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

Coordinator, AYP/ /High Quality
Denise White Instruction & Prof. Office of Instruction, WVDE Standards
Development
Office of, Organizational
AYP/Five-Year
David Price Coordinator Effectiveness &
Strategic Plan
Leadership, WVDE
Retired Assistant Personnel -
Delores Ranson Superintendent, Jackson County Schools Hiring/Licensure/
Personnel Internship
Shawn Hawkins Coordinator, Teacher Office of Professional

Preparation, WVDE Certification
Quality
Chief School
Jody Lucas Cabell County Schools Finance
Business Official
Policy
Dr. Joe Super Superintendent Pleasants County Schools Implementation/
Administration
Office of School Facilities, Facilities
Bill Elswick & staff Executive Director
WVDE
Member, County
Carroll Staats Jackson County Schools Evaluation/Leadership
Board of Education
Member, County
Bernard Hott Hampshire County Schools Leadership
Board of Education
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
WESTEST
2008-2009 2007-2008
GRADE SPAN/ASSESSMENT PERCENT PERCENT
PROFICIENT PROFICIENT
Mathematics – Elementary (SE) 29.6% 47.2%
Mathematics – Secondary (SE) 19.4% 30.1%
Reading – Elementary (SE) 27.6% 49.1%
Reading – Secondary (SE) 16.1% 32.4%
* SE – Special Education
5
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
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS NOT ACHIEVING AYP
Year Number of Schools
2005 2
2006 2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 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.
Chart 3
ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS
2008-2009
Subgroup District Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient
All Students (AS) 57.3% 65.2%
White (W) 57.4% 65.7%
Black (B) NA 54.6%
Special Education (SE) 29.6% 40.9%
Economically
51.9% 56.0%
Disadvantaged (SES)
6
Draft
November 2009
Chart 4
MIDDLE MATHEMATICS
2008-2009
All Students (AS) * 56.9%
White (W) * 57.6%
Black (B) * 42.3%
Special Education (SE) * 23.1%
Economically *
46.4%
Disadvantaged (SES)
* Not Applicable – Middle level students attend the high schools (Grades 7-12).
Chart 5
HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
2008-2009
White (W) 56.6% 57.5%
Black (B) NA 44.3%
Economically
52.5% 46.0%
Disadvantaged (SES)
Chart 6
ELEMENTARY READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
2008-2009
White (W) 63.0% 65.9%
Black (B) NA 57.8%
Economically
55.0% 56.1%
Disadvantaged (SES)
7
Draft
November 2009
Chart 7
MIDDLE READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
2008-2009
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
White (W) 55.8% 53.2%
Black (B) NA 41.4%
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 2005-
06 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.
Chart 10
ACT EXPLORE RESULTS
Grade 8
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
English WV 14.2 14.3 14.2 14.3 13.9
English Grant 13.3 14.8 14.9 13.6 12.7
Mathematics WV 14.2 14.5 14.5 14.7 14.3
Mathematics Grant 13.7 15.1 14.9 14.5 13.9
Reading WV 13.8 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.6
Reading Grant 13.3 13.9 13.7 12.9 12.7
Science WV 15.8 15.9 15.9 16.0 15.6
Science Grant 15.4 16.2 16.2 15.6 14.8
Composite WV 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.5
Composite Grant 14.0 15.1 15.0 14.3 13.6
9
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.
Chart 11
ACT PLAN RESULTS
Grade 10
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
English WV 16.7 16.8 16.7 16.3 16.3
English Grant 15.8 16.6 16.2 16.2 16.0
Mathematics WV 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.3 16.3
Mathematics Grant 16.2 15.9 16.6 16.8 16.6
Reading WV 16.5 16.6 16.5 16.5 15.7
Reading Grant 16.3 16.4 16.4 16.4 15.4
Science WV 17.7 17.8 17.7 17.5 17.1
Science Grant 17.6 17.5 17.9 17.7 17.1
Composite WV 17.0 17.1 17.0 16.8 16.5
Composite Grant 16.6 16.7 16.9 16.9 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
2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
School
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Dorcas Elementary 99% 99.11% 99.04% 99.03% 99.03%
Maysville Elementary 98% 98.99% 98.68% 98.84% 99.13%
Union Educational Complex 97.13% 97.27%
Petersburg Elementary 97% 97.99% 97.88% 98.13% 98.16%
Petersburg High 96.51% 96.81%
11
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
2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
School
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Union Educational Complex 96% 94.74% 95.45% 96.15% 95.2%
Petersburg High 79% 81.51% 88.33% 83.09% 86.2%
12
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
APT (Advanced Placement Test)
ACT(American College Test)
Test Takers
Test Composite Tenth Eleventh Twelfth
Schools
Takers Score Grade Grade Grade
Petersburg High 63.7% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Union Educational Complex 44.0% 21.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Grant County Schools 60.1% 20.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STATE 66.0% 20.6% 1.0% 7.5% 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.
Chart 16
AP TEST TAKERS
2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
Grant County
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
10th Grade Test Takers (%) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10th Grade Test Takers (%)
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
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
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
State 17,914 57.5%
Grant 129 50.4%
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
1st Time
% in % in
WV English Mathematics
Developmental Developmental
Freshmen Total # Total #
English Mathematics
Total #
State 8,073 1,275 15.79% 2,224 27.55%
Petersburg High 66 11 16.67% 25 37.88%
Union Educational
8 2 25% 3 37.5%
Complex
Grant 74 13 17.57% 28 37.84%
Source: 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.
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 Five-
Year 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
24
Draft
November 2009
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.
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.
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.
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. The Team
recommend that the faculty senate budget show more detail
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.
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.
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. 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 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 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 non-
employees 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 multi-

classification 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 extra-
duty.”
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.
Courses/
County- Educator Certification/
Content Findings Recommendations
School Name Status
Teaching
Educator 63013I Multi-Cat K-Adult 3022 AND 3023 Rename and label
Petersburg Tech Chem Autism K-Adult are no longer math course with a
High School
(PHS) 30223I- App Restricted Eng. valid valid course/title
Math 5-Adult (T/U) courses/codes for 3022 and 3023
Educator 411604 Severe 4116 is an Please correct
Autism Inst. Disabilities PK- endorsement name or code for
Adult code, correct to actual course
(PHS)
reflect course being taught.
being taught
and requires a
U in the sixth
position
Educator 305030 Math 5-12 3050 Correct
College Alg. course/code is course/code to
(PHS) 30473X indicated as reflect a valid
Statistics College Alg., is course offering,
no longer valid such as 30210X
Educator 6009 Sci. 9 No certification Not certified Make application
(PHS) currently held on Form 20T or
Form 1-1A
Educator 400930 Theatre PK-AD 4009 requires Apply for Out-of-
English 9 Elem K-6 English End. field or permit on
Oral Form 1-1A.
(PHS)
Communications (Waiver requested
5-AD and pending in
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received).
43
Draft
November 2009
Educator 163500 Application Not certified Apply for

Manual/Aut denied certification or
(PHS)
o 20081208 correct position to
163700 accurately reflect
Suspension name of person
holding position
Educator 801300 Elem. K-6 8013 requires a Apply for Out-of-
G field or permit on
Petersburg
Form 1-1A.
Elementary (Waiver requested
School and pending in
(PES)
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received).
Educator 80170R Multi-Cat 5-Adult Teaching below Apply for Out-of-
5th grade field or permit on
Form 1-1A.
(PES)
(Waiver requested
and pending in
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received)
Educator 801300 Elem. K-6 8013 requires a Apply for Out-of-
G field or permit on
Form 1-1A.
(Waiver requested
Maysville and pending in
Elementary
School OPP Oct. 20, but
(202) no application
received)
and
Correct course
code
Educator 80170R Multi-Cat 5-Adult Teaching below Apply for Out-of-
5th grade field or permit on
Form 1-1A.
(202)
(Waiver requested
and pending in
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received)
Dorcas
Educator 2605 Head Community Renew Make application
Elementary Start Programs Form 50 for
School Authorization Community
(201)
expired June 30, Programs or
44
Draft
November 2009
2008 identify person in

position
(201)
Educator Speech Unknown Cannot locate Verify legal name
Lang Path certification and certification
Educator Alg. I General In position since To hold position
Substitute September 8, for longer than 30
Union
Educational 2009 days requires a
Complex long-term
School
(101) substitute permit.
Request Waiver or
complete Form 2
Educator 703100 OK No longer at Verify person in
(101)
Civic/Gov’t school, the teaching
transferred assignment
before school
Educator 801700 Permit for Multi- 8017 must have Correct course
(101)
Cat a 6th position code
exceptionality in
place
Educator 6302 Adv. Bio 9-Adult 6302course/ Please correct
Chem Gen. Sci. 5-Adult code is no course/code to
longer valid and reflect a valid
Chemistry course offering
requires and
Chemistry Apply for Out-of-
(101) Endorsement field or permit on
Form 1-1A.
(Waiver requested
and pending in
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received)
Educator 681100 Ag. Education 6811 requires Apply for First-
Driver’s Ed Drivers Ed Class/Full-Time
029070 Ag Endorsement Permit using
(101) Explor and Form 1-1A
0290 is not a and
valid course correct course
code code
Educator 801700 SLD 8017 must have Correct course
(101)
MI a 6th position code
exceptionality in
place
45
Draft
November 2009
Educator 801700 Elem K-6 8017 must have Correct course

Early Ed. PK-K a 6th position code and
exceptionality in apply for Out-of-
place and field or permit on
(101)
requires specific Form 1-1A.
endorsement (Waiver requested
and pending in
OPP Oct. 20, but
no application
received)
Educator 801700 Multi-Cat K-Adult 8017 must have Correct course
(101)
a 6th position code
exceptionality in
place
46
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
Educator Name-
Courses/Content
County-School Not Highly Qualified % Highly Qualified
Teaching
(where applicable)
Dorcas Elem. Self-Contained 100
Reading/ Language Arts 100
Overall 100
Maysville Educator Self-Contained 96.0
Educator Mathematics 50.0
English 100
Science 100
Reading/Language Arts 100
History 100
Arts 100
Educator Collaborative N/A
Overall 96.2
Petersburg Educator Self-Contained 94.8
Elementary
Mathematics 100
English 100
Science 100
Educator Reading/Language Arts 96.8
History 100
Arts 100
Educator Collaborative N/A
Overall 97.0
Petersburg High Educator Mathematics 73.7
Educator English 91.4
Educator Science 85.0
Geography 100
Economics 100
Educator History 85.7
Educator Civics/Government 57.1
Arts 100
Educator Foreign Languages 63.6
Overall 83.5
Union Educational Self-Contained 100
Complex
Mathematics 100
47
Draft
November 2009
Educator English 55.6

Science 100
Geography 100
History 100
Educator Civics/Government 0.0
Educator Arts 94.1
Foreign Languages 100
Educator Collaborative
Overall 90.4
Grant County Self-Contained 96.4
Mathematics 83.5
English 89.8
Science 90.9
Reading/Language Arts 89.4
Economics 100
Geography 100
History 92.6
Civics/Government 44.4
Arts 99
Foreign Languages 69.2
Overall 91.6
Coaches Database
Coach Name not listed in Coaches Date application made to Office of

Database Professional Preparation (Approved)
Coach 7-31-2009
Coach 6-12-2009
Coach Name listed in Coaches Database

Coaching Authorization
without Coaching Authorization
Coach Expired 6-30-2008
48
Draft
November 2009
Out-of-Field & First-Class/Full-Time Permits Issued to Grant County 2009-10
Type Teacher Name Endorsement Programmatic Level

Out-of-Field- Initial Educator Autism 5-Adult
Out-of-Field- Initial Educator Multi-Categorical 5-Adult
Out-of-Field- Renewal Educator Reading Specialist PK-Adult
First-Class/Full-Time Educator English 5-Adult
Permit- Initial
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Family and 5-Adult
Permit- Initial Consumer Science
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Autism K-6
Permit- Initial
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Autism 5-Adult
Permit- Initial
First-Class/Full-Time Educator School/Library PK-Adult
Permit- Initial Media
First-Class/Full-Time Educator School Nurse PK-Adult
Permit- Renewal
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Multi-Categorical 5-Adult
Permit- Renewal
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Spanish 5-Adult
Permit- Renewal
First-Class/Full-Time Educator Math 5-Adult
Permit- Renewal
**Waivers requested for the 2009-2010 School-Year (First-Class/Full-Time

Permits)
Teacher Name Endorsement Programmatic Level

Educator Gifted 1-12
Educator Multi-categorical K-6
Educator English 5-Adult
Educator Chemistry 9-Adult
Educator PK Special Needs 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. The personnel files for three teachers contained no
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.
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 completed for extracurricular

coaches/sponsors at Petersburg High School.
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

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

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. Grant County has had three superintendents this

calendar year.
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 §18-2E-
5 (p)(C).
63
INITIAL EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
FOR
NOVEMBER 2009
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).
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
Anna Jarvis Elementary School

Brad A. Fittro Elementary School Assistant Principal
Taylor County
Augusta Elementary School

Jeff A. Pancione Elementary School Principal
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
Number Number Met Part. Met Met
Number Participation Percent
Group Enrolled Enrolled on Rate Assessment Subgroup
Tested Rate Proficient
for FAY Test Week Standard Standard Standard
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 * * * * * * * *
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
201 DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed
Dewayne Hedrick, Principal
Grades PK - 06
WESTEST 2008-2009
Number
Number Met Part. Met Met
Enrolled Number Participation Percent
Group Enrolled Rate Assessment Subgroup
on Test Tested Rate Proficient
for FAY Standard Standard Standard
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 * * * * * * * *
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 * * * * * * * *
Passed
67
Initial
November 2009

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)
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
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 2007-
2008 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.
Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress.
7.1. Curriculum
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.
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.
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

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
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.
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.

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
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
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. Learning environment.
7.1.4. Instruction.
7.1.7. Library/educational technology access and technology application.
7.2.1. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans.
7.8.1. 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
FOR
NOVEMBER 2009
76
Initial
November 2009
INTRODUCTION
An announced Education Performance Audit of Maysville Elementary School in Grant


West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – D. Dewayne Duncan, Assistant
Director, Office of Institutional Education Programs
TEAM MEMBERS
Wiley Ford Primary School

Paula J. Athey Primary School Principal
Mineral County
Lynda J. Sago Administrative Liaison Marion County Schools
77
Initial
November 2009
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
24 GRANT COUNTY
202 MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed
Mark Nicol, Principal
Grades PK - 06
WESTEST 2007-2008
Number
Week
Mathematics
All 106 108 108 100.00 75.47 Yes Yes
White 106 108 108 100.00 75.47 Yes Yes
Black * * * * * * * *
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
60 62 62 100.00 71.66 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
25 25 25 100.00 32.00 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
All 106 108 108 100.00 82.07 Yes Yes
White 106 108 108 100.00 82.07 Yes Yes
Black * * * * * * * *
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
60 62 62 100.00 78.33 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
25 25 25 100.00 52.00 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
78
Initial
November 2009
24202 GRANT COUNTY

MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Passed
Mark Nicol, Principal
Grades PK - 06
WESTEST 2008-2009
Number
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 * * * * * * * *
All 102 106 105 99.05 71.28 Yes Yes
White 102 106 105 99.05 71.28 Yes Yes
Black * * * * * * * *
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
61 65 64 98.46 68.33 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
19 21 20 95.23 22.22 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
79
Initial
November 2009

Mathematics
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
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
80
Initial
November 2009
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 2008-
2009 (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.
in mathematics and 28.57 percent in reading; Grade 4 – 39.29 percent in
mathematics. These scores have implication for the Five-Year Strategic
Plan and school improvement.
12. Curriculum Alignment.
13. Response to Intervention (RTI).
14. Teaming/Curriculum Collaboration.
15. Five-Year Strategic Plan.
16. WESTEST 2 Training.
17. TechSteps.
18. Vital School Survey.
19. Exploring Teach 21.
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
Necessary to Improve Performance and Progress
7.1. Curriculum
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Maysville Elementary School in
schools.
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
Initial
November 2009
deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Maysville
Elementary School in achieving capacity, the following resources are recommended.

performance.
85
Initial
November 2009

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 black-
out 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.
The School Support System presented under the Capacity Building Section will be
an invaluable resource in guiding school improvement.
86
Initial
November 2009
The Team identified six high quality standards necessary to improve performance and
progress.
7.1.2. High expectations.
7.1.9. Programs of study.
7.1.11. Guidance and advisement.
7.2.3. Lesson plans and principal feedback.
7.8.1. 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
The Team submits this initial report to guide Maysville Elementary School in
improvement efforts.

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
FOR
NOVEMBER 2009
88
Initial
November 2009
INTRODUCTION
An announced Education Performance Audit of Petersburg Elementary School in Grant


West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – D. Dewayne Duncan, Assistant
Director, Office of Institutional Education Programs
TEAM MEMBERS
Wiley Ford Primary School

Paula J. Athey Primary School Principal
Mineral County
Elementary School Assistant Anna Jarvis Elementary School

Brad A. Fittro
Principal Taylor County
Augusta Elementary School

Jeff A. Pancione Elementary School Principal
Hampshire County
Lynda J. Sago Administrative Liaison Marion County Schools
89
Initial
November 2009
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
24 GRANT COUNTY
203 PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Needs Improvement
Mitchell Webster, Principal
Grades PK - 06
WESTEST 2007-2008
Mathematics
All 330 346 344 99.42 74.77 Yes Yes
White 323 338 336 99.40 74.53 Yes Yes
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Hispanic ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Low Confidence
165 178 176 98.87 70.73 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
67 69 69 100.00 53.73 Yes No
Ed.
LEP ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
All 330 346 345 99.71 80.90 Yes Yes
White 323 338 337 99.70 80.49 Yes Yes
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Low
165 178 177 99.43 75.75 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
67 69 69 100.00 52.23 Yes Safe Harbors
Ed.
LEP ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Passed
90
Initial
November 2009
24 GRANT COUNTY
203 PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Needs Improvement
Mitchell Webster, Principal
Grades PK - 06
WESTEST 2008-2009
Mathematics
All 339 358 356 99.44 59.94 Yes Yes
White 334 348 346 99.42 59.93 Yes Yes
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Low Confidence
171 189 189 100.00 52.04 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
70 76 76 100.00 34.28 Yes No
Ed.
LEP ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
All 339 358 356 99.44 60.83 Yes Yes
White 334 348 346 99.42 60.84 Yes Yes
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Low Confidence
171 189 189 100.00 50.87 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
70 76 76 100.00 30.00 Yes No
Ed.
LEP ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Passed
91
Initial
November 2009

Mathematics
03 96 92 95 91 98.96 1.10 32.97 27.47 34.07 4.40 65.93
04 86 82 86 82 100.00 1.22 26.83 31.71 34.15 6.10 71.95
05 90 84 89 83 98.89 4.82 48.19 32.53 9.64 4.82 46.99
06 86 81 86 81 100.00 16.05 29.63 29.63 19.75 4.94 54.32
Reading
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
92
Initial
November 2009
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.

mathematics and 48.15 percent in reading.

24. Teacher Leadership Institute.
25. Response to Intervention (RTI).
26. West Virginia Reading Conference.
27. National Title I Reading Conference.
28. Five-Year Strategic Plan.
29. 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
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.
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.
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
The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Petersburg Elementary School in
schools.
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
Initial
November 2009
deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist
Petersburg Elementary School in achieving capacity, the following resources are
recommended.

performance.
96
Initial
November 2009
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.
97
Initial
November 2009
The Team identified three high quality standards necessary to improve performance and
progress.
7.1.5. Instructional strategies.
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.

Petersburg Elementary School and Grant County to revise the school’s Five-Year
98
FOR
NOVEMBER 2009
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.

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
Lewis County High School

Timothy S. Derico High School Principal
Lewis County
Capon Bridge Middle School

Ann M. Downs Middle School Principal
Hampshire County
Monongah Middle School

Claude Steve Malnick Middle School Principal
Marion County
Musselman High School

Ronald E. Stephens High School Principal
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
501 PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL – Needs Improvement
Garry Moore, Principal
Grades 07 - 12
WESTEST 2007-2008
Mathematics
All 381 392 389 99.23 75.98 Yes Yes
White 370 380 377 99.21 75.81 Yes Yes
Black 11 11 11 100.00 81.81 NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Low SES 180 189 186 98.41 68.53 Yes Yes
Spec.
69 71 71 100.00 27.53 Yes No
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
All 381 392 387 98.72 78.51 Yes Yes
White 370 380 375 98.68 78.96 Yes Yes
Black 11 11 11 100.00 63.63 NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Confidence
Low SES 180 189 184 97.35 70.45 Yes
Interval
Spec.
69 71 70 98.59 26.47 Yes No
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
Graduation Rate = 83.1%
101
Initial
November 2009
24 GRANT COUNTY
501 PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL – Needs Improvement
Garry Moore, Principal
Grades 07 - 12
WESTEST 2008-2009
Number
Week
Mathematics
All 355 368 367 99.72 61.40 Yes Yes
White 345 358 357 99.72 62.02 Yes Yes
Black 10 10 10 100.00 40.00 NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
170 180 180 100.00 58.82 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
60 64 64 100.00 16.66 Yes No
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
All 355 368 367 99.72 56.61 Yes Yes
White 345 358 357 99.72 56.81 Yes Yes
Black 10 10 10 100.00 50.00 NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
170 180 180 100.00 47.64 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
60 64 64 100.00 18.33 Yes No
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
Graduation Rate = 86.2 %
102
Initial
November 2009

Mathematics
07 130 125 130 125 100.00 8.00 25.60 52.80 10.40 3.20 66.40
08 120 116 120 116 100.00 18.97 19.83 49.14 11.21 0.86 61.21
11 118 114 117 114 99.15 13.16 30.70 42.11 11.40 2.63 56.14
Reading
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
Note: Cells with less than 10 - are reported as *.
103
Initial
November 2009
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
th
10 Grade Test Takers (%) 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
11th Grade Test Takers (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10th Grade Test Takers (%) with a score of 3 or higher 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
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
104
Initial
November 2009

FALL 2007
2006-07 Percentage
State 17,914 57.5%
Grant County 129 50.4%
Petersburg High 106 58.5%
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.

FALL 2008
1st Time
% in % in
English Mathematics
Total #
State 8,073 1,275 15.79% 2,224 27.55%
Grant County 74 13 17.57% 88 31.84%
Petersburg High 66 11 16.67% 25 37.88%

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
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.

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.

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
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

7.1. Curriculum
(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.
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

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.
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
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
The indicators of efficiency listed are intended to guide Petersburg High School in
schools.
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
Initial
November 2009
deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist
Petersburg High School in achieving capacity, the following resources are
recommended.

performance.
112
Initial
November 2009

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.
critical for school improvement.
113
Initial
November 2009
The Team identified seven high quality standards necessary to improve performance
and progress.
7.1.4. Instruction.
7.1.8. Instructional materials.
7.1.9. Programs of study.
7.2.4. Data analysis.
7.8.1. 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
The Team submits this initial report to guide Petersburg High School in improvement
efforts.

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
FOR
NOVEMBER 2009
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

West Virginia Department of Education Team Leader – Monica Beane, Assistant
Director, Office of Instruction
TEAM MEMBERS
Lewis County High School

Timothy S. Derico High School Principal
Lewis County
Capon Bridge Middle School

Ann M. Downs Middle School Principal
Hampshire County
Monongah Middle School

Claude Steve Malnick Middle School Principal
Marion County
Musselman High School

Ronald E. Stephens High School Principal
Berkeley County
116
Initial
November 2009
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
24 GRANT COUNTY
101 UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL – Passed
David Judy, Principal
Grades PK - 12
WESTEST 2007-2008
Mathematics
Confidence
All 150 160 158 98.75 58.38 Yes
Interval
Confidence
White 150 159 157 98.74 58.38 Yes
Interval
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low Confidence
108 117 116 99.14 55.14 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
34 38 37 97.36 35.29 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Confidence
All 150 160 158 98.75 73.15 Yes
Interval
Confidence
White 150 159 157 98.74 73.15 Yes
Interval
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low Confidence
108 117 116 99.14 72.89 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
34 38 37 97.36 44.11 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
117
Initial
November 2009
24 GRANT COUNTY
101 UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL – Passed
David Judy, Principal
Grades PK - 12
WESTEST 2008-2009
Number
Week
Mathematics
Confidence
All 155 160 158 98.75 44.15 Yes
Interval
Confidence
White 154 159 157 98.74 44.44 Yes
Interval
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low Confidence
109 113 111 98.23 42.59 Yes
SES Interval
Spec.
34 35 33 94.28 24.24 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
All 155 160 158 98.75 53.24 Yes Yes
White 154 159 157 98.74 53.59 Yes Yes
Black ** ** ** ** ** NA NA NA
Hispanic * * * * * * * *
Indian * * * * * * * *
Asian * * * * * * * *
Low
109 113 111 98.23 51.85 Yes Yes
SES
Spec.
34 35 33 94.28 12.12 NA NA NA
Ed.
LEP * * * * * * * *
Passed
118
Initial
November 2009

Mathematics
03 23 23 23 23 100.00 0.00 21.74 21.74 34.78 21.74 78.26
04 18 18 18 18 100.00 11.11 38.89 38.89 11.11 0.00 50.00
05 28 28 28 28 100.00 10.71 60.71 28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57
06 26 26 26 26 100.00 0.00 65.38 30.77 3.85 0.00 34.62
07 27 24 27 24 100.00 8.33 54.17 37.50 0.00 0.00 37.50
08 23 21 21 20 91.30 15.00 35.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00
11 15 15 15 15 100.00 40.00 26.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 33.33
Reading
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
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
The lack of advanced placement (AP) classes was detrimental to student achievement.

FALL 2007
2006-07 Percentage
State 17,914 57.5%
Union Educational
Complex
21 14.3%
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.

FALL 2008
1st Time
% in % in
English Mathematics
Total #
State 8,073 1,275 15.79% 2,224 27.55%
Union Educational
Complex
8 2 25% 3 37.5%

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
120
Initial
November 2009
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.

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
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.

35. 21st Century Learning Policies and Procedures.
36. WESTEST Analysis.
37. Professional Learning Communities.
38. TechSteps.
39. Writing Road Map 2.
40. Acuity.
121
Initial
November 2009
7.1. Curriculum
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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
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 §18-5-
9; 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
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
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.
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
Initial
November 2009
deficiencies identified in the assessment and accountability process. To assist Union
Educational Complex School in achieving capacity, the following resources are
recommended.

performance.
126
Initial
November 2009

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
Initial
November 2009
128
Initial
November 2009
The Team identified nine high quality standards necessary to improve performance and
progress.
7.1.2. High expectations.
7.1.3. Learning environment.
7.1.4. Instruction.
7.2.2. Counseling services.
7.4.1. Regulatory agency reviews.
7.8.1. Leadership.
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.

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
129

Education Performance Audit of Grant County Schools

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Education Performance Audit of Grant County Schools

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EMBARGOED

UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 2009

Title: Grant County Education Performance Audit Report

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

NAME TITLE COUNTY CATEGORY

Shawn Hawkins Coordinator, Teacher Office of Professional

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT

INITIATIVES FOR ACHIEVING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Adequate Yearly Progress

An examination of the achievement gap between subgroups for the 2008-2009

SAT/ACT Assessment Results

ACT EXPLORE Assessment Results

ACT PLAN Assessment Results

5.1.2. Participation rate. A minimum of 95 percent in the current or a two or three

5.1.3. Attendance rate (Elementary/Middle). The student attendance rate for

5.1.4. Graduation rate. The student graduation rate is 80 percent or the

Petersburg High School

A minimum of four advanced placement (AP) classes are to be offered as prescribed in

Virtual courses or distance learning courses were not available.

Union Educational Complex School

Virtual courses or distance learning offerings were not available.

Thirteen of Grant County’s 74 first-time freshmen or 17.57 percent were enrolled in

HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS

7.1.2. High expectations. Through curricular offerings, instructional practices,

7.1.3. Learning environment. School staff provides a safe and nurturing

7.1.4. Instruction. Instruction is consistent with the programmatic definitions in

1. Petersburg High School. Grades 7 and 8 students received instruction in social

7.1.5. Instructional strategies. Staff demonstrates the use of the various

7.1.7. Library/educational technology access and technology application. The

7.1.9. Programs of study. Programs of study are provided in grades K-12 as

7.1.12. Multicultural activities. Multicultural activities are included at all

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

7.2. STUDENT AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE.

7.2.1. County and School electronic strategic improvement plans. An electronic

Grant County Five-Year Strategic Plan

2. The Team reviewed the professional development opportunities offered at the

Schools’ Five-Year Strategic Plans

UNION EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX SCHOOL

DORCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Plan Committee. The school identified a sufficient number of participants to efficiently

MAYSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Plan Committee. The plan committee had a sufficient number of participants to

Action Steps and Professional Development. Action steps and professional

PETERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Data Analysis. A comprehensive data analysis was completed by Petersburg

Goals/Objectives. Goal statements could be measured by quantifiable evidence at the

Action Steps and Professional Development. Professional development indicated a

PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL

Goals/Objectives. Goals focused the school on improving student achievement. The

Action Steps/Professional Development. A professional development plan for the goals

7.2.2. Counseling services. Counselors shall spend at least 75 percent of the

7.3. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION.

7.3.1. Alternative education. Alternative education programs meet the

7.4. REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEWS.

7.4.1. Regulatory agency reviews. Determine during on-site reviews and

Fiscal Year 2008 Audit report reviewed

Dorcas Elementary School