2025 Analysis

 

4 Surprising Truths We Uncovered in West Virginia's School Data

Conversations about improving public education often revolve around a central, seemingly simple premise: schools need more money. The logic feels intuitive—more funding should lead to better resources, which in turn should produce better student outcomes. But is the connection between spending and performance really that straightforward?

Newly released school-by-school data from West Virginia offers a chance to test this assumption. By combining financial reports with academic proficiency scores, a more complex and sometimes surprising picture emerges. This deep dive into the numbers reveals that while funding is undeniably important, how that money is used may matter even more. Here are the four most impactful truths we uncovered in the data.

More Money Doesn't Guarantee Better Results

While adequate funding is crucial for any school's success, the data clearly shows that the highest-spending schools are not automatically the highest-performing. In fact, some schools achieve better results with significantly fewer resources per student. A direct comparison between two of the state's high schools illustrates this point perfectly.

Metric	Doddridge County High School	Cabell Midland High School
Total Spending Per Student	$28,065	$14,724
ELA Proficiency	64%	69%
Math Proficiency	50%	48%

This comparison reveals a counter-intuitive reality. Cabell Midland High School spends nearly half as much per student as Doddridge County High School, yet it achieves slightly higher proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) and nearly identical results in Math. This disparity forces a more critical question: is it the amount of money a school has, or how effectively it deploys those funds? It suggests that strategic leadership, instructional quality, and community engagement may be more powerful drivers of achievement than gross spending alone.

The Funding Gap Between Schools Is Massive

The data reveals staggering disparities in per-pupil funding across the state. While some variation is expected, the sheer scale of the gap between the highest and lowest-funded schools is immense. This raises critical questions about educational equity and access to resources for students in different communities.

When looking at comprehensive high schools, the difference is stark:

• Highest Spending (High School): Doddridge County High School at $28,065 per student.
• Lowest Spending (High School): George Washington High School (Kanawha County) at $12,556 per student.

When one school has more than double the financial resources per student than another, it doesn't just create different educational environments—it effectively establishes entirely different tiers of public education, challenging the very notion of equitable opportunity within the state.

The State's Most Expensive Schools Are Often Its Smallest

A common assumption is that large, urban schools are the most expensive to operate. However, the data shows the opposite is often true. The highest per-pupil costs are frequently found in very small, rural schools with low student enrollment.

Here are a few examples that highlight this trend:

• Hundred High School: 65 students, $37,852 per pupil
• Rowlesburg School: 33 students, $30,272 per pupil
• Pickens Elementary/High School: 29 students, $26,956 per pupil

This phenomenon is a clear illustration of economies of scale. Every school has fixed operational costs, such as building maintenance, utilities, and administrative staff. When these essential costs are divided among a very small number of students, the per-pupil expenditure skyrockets, even if the day-to-day classroom experience for a student isn't proportionally richer. This creates a difficult policy challenge: while consolidating small schools might seem fiscally prudent, it often comes at the cost of long bus routes and the loss of a vital community hub.

The Achievement Gap for Economically Disadvantaged Students Is Stark

The data reveals a consistent and concerning pattern: a significant performance gap between economically disadvantaged students and their peers. Across districts and school types, students from low-income backgrounds consistently demonstrate lower proficiency rates in core subjects, pointing to a systemic challenge that funding alone has not solved.

The district-wide data for Cabell County provides a clear example of this achievement gap:

• Cabell County ELA Proficiency:
  • All Students: 61%
  • Economically Disadvantaged Students: 54%
• Cabell County Math Proficiency:
  • All Students: 55%
  • Economically Disadvantaged Students: 47%

In both ELA and Math, there is a persistent 7-8 percentage point gap between the overall student population and those identified as economically disadvantaged. This pattern is not unique to Cabell County; it is visible in the data for numerous counties throughout the state, highlighting a critical area where targeted strategies and support are needed most.

Conclusion: Beyond the Bottom Line

The data from West Virginia's schools tells a story that is far more nuanced than a simple balance sheet. It confirms that money matters, but it also challenges us to look beyond just the bottom line. Massive funding disparities, the high cost of small schools, and persistent achievement gaps all demonstrate that the relationship between spending and student success is incredibly complex.

If more money isn't the only answer, how should we begin to think differently about investing in our students?