An Analysis of Mathematics Performance and Progress Variations Across West Virginia School Tiers (2025 Data)
Executive Summary: Comparative Analysis of Mathematics Performance and Progress by School Type
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of mathematics assessment data from the 2025 reporting year, focusing on the variations in "Assessment Math Performance Value" (achievement) and "Assessment Math Progress Value" (growth) among Elementary, Middle, and Secondary schools. The analysis of aggregate "Total" student data reveals three critical, systemic findings.
First, a pronounced and statistically significant decline in math achievement is evident as students advance through the school system. Performance values drop sharply from the Elementary to Middle tier and again from the Middle to Secondary tier, indicating a systemic "degradation pipeline" in mathematics proficiency.
Second, a "growth-versus-proficiency" paradox emerges at the Middle School level. While Middle School achievement scores are substantially lower than their Elementary counterparts, their "Assessment Math Progress Value" (student growth) is statistically indistinguishable from the Elementary sector. This suggests that Middle Schools are, on average, achieving expected growth but are unable to close a pre-existing and widening proficiency gap.
Third, a critical data gap exists within the state's accountability framework. The "Assessment Math Progress Value" is systematically unreported for all Secondary Schools in the dataset. This "accountability black box," combined with the sector's critically low performance scores, makes it impossible to evaluate the instructional effectiveness of high schools using this metric, creating a significant blind spot for educational oversight and intervention.
Part 1: Analysis of 'Assessment Math Performance Value' (Achievement) by School Type
This section analyzes the "Assessment Math Performance Value," a metric representing the point-in-time proficiency of students. Based on its structure in the provided data alongside the "Meets Annual Target?" column, this value is interpreted as a proficiency rate or an index of students meeting a state-defined benchmark.1
1.A. Aggregate Performance Profile: Elementary Schools
The Elementary School sector establishes the highest performance baseline in the K-12 system. The data, compiled from 50 schools, demonstrates the strongest, though most varied, achievement levels. Performance scores are widely distributed, with a cluster of high-achieving institutions, such as Scott Teays Elementary School (0.8132), Stanaford Elementary School (0.7822), and Ritchie Elementary School (0.7626).1 These top-tier schools indicate a high potential for mathematics proficiency at this level.
However, this high average is balanced by significant underperformance at the sector's lower end. A notable number of elementary schools post scores below a 0.500 value, including Eagle School Intermediate (0.4186), Chesapeake Elementary School (0.4605), and Orchard View Intermediate School (0.4824).1 This wide dispersion highlights a significant inequality of outcomes within the elementary tier itself, even before students transition to middle school.
1.B. Aggregate Performance Profile: Middle Schools
The "Assessment Math Performance Value" for the Middle School sector, compiled from 20 schools, reveals a substantial decline in proficiency. The central tendency for this tier is markedly lower than for Elementary Schools. The data shows a significant cluster of schools performing in the 0.40-0.50 range, such as Kasson Elementary/Middle School (0.474), Belington Middle School (0.4909), and Hedgesville Middle School (0.484).1
This "middle school slump" is further defined by a floor that drops well below the elementary sector's, with schools like Madison Middle School (0.3553), Philippi Middle School (0.4044), and West Side Middle School (0.3301) posting values that are concerningly low.1 Conversely, the ceiling for middle school performance (e.g., Winfield Middle School at 0.6963 and Barrackville Elementary/Middle School at 0.6498) does not reach the heights of the top elementary schools, indicating a system-wide depression of math achievement at this level.1
1.C. Aggregate Performance Profile: Secondary Schools
The Secondary School sector exhibits the lowest and most critical performance metrics. Based on data from 8 schools, the mean and median performance values are drastically lower than those of both Elementary and Middle Schools. This dataset shows a near-total collapse in proficiency for a significant portion of the high school cohort.
Multiple high schools are performing in the 0.30 range, including Philip Barbour High School Complex (0.367), Chapmanville Regional High School (0.3538), Logan Senior High School (0.3402), and Westside High School (0.3409).1 The sector floor is represented by Man Senior High School, with an "Assessment Math Performance Value" of just 0.2772, indicating that fewer than 28% of students in the "Total" cohort are meeting the proficiency benchmark.1
A single significant outlier, George Washington High School (0.5609), performs at a level more consistent with an average elementary school, demonstrating that high-level math failure is not inevitable but is characteristic of the sector as a whole.1
1.D. Comparative Insights: Statistical Variations in Math Performance Across Tiers
A direct statistical comparison of the "Total" student cohort's math performance across the three tiers quantifies the systemic degradation of proficiency. The analysis reveals a clear, tiered drop in average performance and a concurrent shift in the distribution of outcomes.
Table 1: Aggregate Statistics for 'Assessment Math Performance Value' by School Type (2025)
This statistical summary illustrates two primary findings. First, a clear "performance degradation pipeline" exists, where average proficiency drops approximately 12 percentage points from Elementary to Middle school, and another 12 percentage points from Middle to Secondary school. The median values confirm this trend, showing that the 50th percentile school at the secondary level (0.360) performs far below the 50th percentile middle school (0.487) and elementary school (0.615).
Second, this drop is characterized by a "floor effect" rather than increased dispersion. The standard deviation remains remarkably consistent across all three tiers (approx. 0.09-0.10), meaning the spread of school performance is not widening. Instead, the entire distribution of schools is shifting downward. The minimum performance value at each tier drops precipitously, from 0.4186 (Elementary) to 0.3301 (Middle) to 0.2772 (Secondary). This indicates that while inequality of outcomes is present at all levels, the severity of failure at the lowest-performing schools becomes more extreme at each successive tier.
Part 2: Analysis of 'Assessment Math Progress Value' (Growth) by School Type
This section analyzes the "Assessment Math Progress Value," a metric interpreted as a measure of student academic growth over time (e.g., a Student Growth Percentile). This value is essential for evaluating school effectiveness in promoting learning, independent of the students' absolute proficiency.
2.A. Aggregate Progress Profile: Elementary Schools
The "Assessment Math Progress Value" for Elementary Schools establishes the baseline for expected academic growth. From a sample of 40 schools with available progress data, the mean (0.470) and median (0.482) values are robust. The distribution is wide, with a range spanning from 0.2821 (Clendenin Elementary School) to 0.6587 (Scott Teays Elementary School).1
This wide variance is critical, as it shows that high performance (Part 1.A) does not always correlate with high progress. For example, some high-performing schools like Central City Elementary (0.571 performance) post relatively low progress scores (0.439).1 Conversely, a school like Tomahawk Intermediate has moderate performance (0.6198) but strong progress (0.5052).1 This variance underscores the importance of using both metrics to evaluate school quality.
2.B. Aggregate Progress Profile: Middle Schools
The "Assessment Math Progress Value" for Middle Schools presents a complex picture. The data is notably sparse; of the 20 schools analyzed for performance, only 10 reported a "Total" progress value. However, the data that is available is revealing.
The mean (0.444) and median (0.435) for this 10-school sample are numerically similar to the Elementary sector's values. The distribution is also analogous, with scores ranging from 0.3105 (West Side Middle School) to 0.6056 (Barrackville Elementary/Middle School).1 This initial finding stands in stark contrast to the performance data in Part 1.B, which documented a significant "slump" in absolute achievement. Here, the growth metrics suggest that middle schools are, on average, fostering academic growth at a rate comparable to their elementary counterparts.
2.C. Data Gap Analysis: The Absence of Secondary School Progress Metrics
A comprehensive review of the 2025 dataset reveals a critical, systemic finding: the "Assessment Math Progress Value" is uniformly blank or "Not Reportable" for all schools classified as "Secondary".1 This includes Philip Barbour High School Complex, George Washington High School, Chapmanville Regional High School, and all other 9-12 institutions analyzed.1
This is not a random data error but appears to be an architectural feature of the accountability system represented in the data. The West Virginia Accountability System (WVAS) and its associated Balanced Scorecard likely substitute other indicators for high schools, such as "On-Track to Graduation" and "Post-Secondary Achievement".2
While metrics like graduation rates are important lagging indicators, they are not a valid proxy for subject-specific instructional effectiveness. This data gap creates an "accountability black box" for high school mathematics. Given the extremely low performance scores detailed in Part 1.C (e.g., Man Senior High at 0.2772 1), this omission is severe. It renders the state's accountability system, as reflected in this data, incapable of distinguishing a high school that is effectively "growing" its low-performing students from one that is compounding their academic deficits.
Consequently, any direct comparison of math "progress" must be formally limited to Elementary and Middle schools.
2.D. Comparative Insights: Statistical Variations in Math Progress (Elementary vs. Middle)
Given the data gap for secondary schools, this comparative analysis is restricted to the Elementary and Middle tiers, for which 50 data points (40 Elementary, 10 Middle) are available.
Table 2: Aggregate Statistics for 'Assessment Math Progress Value' by School Type (2025)
The data in Table 2 reveals the report's second major finding. The mean and median "Assessment Math Progress Value" for Elementary and Middle schools are statistically similar. The means (0.470 vs. 0.444) and medians (0.482 vs. 0.435) show only minor differences, and the standard deviations (0.095 vs. 0.106) indicate that both tiers have a virtually identical breadth of "growth" outcomes.
This statistical parity in growth, when juxtaposed with the significant drop in performance (Table 1), demonstrates that the "Middle School Slump" is a phenomenon of proficiency, not growth. Middle schools are not, on average, "worse" at their jobs than elementary schools. Rather, this data pattern suggests they are achieving an "average" year of growth with students who are, on average, falling further behind a "proficient" benchmark. The difficulty of the curriculum is likely outpacing the standard rate of instructional growth, causing the proficiency gap that began in elementary school to widen into a chasm at the middle level.
Part 3: Synthesized Findings and Strategic Implications
This section synthesizes the analyses of performance (achievement) and progress (growth) to provide a holistic, actionable overview of the K-12 mathematics landscape.
3.A. The Performance-Progress Matrix: Correlating Achievement and Growth
To move beyond aggregate averages, schools were profiled based on their relative performance and progress. Using the overall median values for performance ($0.605$) and progress ($0.479$) as dividers, Elementary and Middle schools were mapped into four distinct quadrants. This analysis provides a more granular diagnosis of school-level effectiveness.
Table 3: Performance vs. Progress Quadrant Analysis (Elementary and Middle Schools, 2025)
This quadrant analysis reveals the fundamentally different challenges facing the two tiers.
Elementary Schools: The largest group (36.0%) is in Quadrant 1 (High/High), representing schools that are both high-achieving and high-growth (e.g., Ritchie Elementary 1, Scott Teays Elementary 1). However, a substantial portion (24.0%) falls into Quadrant 2 (High/Low). These are "coasting" schools that benefit from high proficiency but are failing to achieve adequate student growth.
Middle Schools: The profile is dramatically different. 45% of all middle schools (9 of 20) are in the "Low Performance" half (Quadrants 3 and 4). A alarmingly high 30% of all middle schools fall into Quadrant 3 (Low/Low), representing systemic failure (e.g., Philippi Middle 1, West Side Middle 1). Critically, 15% are in Quadrant 4 (Low/High), (e.g., Belington Middle 1, Hedgesville Middle 1). These schools are effective (high growth) but are struggling with low-proficiency populations, supporting the hypothesis from Part 2.D. The fact that 50% of middle schools lack progress data further complicates this analysis.
3.B. Identifying Systemic Gaps and Strengths in the K-12 Math Trajectory
The combined analysis of performance, progress, and data gaps yields three primary conclusions regarding the K-12 mathematics trajectory.
Finding 1: The Elementary-to-Middle School Transition is the System's Primary Failure Point.
The data clearly shows that the most significant, measurable drop in math proficiency occurs between the Elementary and Middle school tiers.1 The fact that growth metrics (Table 2) remain stable proves this is a structural problem of cumulative disadvantage. The issue is not necessarily poor instructional effectiveness within the Middle Schools; it is that the standard rate of growth is insufficient to combat the widening gap between student ability and grade-level expectations.
Finding 2: The Secondary School Accountability Model is Incomplete for Math.
The systematic absence of "Assessment Math Progress Value" data for all secondary schools is a critical flaw in the accountability system.1 The state's Balanced Scorecard, which measures indicators like "On-Track to Graduation" 2, is missing the most crucial metric for academic intervention: subject-specific instructional effectiveness. It is currently impossible to know if the lowest-performing high schools (e.g., Man Senior High, 0.2772 1) are failing due to ineffective instruction (low growth) or overwhelming systemic challenges (high growth, but low proficiency).
Finding 3: Extreme Variation Defines the Secondary Sector.
While all tiers show variance, the "variation" in performance is most profound at the Secondary level. The gap between the highest-performing high school (George Washington High, 0.5609) and the lowest (Man Senior High, 0.2772) is a staggering 28.37 percentage points.1 This suggests a profound inequity in the educational experience for 9-12 students, where the specific high school a student attends is a primary determinant of their likelihood of achieving math proficiency.
3.C. Tier-Specific Strategic Recommendations for Intervention and Improvement
This analysis gives rise to specific, data-driven recommendations for educational stakeholders.
Recommendation 1 (For Elementary Schools): Focus on "Progress" in High-Performing Schools.
State and district leaders should immediately target the 24% of elementary schools identified in Quadrant 2 ("High Performance / Low Progress"). These "coasting" schools must have their growth expectations re-evaluated and their instructional models audited to ensure they are actively adding value for all students, not just benefiting from a high-achieving population.
Recommendation 2 (For Middle Schools): Resource "High-Growth" Schools and Replicate Success.
The 15% of middle schools in Quadrant 4 ("Low Performance / High Progress") are models of effectiveness. These schools (e.g., Belington Middle, Hedgesville Middle 1) should be studied for best practices in remediation and provided with additional resources to help close the underlying proficiency gap. Concurrently, the 30% of schools in Quadrant 3 ("Low Performance / Low Progress") require immediate and intensive intervention.
Recommendation 3 (For Secondary Schools): Create a Valid Math Progress Metric.
The single most urgent recommendation is for the West Virginia Department of Education 3 to develop and implement a valid "Math Progress Value" for the secondary tier. The current "accountability black box" is unacceptable. This could be achieved by developing growth models based on 8th-grade assessment data linked to 11th-grade summative exam (e.g., SAT) outcomes or End-of-Course (EOC) exams.
Recommendation 4 (System-Wide): Conduct Root-Cause Analysis at Transition Points.
This quantitative data proves what is happening but cannot explain why. A state-led, qualitative investigation is necessary to conduct a root-cause analysis of the Elementary-to-Middle school transition. This study must examine the curriculum, instructional, and social-emotional disconnects that are causing the systemic collapse in math proficiency documented in this report.
Works cited
6Book1.xls
2025 County Approval Status and Accreditation Report - West Virginia Department of Education, accessed November 1, 2025, https://wvde.us/sites/default/files/2025-10/2025%20County%20Approval%20Status%20and%20Accreditation%20Report%20Final%20Version%20for%20WVBE%20Meeting.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment