WV Education

 

We Analyzed a Massive School Performance Report. Here Are 4 Surprising Takeaways.

We are surrounded by data about education, but seeing the bigger picture can feel like trying to see the forest for the trees. To find the real story hidden in the numbers, we conducted a deep analysis of the comprehensive "Score Master 2025" school performance report. Our analysis pinpoints four critical trends that demand the attention of policymakers, educators, and the public.

To do this, we focused on two key statewide indicators: Proficiency (Metric 1), which measures the percentage of students meeting grade-level standards, and Growth (Metric 2), which measures how much academic progress students make in a year, regardless of their starting point. What we found reveals crucial and concerning patterns in student achievement.

1. Performance Plummets After Middle School

While we often celebrate gains at the elementary level, this report reveals a systemic failure as students transition to high school, where performance doesn't just dip—it falls off a cliff. Our analysis pinpoints a critical inflection point after middle school where student progress stalls and, in some cases, sharply reverses.

The statewide data clearly illustrates this performance "cliff." While Proficiency remains relatively stable, the Growth metric—our best indicator of year-over-year learning—drops by more than a third between elementary and secondary school.

School Level	Proficiency	Growth
Elementary	0.60	0.62
Middle	0.55	0.50
Secondary	0.59	0.41

This pattern indicates a systemic issue, suggesting that curriculum, instructional methods, and student support systems are failing to scale with the developmental needs of adolescents. The dramatic decline in student Growth at the secondary level is a deeply concerning trend visible across nearly every district in the state.

2. Students With Disabilities Face a Persistent Achievement Gap

The data forces a stark conclusion: our education system is chronically failing students with disabilities. At every level, these students face a significant and persistent gap in both Proficiency and Growth compared to the general student population.

Statewide data for "All Schools" shows students with disabilities scoring a 0.35 on Proficiency and 0.33 on Growth. This represents a performance gap of 0.23 points on Proficiency and 0.20 points on Growth when compared to the overall state averages of 0.58 and 0.53, respectively.

Worse, this gap becomes a chasm as students get older. Our analysis reveals that these students also fall victim to the high school performance cliff, but their decline is a compounding crisis. While the general student population sees their Growth score fall by 0.21 points between elementary and secondary school (from 0.62 to 0.41), students with disabilities see their already low Growth score of 0.38 in elementary school plummet to just 0.23 in secondary school. This demonstrates a compounding disadvantage that widens the achievement gap at the most critical stage of their education.

3. Economic Disadvantage is Clearly Linked to Lower Scores

Similar to students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students consistently perform below their peers, confirming that socioeconomic status remains a primary obstacle to educational attainment.

The statewide "All Schools" data shows that economically disadvantaged students scored 0.52 on Proficiency and 0.46 on Growth. This creates a clear performance gap when compared to the overall state averages of 0.58 and 0.53, a gap of 0.06 points on Proficiency and 0.07 on Growth.

This data underscores the immense policy challenge of ensuring educational equity. The performance gap for economically disadvantaged students persists across elementary, middle, and secondary levels, highlighting a systemic barrier that prevents a significant portion of our students from reaching their full academic potential.

4. Significant Performance Disparities Emerge Across Racial and Ethnic Lines

Our analysis reveals clear and significant differences in academic performance among the state's racial and ethnic groups. These disparities are not minor variations; they represent fundamentally different educational outcomes depending on a student's background.

The following "All Schools" state-level data, ordered from highest to lowest score on Growth, shows the performance for each group:

• Asian: Proficiency (0.75), Growth (0.76)
• White: Proficiency (0.58), Growth (0.53)
• Multi-Racial: Proficiency (0.55), Growth (0.49)
• Hispanic or Latino: Proficiency (0.48), Growth (0.43)
• Black or African American: Proficiency (0.47), Growth (0.42)

The magnitude of these disparities is alarming. The gap between the highest- and lowest-performing groups stands at a staggering 0.28 points for Proficiency and 0.34 points for Growth, signaling deep-seated inequities within our school system.

Conclusion: What the Numbers Ask of Us

These are not four separate issues; they are interwoven strands of a single, troubling story. The "high school cliff" is not an equal-opportunity drop—it is a chasm that disproportionately swallows students with disabilities, those from low-income families, and students of color, widening pre-existing gaps at the most critical stage of their education.

This data gives us a clearer picture of the challenges we face, but the ultimate question it leaves us with is: what are we prepared to do about it?

-------------------------------

We Analyzed West Virginia's School Spending Data. Here Are 4 Things That Will Surprise You.

Introduction: The Hidden Story in the Numbers

When we talk about school funding, we often rely on a simple assumption: more money equals better schools, and we have a general sense of which schools get the most resources. We might picture large, affluent suburban schools with sprawling campuses as the recipients of the lion's share of funding, while smaller, rural schools are left with less.

However, a detailed look at the new 2025 per-pupil expenditure data for West Virginia's public schools reveals a far more complex, counter-intuitive, and fascinating reality. The numbers tell a story that challenges common beliefs about how our schools are funded. This post will break down the four most surprising takeaways from the data, challenging what you think you know about how schools are funded.

1. The Highest-Spending Schools Aren't the Ones You'd Expect

The common belief is that large, well-off schools in populous areas receive the most funding per student. The data, however, shows the opposite is often true. The highest per-pupil spending frequently occurs in the state's smallest schools, where high fixed operational costs are spread across a very small number of students.

Consider these examples:

• The single most extreme outlier is DAYBROOK EARLY HEADSTART CENTER in Monongalia County. With an enrollment of just 4 students, it has a staggering total site per-pupil expenditure of $82,889.
• A more traditional school example is HUNDRED HIGH SCHOOL in Wetzel County. It serves 65 students and has a total site per-pupil expenditure of $27,199.

This happens because every school, regardless of size, has essential fixed costs. It needs a principal, heating, electricity, and basic administrative staff, whether it serves 50 students or 500. When these costs are divided among fewer students, the per-pupil figure skyrockets. This pattern is a hallmark of rural states like West Virginia, where population decline and geographic isolation force districts into a difficult choice: consolidate beloved community schools or pay a massive per-pupil premium to keep them open. In West Virginia's funding landscape, school size is often a more powerful driver of per-pupil cost than school wealth.

2. The "High School Premium" Is a Myth

It seems logical to assume that high schools—with their expensive science labs, large sports facilities, and specialized elective teachers—cost more to operate per student than elementary schools. But the data does not support this simple conclusion. In fact, within the same district, elementary schools can have significantly higher per-pupil spending than high schools.

Let's look at a case study from Berkeley County:

• MARTINSBURG HIGH SCHOOL has a total site per-pupil expenditure of $8,527.
• MUSSELMAN HIGH SCHOOL has a total site per-pupil expenditure of $8,151.

Now, compare that to two elementary schools in the same district:

• BACK CREEK VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL spends $16,261 per pupil.
• BURKE STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL spends $16,019 per pupil.

This disparity reveals that funding is not simply allocated by grade level. It is a complex formula tied to specific student needs, grant programs, and local demographics. This is often because elementary schools may have higher concentrations of students requiring intensive special education services or state-funded Pre-K programs, both of which demand lower student-to-teacher ratios and drive up per-pupil costs. Funding in West Virginia is driven less by grade level and more by the specific, concentrated needs of the student population at a given school.

3. Follow the Federal Dollars to See the Real Story

While state and local funds make up the bulk of school revenue, the amount of federal funding a school receives often tells a powerful story about the community it serves. Federal dollars are frequently targeted to support students from low-income families, making the federal per-pupil expenditure column, labeled FEDPERP in the state's data, a key indicator of socioeconomic challenges.

A stark contrast can be seen between McDowell County, a community facing significant economic hurdles, and the more affluent Putnam County.

In McDowell County:

• At WELCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, federal funding is 6,988** per pupil, making up a large portion of its **17,053 total (meaning federal dollars account for a staggering 41% of the school's per-pupil spending).
• At BRADSHAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, federal funding is 5,144** per pupil out of a total of **15,152.

In contrast, look at Putnam County:

• At SCOTT TEAYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, federal funding is just 553** per pupil out of a total of **8,380 (where federal dollars make up just 6.6% of the per-pupil total).
• At HURRICANE HIGH SCHOOL, federal funding is 612** per pupil out of a total of **9,882.

The FEDPERP column acts as a data-driven map, showing where systemic poverty is most concentrated and where federal resources are being deployed to bridge critical equity gaps. It is arguably the single most powerful indicator of where intergenerational poverty dictates educational policy.

4. Virtual School Isn't a Bargain Bin Alternative

There is a widespread assumption that virtual schools, free from the immense costs of physical buildings, maintenance, utilities, and transportation, must be a dramatically cheaper way to educate students. The data, however, paints a much more nuanced picture.

West Virginia's statewide virtual academies have substantial per-pupil costs that are comparable to, and in some cases higher than, many traditional brick-and-mortar schools.

• 
  
  The WEST VIRGINIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY, serving 1,654 students, has a total site per-pupil expenditure of $10,140.
• The VIRTUAL PREPARATORY ACADEMY OF WEST, serving 1,148 students, has a total site per-pupil expenditure of $7,120.

While these figures are lower than the most expensive physical schools, they are not insignificant. The cost for the West Virginia Virtual Academy, for example, is higher than the per-pupil spending at many physical schools, including SCOTT TEAYS ELEMENTARY in Putnam County (8,380**). Furthermore, the **10,140 cost of the West Virginia Virtual Academy is significantly lower than the cost of keeping many small, physical schools open, such as HUNDRED HIGH SCHOOL ($27,199). This highlights that the virtual vs. physical school debate isn't about one being universally "cheaper," but rather where each option fits within a complex ecosystem of funding realities. This data shows that technology-driven education is not an automatic cost-saver but rather a different financial model with its own substantial investments.

Conclusion: Beyond the Balance Sheet

As the data shows, school funding is far more complex than the public conversation often suggests. Factors like school size, student demographics, and the role of targeted federal aid create a financial landscape that defies easy assumptions.

This data tells us where the money is going, but not whether it is being spent effectively. The essential next question for policymakers and parents is: how do we measure the value and impact of every dollar, whether it's spent in a tiny rural school or a sprawling suburban high school, to ensure it's creating real opportunity for every student?