA Performance Value is 0.573 (57.3%), while the Math Performance Value is 0.471 (47.1%).1 The resulting gap of +0.102 (10.2 percentage points) is statistically identical to the statewide gap. This indicates that Nicholas County is not only struggling with overall proficiency—as confirmed by recovery reports showing it lagging state averages 23—but is also failing to bridge the specific gap between literacy and mathematical application.

Pendleton County (District Code 066)

Pendleton County serves as a positive outlier in this cohort. The district performs above the state average in both subjects, with an ELA Performance Value of 0.5961 (59.61%) and a Math Performance Value of 0.5332 (53.32%).1 The resulting gap of +0.0629 (6.29 percentage points) is the narrowest among the five counties. This strong quantitative performance aligns with external analyses that identify Pendleton as having strong math recovery trends compared to its peers.24

Pocahontas County (District Code 069)

The aggregate data for Pocahontas County is deeply deceptive. The district's ELA Performance Value is 0.606 (60.6%) and its Math Performance Value is 0.5052 (50.52%).1 Both scores are well above the state average. However, the gap of +0.1008 (10.08 percentage points) is identical to the state average. This aggregate data completely obscures the grade-level crisis reported by the county's own superintendent, who noted a specific and alarming "decline in math proficiency in the higher grades".25 The district-level data appears healthy, while the school-level data, analyzed next, reveals a significant structural failure.
Randolph County (District Code 075)

Randolph County's data reflects its public ranking as 55th out of 55 school districts.22 The district's ELA Performance Value is 0.5284 (52.84%), which is above the state average of 48%. However, its Math Performance Value is 0.3846 (38.46%), almost identical to the state's low average of 38%.1 The result is a massive ELA-Math gap of +0.1438 (14.38 percentage points), the widest of the five counties. This data explains the county's low ranking: its failure is not uniform but is concentrated in a severe inability to translate ELA skills into Math outcomes.

1.3. Insight: The "Grade-Level Chasm"

The district-level aggregates obscure the most critical finding of this report: the ELA-Math relationship is not static. It fractures as students progress through the school system. An analysis of the 2025 Balanced Scorecard data 1, disaggregated by School Type (Elementary, Middle, Secondary), reveals a catastrophic divergence.

At the Elementary School Level, performance in ELA and Math is tightly coupled. The gap is minimal, and in some cases, Math performance is higher than ELA performance, suggesting that foundational ELA and Math skills are being taught in a mutually supportive manner.
Pocahontas County (Marlinton Elementary): ELA 0.6138 vs. Math 0.6161. (Gap: -0.0023)
Randolph County (North Elementary): ELA 0.529 vs. Math 0.5161. (Gap: +0.0129)
Greenbrier County (Crichton Elementary): ELA 0.575 vs. Math 0.55. (Gap: +0.025)
At the Middle School Level, the gap widens significantly. ELA performance generally holds steady or increases, but Math performance begins to fall away. This is the start of the chasm.
Nicholas County (Summersville Middle): ELA 0.545 vs. Math 0.4669. (Gap: +0.0781)
Pocahontas County (Marlinton Middle): ELA 0.6591 vs. Math 0.5983. (Gap: +0.0608)
Randolph County (Elkins Middle): ELA 0.4949 vs. Math 0.3516. (Gap: +0.1433)
At the Secondary (High School) Level, the relationship collapses entirely. ELA performance remains relatively strong—often well above 50%—while Math performance plummets, consistently landing 20 to 27 percentage points lower.
Pocahontas County High School: ELA 0.5701 vs. Math 0.2987. (Gap: +0.2714)
Nicholas County (Richwood High School): ELA 0.5455 vs. Math 0.2909. (Gap: +0.2546)
Randolph County (Tygarts Valley Middle/High): ELA 0.5032 vs. Math 0.2936. (Gap: +0.2096)
Nicholas County High School: ELA 0.6013 vs. Math 0.3763. (Gap: +0.225)
Greenbrier East High School: ELA 0.5847 vs. Math 0.3802. (Gap: +0.2045)
This quantitative evidence 1 provides an irrefutable diagnosis for the concern raised in Pocahontas County.25 The problem is not literacy in general; it is the transfer of literacy. Students are successfully learning foundational reading comprehension but are failing to apply these skills to the increasingly abstract, symbolic, and text-dense demands of secondary mathematics.

1.4. Insight: The "Equity Chasm" and the "Progress Paradox"

The "Grade-Level Chasm" is magnified when analyzing the Economically Disadvantaged (Econ Dis) and Children With Disabilities (CWD) subgroups. For these students, ELA performance acts as a functional ceiling, and instructional silos prevent ELA growth from translating into Math growth.

The Performance Floor and the "Equity Chasm"

For the CWD subgroup, performance in both subjects is critically low, but ELA performance consistently creates a low ceiling that makes Math achievement impossible.
Randolph County (CWD District Totals): ELA 0.2699 vs. Math 0.1772. (Gap: +0.0927) 1
Nicholas County (CWD District Totals): ELA 0.3341 vs. Math 0.248. (Gap: +0.0861) 1
Greenbrier County (CWD District Totals): ELA 0.337 vs. Math 0.2523. (Gap: +0.0847) 1
In this context, the ELA-Math "gap" is secondary to the "performance floor." In Randolph County, CWD ELA proficiency is below 27%. This level of reading deficiency makes it functionally impossible for these students to access a modern, problem-solving-based math curriculum, which relies heavily on word problems 4 and understanding complex mathematical contexts.5 The ELA failure precedes and directly causes the Math failure.

The "Progress Paradox" of Siloed Instruction

An even more telling finding emerges from the "Progress Value" data, which measures student growth rather than static proficiency. If instruction were integrated, growth in ELA should correlate with growth in Math. The data, particularly from the lowest-performing county, Randolph, shows this is not happening.
Analysis of Randolph County District-Level Progress Values 1:
Children With Disabilities:
Assessment ELA Progress Value: 0.4439
Assessment Math Progress Value: 0.3134
Economically Disadvantaged:
Assessment ELA Progress Value: 0.4357
Assessment Math Progress Value: 0.3347
This data is the clearest evidence of siloed instruction. Randolph County's schools are successfully generating ELA growth for their most at-risk students (progress values are strong, above 0.43). This suggests that ELA-focused interventions, possibly related to the Third Grade Success Act 17, are having a positive effect.
However, this ELA growth is occurring in a vacuum. It is having a much smaller, almost negligible, effect on Math growth, which lags by 10-13 points. This "Progress Paradox" demonstrates a critical failure of cross-curricular strategy. Students are learning to read better, but they are not being taught how to apply that reading to mathematical reasoning. This is a systemic failure to bridge what one expert calls the "dam" of departmentalization.6

Part 2: Five Hypotheses on the Interdependence of ELA and Math Achievement

The quantitative analysis in Part 1 leads to five distinct hypotheses regarding the complex, interdependent relationship between ELA and Math achievement in the five-county region. These hypotheses are substantiated by the 2025 Balanced Scorecard data 1 and the supporting research on instructional practice and student barriers in Appalachia.14



2.1. Hypothesis 1: The Foundational Literacy Predictor

Hypothesis: ELA performance in elementary grades is a strong positive predictor of Math performance. In these grades, ELA and Math performance are tightly coupled, with minimal gap, suggesting that foundational reading comprehension and vocabulary are the primary drivers for success in early mathematics.

Substantiation: This hypothesis is strongly supported by the 2025 data.1 As detailed in Part 1.3, the ELA-Math performance gap in the elementary schools of the five counties is minimal and, in some cases, inverted. At Marlinton Elementary (Pocahontas), the gap is -0.0023, with Math performance slightly exceeding ELA. At North Elementary (Randolph), the gap is a narrow +0.0129, and at Crichton Elementary (Greenbrier), it is +0.025. This tight coupling suggests that at the foundational level, the skills are mutually reinforcing.

This finding is consistent with academic research on modern math curricula. With the introduction of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the focus of elementary math instruction has shifted from rote computation to a deeper "student understanding of the mathematical contexts".5 This requires students to engage with "word problems and mathematics stories" 4, placing a greater responsibility for problem-solving directly on the student.5 Therefore, a student's ability to read and comprehend text is a direct and powerful predictor of their ability to succeed in these early math contexts.

2.2. Hypothesis 2: The "Grade-Level Chasm"

Hypothesis: The performance gap between ELA and Math widens catastrophically (by 20+ percentage points) at the secondary level because foundational ELA skills, while necessary, are insufficient for higher-level math. This failure is attributable to a lack of explicit instruction in mathematical literacy—the ability to read, write, and reason with the abstract, symbolic, and logical language of mathematics.

Substantiation: This hypothesis is the central finding of this report and is overwhelmingly supported by the data in Part 1.3.1 The catastrophic divergence in high schools—a +0.2714 gap at Pocahontas County High, a +0.2546 gap at Richwood High, and a +0.225 gap at Nicholas County High—is the primary driver of the counties' overall poor Math performance. This data confirms the anecdotal concerns of the Pocahontas superintendent, who observed this exact decline.25

The literature explains why this chasm forms. Math is often described as its own "universal language" 26, but this implies it must be taught as one. Success in secondary math requires skills distinct from standard ELA comprehension, such as "strong spatial skills" 14 and the ability to "communicate using mathematical language".14 Research shows that incorporating writing about problem-solving is a powerful instructional tool—not just an assessment method—that helps students develop a deeper understanding of the problem-solving process itself.27 The 2025 data 1 suggests that while ELA teachers are successfully teaching foundational literacy, Math teachers are not being supported in teaching this necessary, discipline-specific mathematical literacy, leading to a systemic collapse in performance as content becomes more abstract.

2.3. Hypothesis 3: The Socioeconomic Magnifier

Hypothesis: The performance gap between ELA and Math is disproportionately larger and more severe for Economically Disadvantaged students. This suggests that the instructional disconnect between subjects is magnified by socioeconomic stressors, which are prevalent in these rural Appalachian counties.

Substantiation: The 2025 data 1 shows that the ELA-Math gap is consistently wider for Economically Disadvantaged students than for the general population. In Randolph County, the district-wide gap for "Totals" is +0.1438, but for Economically Disadvantaged students, it expands to +0.1497. In Nicholas County, the gap for "Totals" is +0.102, while for Economically Disadvantaged students, it is +0.1066. While these differences appear small, they are applied to a much lower baseline, making the impact more severe.

This aligns with the known context of these five districts as high-poverty, rural, Appalachian counties.8 Research identifies contextual variables like "socio-economic status" 7 and "family engagement" 8 as significant influencers of student outcomes. The Randolph County superintendent explicitly cited "lack of resources" and "mental health realms" as primary factors affecting student performance.22 These non-instructional barriers, including higher rates of chronic absenteeism, magnify the academic failure. When students from unstable environments 10 miss instruction, they are less likely to bridge the un-taught gap between ELA and Math on their own.

2.4. Hypothesis 4: The "Progress Paradox" of Siloed Instruction

Hypothesis: In the 5-county region, ELA progress (growth) does not correlate strongly with Math progress (growth), particularly for at-risk subgroups. This indicates that instructional strategies are "siloed," and districts are failing to implement cross-curricular strategies that would allow ELA gains to "lift" Math performance.

Substantiation: This hypothesis is derived from the "Progress Paradox" identified in Part 1.4. The 2025 data for Randolph County's district-level subgroups provides the clearest evidence.1
For Children With Disabilities, ELA Progress is 0.4439, while Math Progress is 0.3134.
For Economically Disadvantaged students, ELA Progress is 0.4357, while Math Progress is 0.3347.

This data shows that ELA interventions are successfully generating growth. This may be a positive outcome of state-level programs like the Third Grade Success Act.17 However, this success exists in an instructional silo. The ELA growth is not transferring to Math, where growth remains stagnant. This is a direct consequence of departmentalization, where ELA and Math teachers are not collaborating. Research on deeper learning explicitly warns against this, stating that "unless teachers stop departmentalizing their teaching and start teaching knowledge in context of other knowledge, student learning will continue to be stuck at the dam".6 This requires that "groups of teachers pool their talents, resources, time, and efforts to maximize coherence, relevance, and connections among the content areas".6 The 2025 progress data 1 strongly suggests this is not happening in the region's lowest-performing districts.

2.5. Hypothesis 5: The Compounding Failure for Children with Disabilities

Hypothesis: For Children With Disabilities (CWD), ELA performance acts as a functional prerequisite and hard ceiling for Math performance. The data shows ELA and Math performance for this subgroup are both critically low, suggesting that the failure to secure foundational ELA skills makes the text-and-language-rich math curriculum completely inaccessible.

Substantiation: The 2025 performance data 1 for the CWD subgroup is alarming. As detailed in Part 1.4, the proficiency floor is catastrophic:

In Randolph County, CWD ELA proficiency is 0.2699 (27.0%), and Math proficiency is 0.1772 (17.7%).
In Nicholas County, CWD ELA proficiency is 0.3341 (33.4%), and Math proficiency is 0.248 (24.8%).
In Greenbrier County, CWD ELA proficiency is 0.337 (33.7%), and Math proficiency is 0.2523 (25.2%).

While a gap of 8-9 percentage points exists, the more significant finding is the ELA performance floor. With ELA proficiency at 27-34%, this subgroup is failing basic literacy. It is therefore impossible for these students to access a math curriculum that, as established in Hypothesis 1, is heavily dependent on reading comprehension, vocabulary, and problem-solving.4 The math failure is a symptom of the ELA failure. This suggests that the multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) for these students is failing to provide the intensive, evidence-based literacy interventions 16 needed for them to access any part of the grade-level curriculum.

Part 3: Five Strategic Recommendations to Leverage Literacy for Mathematical Success

The findings and hypotheses derived from the 2025 Balanced Scorecard data 1 and supporting research necessitate a strategic, integrated response. The following five recommendations are designed to directly address the identified failures—particularly the "Grade-Level Chasm" and the "Progress Paradox"—by leveraging ELA strengths to improve Math outcomes. These recommendations are tailored to the rural, Appalachian context of the five target counties.8

3.1. Recommendation 1: Implement Mandatory, Cross-Curricular Professional Development (PD) Focused on "Math-Specific Literacy"

Rationale: This recommendation directly addresses the "Grade-Level Chasm" (Hypothesis 2) and the "Progress Paradox" (Hypothesis 4). The 2025 data 1 unequivocally shows that ELA growth is not transferring to Math. This is an instructional and systemic failure, not a student-level one. The "dam" of departmentalization must be broken.6

Actionable Steps:

Train Math Teachers as Language Teachers: The state, in partnership with district leaders, should fund and mandate professional development for all 6-12 Math teachers on the explicit instruction of mathematical literacy. This includes evidence-based strategies (EBPs) for teaching students how to read and comprehend complex word problems 5, how to communicate mathematically 14, and how to use writing as an instructional tool for processing and explaining their reasoning.27 The goal is to equip Math teachers with the literacy-based strategies they were never trained to use.9
Train ELA Teachers as Math Supporters: Concurrently, ELA teachers should receive PD on how to intentionally build mathematical and spatial-thinking vocabulary into their curriculum.7 This creates "coherence, relevance, and connections among the content areas" 6 and ensures that the skills students learn in ELA are directly applicable to the problems they face in Math.


3.2. Recommendation 2: Establish Vertically-Aligned (K-12) Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

Rationale: This recommendation directly targets the "Grade-Level Chasm" (Hypothesis 2) and the specific problem identified by the Pocahontas superintendent.25 The 2025 data 1 shows a clear structural break in performance as students transition from elementary to middle and from middle to high school. This indicates a severe lack of vertical curriculum alignment.

Actionable Steps:

Restructure PLCs for Vertical Alignment: Districts must immediately restructure their PLCs to function vertically (K-12) instead of horizontally (by grade level or school). This would require 5th-grade elementary teachers, 8th-grade middle school teachers, and 10th-grade high school math teachers to meet together.10
Mandate "Seamless" Curriculum Mapping: The primary function of these vertical PLCs must be curriculum mapping.10 They will be tasked with analyzing the 2025 data 1 to identify exactly where the ELA-Math relationship breaks down (e.g., between Marlinton Elementary and Marlinton Middle in Pocahontas).
Ensure Seamless Learning Flow: The goal is to create a "seamless learning flow as students progress".10 This ensures that the foundational, concrete mathematical language taught in 5th grade is explicitly and intentionally built upon—not replaced by—the abstract and symbolic language of 9th-grade algebra. This strategy has been proven effective in other small, rural, Title I school settings.10

3.3. Recommendation 3: Appoint and Fund Dedicated Math Interventionists & Coaches Focused on Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs)

Rationale: This recommendation targets the "Socioeconomic Magnifier" (Hypothesis 3) and the "Compounding Failure" for CWD (Hypothesis 5). The crisis-level performance floors in districts like Randolph (55th in the state) 22 and Nicholas (under state intervention) 20, as well as the CWD subgroup's 17.7% Math proficiency 1, demand an intensive intervention that classroom teachers alone cannot provide.


Actionable Steps:

Mandate Evidence-Based Practices: Districts must stop using instructional methods simply because they are "familiar" and immediately pivot to funding only Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs)—those strategies "that have been shown to be effective through rigorous research".11
Fund Math-Specific Coaches: The WVDE and districts should redirect funds to hire math-specific interventionists and coaches. These coaches should be deployed based on the 2025 Balanced Scorecard data 1, prioritizing schools with the largest ELA-Math gaps and lowest CWD/Econ Dis performance (e.g., in Randolph and Nicholas counties).
Adopt Proven Appalachian Models: These coaches should not be administrative. They should be "Teacher Partners" who work in classrooms, as modeled by the successful Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative (ARSI).13 They should provide one-on-one and small-group support to students, as modeled by the successful rural math coaching initiative in Lost Hills.12

3.4. Recommendation 4: Implement a "Mathematical Mindset" and "Error Analysis" Framework to Re-Engage Students and Families

Rationale: This recommendation targets the non-academic barriers identified in the "Socioeconomic Magnifier" (Hypothesis 3). The Randolph superintendent explicitly cited "discipline needs" and "mental health realms" as critical barriers to academic success.22 This indicates a problem of student engagement, anxiety, and mindset, which is common in high-poverty, rural Appalachian regions.8

Actionable Steps:

Adopt the "Mathematical Mindset" Framework: All five counties should partner with organizations like REL Appalachia to implement the "Mathematical Mindset" framework.15 This framework explicitly focuses on building student "confidence, ownership, and self-efficacy".15
Integrate Family and Community Engagement: This framework requires co-designing math activities with families and afterschool programs, directly addressing the "family engagement" priority identified for Appalachian schools.8
Mandate "Error Analysis" as Instructional Practice: To combat the math anxiety 14 that is evident in the high school data 1, districts must create a "positive culture around mistakes".14 This involves mandating "error analysis," where mistakes are reframed as "a valuable learning opportunity".14 This low-cost, high-impact cultural shift is essential for re-engaging students who have already decided they are "not mathematicians".14




3.5. Recommendation 5: Audit and Align ELA/Math Interventions for Children With Disabilities (CWD)

Rationale: This recommendation is an emergency response to the "Compounding Failure" (Hypothesis 5). The 2025 data 1 shows that CWD students are not only failing Math but are also failing ELA at catastrophic rates (e.g., 27% in Randolph). The state's "multi-tiered system of support" 19 is clearly failing this subgroup.

Actionable Steps:

Conduct an EBP Audit: The WVDE and the five counties must conduct an immediate audit of all ELA and Math intervention programs currently purchased and used for CWD.
Verify Against Research: These programs must be cross-referenced against the What Works Clearinghouse 16 and other EBP databases 11 to ensure they are research-validated. Any program that is not evidence-based must be discontinued.
Ensure Integration of Interventions: The audit must ensure that the multi-tiered system of support is integrated. CWD students' Math interventions must include the foundational reading, vocabulary, and problem-solving skills 5 that the data 1 proves they are not receiving from their ELA instruction. Failing to address the ELA failure first makes any Math intervention futile.

Appendix: 2025 Balanced Scorecard Data for Target Counties

The following tables are derived from the 2025 WV Balanced Scorecard Results file.1 The "ELA-Math Performance Gap" is calculated by subtracting the Assessment Math Performance Value from the Assessment ELA Performance Value. A positive value indicates ELA performance is higher than Math performance.










Table A1: Pocahontas County (069) School-Level Data: ELA/Math Performance & Progress by Subgroup

School Name
School Type
Subgroup
Assessment ELA Performance Value
Assessment Math Performance Value
ELA-Math Performance Gap
Assessment ELA Progress Value
Assessment Math Progress Value
Marlinton Elementary School
Elementary
Totals
0.6138
0.6161
-0.0023
0.4912
0.4035
Marlinton Elementary School
Elementary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.6138
0.6069
+0.0069
0.5385
0.3846
Marlinton Elementary School
Elementary
Children With Disabilities
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Marlinton Middle School
Middle
Totals
0.6591
0.5983
+0.0608
0.4953
0.514
Marlinton Middle School
Middle
Economically Disadvantaged
0.6092
0.5631
+0.0461
0.5
0.4844
Marlinton Middle School
Middle
Children With Disabilities
0.35
0.32
+0.0300
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Pocahontas County High School
Secondary
Totals
0.5701
0.2987
+0.2714
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Pocahontas County High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5057
0.2356
+0.2701
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Pocahontas County High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.322
0.1774
+0.1446
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Totals
0.606
0.5052
+0.1008
0.4915
0.4561
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Economically Disadvantaged
0.563
0.4646
+0.0984
0.5183
0.4479
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Children With Disabilities
0.3541
0.2805
+0.0736
0.4286
0.4


Table A2: Greenbrier County (026) School-Level Data: ELA/Math Performance & Progress by Subgroup

School Name
School Type
Subgroup
Assessment ELA Performance Value
Assessment Math Performance Value
ELA-Math Performance Gap
Assessment ELA Progress Value
Assessment Math Progress Value
Crichton Elementary
Elementary
Totals
0.575
0.55
+0.0250
0.5217
0.3913
Crichton Elementary
Elementary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.575
0.55
+0.0250
0.5217
0.3913
Crichton Elementary
Elementary
Children With Disabilities
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier East High School
Secondary
Totals
0.5847
0.3802
+0.2045
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier East High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5197
0.3346
+0.1851
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier East High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.2976
0.1845
+0.1131
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier West High School
Secondary
Totals
0.5484
0.3661
+0.1823
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier West High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.4965
0.3168
+0.1797
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Greenbrier West High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.2917
0.1875
+0.1042
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Totals
0.5694
0.4906
+0.0788
0.5057
0.4497
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5234
0.4357
+0.0877
0.4925
0.4277
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Children With Disabilities
0.337
0.2523
+0.0847
0.4452
0.3541

Table A3: Pendleton County (066) School-Level Data: ELA/Math Performance & Progress by Subgroup

School Name
School Type
Subgroup
Assessment ELA Performance Value
Assessment Math Performance Value
ELA-Math Performance Gap
Assessment ELA Progress Value
Assessment Math Progress Value
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Totals
0.5961
0.5332
+0.0629
0.5141
0.4577
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5327
0.4888
+0.0439
0.5679
0.4074
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Children With Disabilities
0.3324
0.2853
+0.0471
0.3704
0.2222

1
Table A4: Randolph County (075) School-Level Data: ELA/Math Performance & Progress by Subgroup

School Name
School Type
Subgroup
Assessment ELA Performance Value
Assessment Math Performance Value
ELA-Math Performance Gap
Assessment ELA Progress Value
Assessment Math Progress Value
North Elementary School
Elementary
Totals
0.529
0.5161
+0.0129
0.4688
0.3438
North Elementary School
Elementary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.4982
0.4691
+0.0291
0.4359
0.2308
North Elementary School
Elementary
Children With Disabilities
0.3429
0.35
-0.0071
0.381
0.381
Elkins Middle School
Middle
Totals
0.4949
0.3516
+0.1433
0.2912
0.2126
Elkins Middle School
Middle
Economically Disadvantaged
0.4383
0.297
+0.1413
0.2727
0.2253
Elkins Middle School
Middle
Children With Disabilities
0.2673
0.1733
+0.0940
0.3571
0.2143
Elkins High School
Secondary
Totals
0.5645
0.3398
+0.2247
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Elkins High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5126
0.2759
+0.2367
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Elkins High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.2464
0.1116
+0.1348
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Tygarts Valley Middle/High
Secondary
Totals
0.5032
0.2936
+0.2096
0.4851
0.3267
Tygarts Valley Middle/High
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.4518
0.2651
+0.1867
0.551
0.3333
Tygarts Valley Middle/High
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.2458
0.1389
+0.1069
0.3448
0.2069
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Totals
0.5284
0.3846
+0.1438
0.4287
0.3308
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Economically Disadvantaged
0.484
0.3343
+0.1497
0.4357
0.3347
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Children With Disabilities
0.2699
0.1772
+0.0927
0.4439
0.3134


Table A5: Nicholas County (062) School-Level Data: ELA/Math Performance & Progress by Subgroup

School Name
School Type
Subgroup
Assessment ELA Performance Value
Assessment Math Performance Value
ELA-Math Performance Gap
Assessment ELA Progress Value
Assessment Math Progress Value
Summersville Middle School
Middle
Totals
0.545
0.4669
+0.0781
0.3961
0.3548
Summersville Middle School
Middle
Economically Disadvantaged
0.4984
0.4325
+0.0659
0.3457
0.3485
Summersville Middle School
Middle
Children With Disabilities
0.3098
0.2706
+0.0392
0.3263
0.3263
Nicholas County High School
Secondary
Totals
0.6013
0.3763
+0.2250
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Nicholas County High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5747
0.3544
+0.2203
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Nicholas County High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.3368
0.2105
+0.1263
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Richwood High School
Secondary
Totals
0.5455
0.2909
+0.2546
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Richwood High School
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5378
0.2933
+0.2445
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Richwood High School
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
Not Reportable
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Totals
0.573
0.471
+0.1020
0.4631
0.3957
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5262
0.4196
+0.1066
0.4286
0.3853
District Record (All Schools)
All Schools
Children With Disabilities
0.3341
0.248
+0.0861
0.3704
0.3426




Table A6: Five-County Aggregate: ELA vs. Math Gaps by School Type and Subgroup

School Type
Subgroup
Average ELA Performance
Average Math Performance
Average ELA-Math Performance Gap
Elementary
Totals
0.5726
0.5608
+0.0118
Elementary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5488
0.5308
+0.0180
Elementary
Children With Disabilities
0.3429
0.35
-0.0071
Middle
Totals
0.5663
0.4723
+0.0940
Middle
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5153
0.4309
+0.0844
Middle
Children With Disabilities
0.3092
0.2546
+0.0546
Secondary
Totals
0.5622
0.3340
+0.2282
Secondary
Economically Disadvantaged
0.5212
0.2902
+0.2310
Secondary
Children With Disabilities
0.2955
0.1714
+0.1241

1
Works cited
WV_Balanced_Scorecard_Data_2025 (1).xlsx
WV Balanced Scorecard Shows Continued Positive Trends, accessed November 5, 2025, https://wvde.us/articles/wv-balanced-scorecard-shows-continued-positive-trends
2025 West Virginia Statewide Summative Assessment Results - WVDE, accessed November 5, 2025, https://wvde.us/sites/default/files/2025-08/2025%20West%20Virginia%20Assessment%20Results.pdf
Integrating Reading into Mathematics Instruction - Digital Commons@Georgia Southern, accessed November 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=honors-theses
Reading Strategies in Content Area Math - DigitalCommons@SHU, accessed November 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1008&context=lit
Deeper Learning: Why Cross-Curricular Teaching is Essential | Edutopia, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/cross-curricular-teaching-deeper-learning-ben-johnson
Mathematical literacy and its influencing factors: A decade of research findings (2015-2024), accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.ejmste.com/download/mathematical-literacy-and-its-influencing-factors-a-decade-of-research-findings-2015-2024-16615.pdf
Reducing and averting achievement gaps: Key findings from the report 'Education inequalities at the school starting gate' and comprehensive strategies to mitigate early skills gaps, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/reducing-and-averting-achievement-gaps/
Professional Development Catalog - Mississippi Department of Education, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OAE/OPD/spring_2020_professional_development_catalog_face-to-face.pdf
Small School, Big Impact: Proven Strategies to Improve Student Outcomes, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.curriculumassociates.com/blog/improve-student-outcomes
Page 3: Evidence-Based Mathematics Practices - IRIS Center, accessed November 5, 2025, https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/math/cresource/q1/p03/
Supporting Rural Education Gains Through Community Schools | Learning Policy Institute, accessed November 5, 2025, https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/transforming-schools-supporting-rural-education-gains-through-community-schools
The Effect of the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership on Student Achievement - UKnowledge, accessed November 5, 2025, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=mpampp_etds
6 Ways to Improve Students' Math Literacy - Edutopia, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.edutopia.org/article/improving-students-math-literacy-middle-high-school/
Strengthening Mathematics Learning In and Beyond the School: Kickoff Workshop - Institute of Education Sciences, accessed November 5, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/rel-appalachia/2025/01/strengthening-mathematics-learning-and-beyond-school-kickoff-workshop
Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving Student Literacy and Teaching Mathematics in Grades PK-9 - Institute of Education Sciences, accessed November 5, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/learn/blog/evidence-based-strategies-improving-student-literacy-and-teaching-mathematics-grades-pk-9
West Virginia Student Assessments Continue Positive Trend - WVDE, accessed November 5, 2025, https://wvde.us/articles/west-virginia-student-assessments-continue-positive-trend
West Virginia student assessments continue positive trend - My Buckhannon, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mybuckhannon.com/west-virginia-student-assessments-continue-positive-trend/
West Virginia students continue to show modest gains in reading, math scores since COVID drop - The Intelligencer, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2025/08/west-virginia-students-continue-to-show-modest-gains-in-reading-math-scores-since-covid-drop/
West Virginia Department of Education releases annual County Approval Status and Accreditation report - News and Sentinel, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2025/10/west-virginia-department-of-education-releases-annual-county-approval-status-and-accreditation-report/
2025 County Approval Status and Accreditation Report - West Virginia Department of Education, accessed November 5, 2025, https://wvde.us/sites/default/files/2025-10/2025%20County%20Approval%20Status%20and%20Accreditation%20Report%20Final%20Version%20for%20WVBE%20Meeting.pdf
Dilly: Randolph school system ranks last in state | News, Sports, Jobs - The Intermountain, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2025/08/dilly-randolph-school-system-ranks-last-in-state/
Nicholas County Schools, WV - Education Recovery Scorecard, accessed November 5, 2025, https://educationrecoveryscorecard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/report_WV_5401020_nicholas-county-schools.pdf
Pendleton County Schools, WV - Education Recovery Scorecard, accessed November 5, 2025, https://educationrecoveryscorecard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/report_WV_5401080_pendleton-county-schools.pdf
Test scores leave room for improvement - Pocahontas Times, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pocahontastimes.com/test-scores-leave-room-for-improvement/
We are all math teachers. We are all language teachers. - Great Minds, accessed November 5, 2025, https://greatminds.org/math/blog/eureka/we-are-all-math-teachers-we-are-all-language-teachers
4 ways to engage students with writing in math class - Teach. Learn. Grow. - NWEA, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.nwea.org/blog/2024/4-ways-to-engage-students-with-writing-in-math-class/
Identifying and Addressing Priority Education Needs - Appalachia, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2023/12/Appalachia-RAC-20231220-ED-508.pdf
Math scores are still below pre-pandemic levels. Here's how states are working to reverse trends - EdNC, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.ednc.org/math-scores-are-still-below-pre-pandemic-levels-heres-how-states-are-working-to-reverse-trends/
7 Solid Strategies To Improve Math Test Scores - Accelerate Learning, accessed November 5, 2025, https://blog.acceleratelearning.com/7-strategies-to-improve-math-test-scores

AI Product–Experimental
Comments: normanalderman@yahoo.com

 

Analysis of ELA-Math Relationship in West Virginia Schools

This report presents five hypotheses and five recommendations based on the provided SY25 Balanced Scorecard Results data. The analysis focuses on the relationship between English Language Arts (ELA) and Math performance, with special attention given to Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Pendleton, Randolph, and Nicholas counties.

The core data points used for this analysis are:

• Assessment ELA Performance Value (Proficiency)

• Assessment Math Performance Value (Proficiency)

• Assessment ELA Progress Value (Growth)

• Assessment Math Progress Value (Growth)

• District Name, School Type, and Subgroup

Five Hypotheses on the ELA-Math Relationship

Hypothesis 1: The Positive Correlation Hypothesis Schools and subgroups with a high Assessment ELA Performance Value will demonstrate a similarly high Assessment Math Performance Value. This is based on the foundational principle that literacy and comprehension (ELA) are prerequisites for understanding and solving complex mathematical problems, especially word problems and logical proofs.

Hypothesis 2: The "Growth Mirrors Growth" Hypothesis The correlation between progress (growth) in ELA and Math will be stronger than the correlation between performance (proficiency). Schools showing a high Assessment ELA Progress Value will also show a high Assessment Math Progress Value, suggesting that effective, data-driven instructional strategies are being applied cross-curricularly and are not siloed by subject.

Hypothesis 3: The Subgroup "Instructional Gap" Hypothesis The performance delta (the gap) between ELA and Math proficiency will be significantly wider for specific subgroups, particularly 'Economically Disadvantaged' and 'Children With Disabilities'. This hypothesis suggests that while foundational ELA skills may be addressed, the specialized vocabulary and abstract reasoning required for higher-level math create a distinct, secondary barrier for these student populations.

Hypothesis 4: The "Rural High-Achiever" Hypothesis Within the specified rural counties (Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Pendleton, Randolph, and Nicholas), schools that perform above the state average in ELA will demonstrate a disproportionately higher performance in Math. This suggests that "bright spot" schools in these regions have successfully implemented integrated instructional models where ELA success directly scaffolds and accelerates math comprehension.

Hypothesis 5: The "School-Type Specialization" Hypothesis The positive correlation between ELA and Math performance will be strongest at the 'Elementary' school type and will progressively weaken through 'Middle' and 'High' school. This is because foundational skills are taught in an integrated manner in early grades, while instruction becomes highly specialized and siloed in later grades, potentially losing the cross-curricular reinforcement.

Five Recommendations

1. Implement Integrated Literacy in Math Classrooms Based on Hypothesis 1, districts should formally adopt strategies that embed ELA skills directly into math instruction. This includes "writing to explain" (requiring students to write out the 'why' of their solution) and "reading for comprehension" (deconstructing complex word problems as a class) to build the cognitive link between literacy and quantitative reasoning.

2. Conduct a "Bright Spots" Analysis of Target Counties Based on Hypothesis 4, the WV Department of Education should identify the high-performing "bright spot" schools within Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Pendleton, Randolph, and Nicholas counties. Conduct qualitative research (e.g., interviews, classroom observations) to codify the specific, replicable, and likely integrated instructional practices these schools are using and disseminate those findings statewide.

3. Focus Intervention on the ELA-to-Math Gap Based on Hypothesis 3, subgroup interventions (especially for 'Economically Disadvantaged' and 'Children With Disabilities') should not be generic. Instead, they should be specifically designed to bridge the ELA-to-Math gap. This may mean providing math-specific vocabulary support and ELA-based intervention that uses mathematical texts and logic problems as its core content.

4. Prioritize "Progress Value" as a Key Metric for Success Based on Hypothesis 2, school leadership and PLCs (Professional Learning Communities) should use the Assessment ELA Progress Value and Assessment Math Progress Value as primary indicators for evaluating instructional strategies. A school with high progress (even if proficiency is still low) has found a successful formula that should be scaled, whereas a high-proficiency but low-progress school may be stagnating.

5. Strengthen Cross-Curricular Vertical Alignment Based on Hypothesis 5, districts should mandate vertical alignment meetings (Elementary -> Middle -> High School) focused specifically on maintaining the ELA/Math connection. High school math departments should partner with ELA departments to ensure that the literacy-based strategies proven effective in elementary school are not abandoned but are instead adapted for more complex subject matter.