2. Superintendent’s State of the State Access a copy of Dr. Paine’s PowerPoint http://wvde.state.wv.us/downloads.html http://wvde.state.wv.us/downloads.html

3. Valued Student Outcomes Quality and Equity in Student Achievement High School Graduation for All Preparation for College and Careers Proficiency in 21 st Century Skills

4. Student Achievement Literacy and Numeracy 4 4 NAEP Results

5. Comparison of West Virginia to National Public 2003 to 2009 NAEP Average Scale Score 5 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. Comparison of West Virginia and states with similar percentage eligible for national school lunch program NAEP Average Scale Score 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. Comparison of West Virginia to National Public -- gender NAEP Average Scale Score 15

16. Male Female 16

17. Male Female 17

18. Male Female 18

19. Male Female 19

20. Comparison of West Virginia and National Public -- race NAEP Average Scale Score 20

21. White Black 21

22. White Black 22

23. White Black 23

24. White Black 24

25. Comparison of West Virginia to National Public – socioeconomic status NAEP Average Scale Score 25

26. Eligible Not Eligible 26

27. Eligible Not Eligible 27

28. Eligible Not Eligible 28

29. Eligible Not Eligible 29

30. Comparison of West Virginia to National Public – students with disabilities (IEP and 504 Plan) NAEP Average Scale Score 30

31. SD Not SD 31

32. SD Not SD 32

33. SD Not SD 33

34. SD Not SD 34

35. Comparison of West Virginia to National Public – 8 th grade parental education level NAEP Average Scale Scores 35

36. West Virginia National Public 36

37. West Virginia National Public 37

38. WESTEST 2 38

39. The federal language in SFSF and RTTT grant applications calls for states to commit to and create internationally rigorous Proficiency (Mastery) Cut Scores on their accountability assessments. Upon completion of the common core standards adoption and development of common core assessments, there will be nationally developed common cut scores for proficiency (Mastery) based on common core assessment development. Committing to International Common Proficiency (Mastery) Cut Score

40. National Performance Benchmark NAEP 2009 Mathematics Performance Level Distribution by % * WV Below Basic ProficientAdvanced At or Above Proficient Grade 423%49%26%2%28% Grade 839%41%17%2%19% WESTEST 2 2009 Mathematics Performance Level Distribution by % * NovicePartial Mastery MasteryAbove Mastery DistinguishedAt or Above Mastery Grade 42%33%36%19%9%64% Grade 818%29%40%12%1%53%

41. International Performance Benchmark International 2009 Mathematics Performance Level Distribution by % * TIMSSLowIntermediateHighAdvanced At or Above High Grade 423%41%21%5%26% Grade 829%31%13%2%15% WESTEST 2 2009 Mathematics Performance Level Distribution by % * WESTEST 2 NovicePartial Mastery MasteryAbove Mastery DistinguishedAt or Above Mastery Grade 42%33%36%19%9%64% Grade 818%29%40%12%1%53%

42. Why Transition to Internationally Rigorous Performance Cut Scores for WESTEST 2 2009 Cut Scores show that our Mastery Level cut scores compare –at the lower levels of Basic on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). –at the D+ level on Trend In Math and Science Standards (TIMSS). Conclusion : WV does not currently use cut scores that are as rigorous as national or international cut scores to determine Mastery Level for our students. Recommendations: WV will –determine and use transitional cut scores for Mastery that are increasingly aligned to more rigorous national and international cut scores and –use these cuts through 2014.

43. How does WV Create National/ International Rigorous Performance Create Transitional Cut Scores in 2010 (to be used thru 2014) Commit to 40% Mastery Level proficiency cut score per content area, per grade level. These cuts will place WV Mastery Level at the upper levels of Basic on NAEP. will place WV Mastery Level at C+ on TIMSS. Conclusions: The 40% cuts will create transitional cut scores for Mastery that align more to national/international rigor in 2010. By 2014, a common cut score for Proficiency will be determined based on the products/research from the RTTT grants. Recommendations: –WV will use the transitional cuts through 2014. –From 2015 onward, WV will use international Proficiency cut scores to determine Mastery.

44. State Board Approved New Cut Scores West Virginia Board of Education approved the WESTEST 2 Cut Scores –April 2010 Board Meeting –Cuts will be used to determine AYP this August –School Improvement Reports will be made available on WVEIS Reports compare the 2009 school performance to 2010 school performance in a reliable and meaningful manner.

45. WESTEST 2 Math by Level of Achievement – Old Cuts vs. New Cuts

46. WESTEST 2 RLA by Level of Achievement – Old Cuts vs. New Cuts

47. 2009 WESTEST 2

48. WESTEST 2 Females Math

49. WESTEST 2 Males Math

50. WESTEST 2 Grade 4 Math - Gender

51. WESTEST 2 Grade 8 Math - Gender

52. WESTEST 2 Grade 11 Math - Gender

53. WESTEST 2 Females RLA

54. WESTEST 2 Males RLA

55. WESTEST 2 Grade 4 RLA - Gender

56. WESTEST 2 Grade 8 RLA - Gender

57. WESTEST 2 Grade 11 RLA - Gender

58. 2009 WESTEST 2- Percent Proficient RLA All Students-All Grades RankCounty% Prof. 55McDowell41.33 54Lewis46.10 53Lincoln47.48 52Webster47.62 51Roane48.02 50Calhoun49.15 49Doddridge50.06 48Barbour50.36 47Fayette50.67 46Braxton53.44 45Pendleton53.54 44Pleasants53.70 43Hampshire53.71 42Morgan54.11 RankCounty% Prof. 41Boone54.12 40Tucker55.02 39Logan55.17 38Wirt55.29 37Monroe55.37 36Summers55.41 35Preston55.63 34Grant55.68 33Mason56.13 32Randolph56.23 31Mineral56.28 30Brooke57.32 29Mercer57.41 28Upshur57.41

59. 2009 WESTEST 2- Percent Proficient RLA All Students-All Grades RankCounty% Prof. 27Marshall57.59 26Nicholas57.84 25Pocahontas57.89 24Hardy57.98 23Wetzel58.26 22Wayne58.55 21Kanawha58.69 20Wood59.55 19Harrison59.88 18Gilmer60.12 17Wyoming60.36 16Ritchie60.68 15Raleigh61.08 14Berkeley61.23 RankCounty% Prof. 13Cabell61.38 12Jackson61.59 11Taylor62.31 10Greenbrier62.51 9Clay63.04 8Tyler63.05 7Marion63.12 6Hancock63.68 5Mingo65.47 4Jefferson65.64 3Ohio66.89 2Monongalia67.04 1Putnam70.51

60. 2009 WESTEST 2- Percent Proficient Math All Students-All Grades RankCounty% Prof. 55Roane47.46 54McDowell48.42 53Lincoln49.15 52Webster49.64 51Fayette49.70 50Doddridge50.55 49Barbour52.33 48Calhoun52.52 47Lewis53.05 46Logan53.39 45Hampshire53.79 44Wirt54.09 43Upshur54.25 42Morgan55.27 RankCounty% Prof. 41Monroe55.63 40Mason56.38 39Pleasants56.74 38Tucker56.86 37Grant57.15 36Berkeley57.51 35Hardy57.58 34Randolph57.62 33Pocahontas57.69 32Boone58.03 31Wayne58.32 30Kanawha58.37 29Cabell58.46 28Clay58.47

61. 2009 WESTEST 2- Percent Proficient Math All Students-All Grades RankCounty% Prof. 27Wyoming58.56 26Marshall59.30 25Wetzel59.70 24Mercer59.72 23Summers59.83 22Braxton59.87 21Preston60.53 20Raleigh60.66 19Mineral61.28 18Gilmer61.32 17Nicholas61.47 16Wood61.52 15Harrison61.64 14Jackson61.92 RankCounty% Prof. 13Mingo62.15 12Pendleton62.35 11Jefferson62.60 10Greenbrier63.01 9Brooke63.04 8Taylor63.30 7Ritchie64.07 6Marion65.55 5Ohio66.33 4Monongalia66.94 3Hancock67.88 2Tyler69.49 1Putnam73.84

62. WESTEST 2 Charting Tool https://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/private/nclbda ta/signon.cfm?CFID=3116612&CFTOKEN =18437294https://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/private/nclbda ta/signon.cfm?CFID=3116612&CFTOKEN =18437294

63. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? NAEP We are below the national average in nearly every category. Even when compared to states with similar demographics, we rank next to the last in most categories. While the national public average is increasing in most areas, WV’s performance has flat lined or declined.

64. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? WESTEST2 There is not trend data due to newness of assessment. Student performance declines as students move from elementary to middle to high. There is a significant achievement gap between low SES and non-low SES and between males and females. There are far too few students scoring at “above mastery” and ”distinguished.”

65. High School Completion Graduation and Dropout Rates 65

66. Diplomas Count 2010: WV Graduation Profile for the Class of 2007 West Virginia National Average All Students 71.6 %68.8%

67. Diplomas Count 2010: WV Graduation Rates by Student Group By GenderWest VirginiaNational Average Male 68.166.0 Female 75.172.9 By Race and Ethnicity Hispanic 52.855.5 Black (not Hispanic) 63.953.7 White (not Hispanic) 71.576.6

68. A Long-Term View of Graduation Year-by-year trendsWest VirginiaU.S. Average 200771.668.8% 200671.869.2 200572.870.6 200471.770.0 200372.869.7 200272.069.3 200170.768.0 200070.266.8 199971.266.0 199872.365.6 199775.565.7 10-Year Change-3.9+3.1

69. Projection of Graduates and Non-graduates State9 th Graders 2006-2007 Projected 2009-10 Graduates Projected 2009- 2010 Non- graduates Total students lost each school day West Virginia 24,33117,4206,91138 U.S. 4,155,4182,857,7911,297,6287,209

70. Graduation vs. Dropout Rate The new graduation rate is a Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate. The formula creates an initial cohort for each graduating class starting with the first time 9th grade students four years ago. That cohort is followed through the four years of high schools. Students who transfer out of state (from that class) are removed from the cohort and students who transfer into the state (into that class) are added to the cohort. When this class reaches graduation, the graduation rate is calculated by dividing the graduates by the number of students remaining in the cohort. Dropout rate is percent of students in grades 7 through 12 who leave the school, before graduation or without transferring to another school

71. RankCounty200720082009 Change 2007 to 2009 55Doddridge93.3390.1084.85-8.48 54Jackson87.4787.2180.55-6.92 53Pendleton87.7688.5481.33-6.43 52Marion88.7386.3683.79-4.49 51Greenbrier85.0082.2980.85-4.15 50Braxton83.8777.9779.80-4.07 49Summers82.4182.0978.45-3.96 48Taylor79.6681.6875.71-3.95 47Barbour83.9480.0080.10-3.84 46Lincoln79.2879.0775.61-3.67 45Monroe85.0085.9081.38-3.62 Rank Order of Counties by Decrease in Graduation Rate (55-1)

72. RankCounty200720082009 Change 2007 to 2009 44 LOGAN88.7486.6785.25-3.49 43 FAYETTE83.4982.2580.19-3.30 42 MINGO86.5882.7883.33-3.25 41 TUCKER95.5694.0592.31-3.25 40 KANAWHA81.6378.6778.60-3.03 39 NICHOLAS84.1483.3881.18-2.96 38 MERCER84.6882.4181.80-2.88 37 WYOMING80.0079.6977.33-2.67 36 MONONGALIA84.8884.7782.24-2.64 35 ROANE85.0584.7782.74-2.31 34 RALEIGH87.2186.0385.04-2.17 Rank Order of Counties by Decrease in Graduation Rate (55-1)

73. RankCounty200720082009 Change 2007 to 2009 33 LEWIS82.2380.0080.10-2.13 32 GRANT89.4485.1987.42-2.02 31 WOOD87.2486.7585.44-1.80 30 RITCHIE89.3889.8487.88-1.50 29 TYLER90.1696.5588.89-1.27 28 HAMPSHIRE86.2580.8285.23-1.02 27 MINERAL92.4291.5091.48-0.94 26 HARDY85.3981.9784.71-0.68 25 PLEASANTS89.7790.9189.19-0.58 24 WEBSTER85.4887.4184.96-0.52 23 RANDOLPH86.3585.7686.03-0.32 Rank Order of Counties by Decrease in Graduation Rate (55-1)

74. RankCounty200720082009 Change 2007 to 2009 22 WETZEL91.5789.5291.35-0.22 21 MARSHALL87.2287.6787.02-0.20 20 PUTNAM88.6388.3088.48-0.15 19 UPSHUR80.7381.7380.59-0.14 18 OHIO83.8983.9983.87-0.02 17 CABELL80.3376.9480.470.14 16 HARRISON84.0984.7784.750.66 15 WAYNE83.4380.5884.591.16 14 GILMER93.7588.5794.941.19 13 PRESTON80.8181.0982.281.47 12 CALHOUN80.6876.7782.351.67 Rank Order of Counties by Decrease in Graduation Rate (55-1)

75. RankCounty200720082009 Change 2007 to 2009 11 BOONE80.8582.0482.852.00 10 MORGAN87.1885.3189.292.11 9 MCDOWELL81.7687.8385.063.30 8 POCAHONTAS86.4987.2589.893.40 7 CLAY87.9286.6791.433.51 6 BERKELEY81.5683.4685.193.63 5 HANCOCK90.9792.2394.783.81 4 BROOKE91.2993.6895.223.93 3 MASON79.4382.5583.444.01 2 WIRT88.1681.5493.905.74 1 JEFFERSON77.7284.9884.997.27 Rank Order of Counties by Decrease in Graduation Rate (55-1)

76. RANKCOUNTY2007200820092007- 2009 55WEBSTER1.602.904.20-2.60 54MONROE2.802.004.80-2.00 53LEWIS1.902.703.50-1.60 52CABELL2.002.803.50-1.50 51MCDOWELL2.003.50 -1.50 50FAYETTE2.804.004.20-1.40 49UPSHUR2.102.503.50-1.40 48MINGO2.503.403.70-1.20 47DODDRIDGE1.902.202.90 46TUCKER0.701.101.70 45HARDY2.703.403.60-0.90 Rank Order of Counties by Increase in Dropout Rate (55-1)

77. RANKCOUNTY2007200820092007- 2009 44MARION2.40 3.30-0.90 43RALEIGH2.302.703.10-0.80 42CLAY2.10 2.80-0.70 41GRANT2.403.10 -0.70 40HARRISON2.102.602.80-0.70 39MASON2.603.203.10-0.50 38RITCHIE1.902.302.40-0.50 37TYLER1.101.701.60-0.50 36WAYNE3.003.50 -0.50 35POCAHONTAS1.602.202.00-0.40 34BOONE3.102.803.40-0.30 Rank Order of Counties by Increase in Dropout Rate (55-1)

78. RANKCOUNTY2007200820092007- 2009 33LOGAN2.403.302.70-0.30 32MARSHALL2.102.30 -0.20 31NICHOLAS4.004.504.20-0.20 30PENDLETON2.303.202.50-0.20 29WETZEL1.701.601.90-0.20 28GREENBRIER3.603.403.70-0.10 27JACKSON2.303.302.40-0.10 26OHIO2.802.90 -0.10 25SUMMERS2.904.503.00-0.10 24BARBOUR2.203.502.200.00 23BERKELEY2.802.602.800.00 Rank Order of Counties by Increase in Dropout Rate (55-1)

79. RANKCOUNTY2007200820092007- 2009 22WIRT2.003.101.900.10 21PRESTON3.102.302.900.20 20RANDOLPH3.304.003.100.20 19JEFFERSON2.602.402.300.30 18LINCOLN3.504.403.200.30 17MERCER3.703.503.400.30 16PUTNAM1.702.601.400.30 15WOOD2.30 1.900.40 14HANCOCK1.901.001.400.50 13KANAWHA4.104.703.600.50 12MORGAN2.303.201.800.50 Rank Order of Counties by Increase in Dropout Rate (55-1)

80. RANKCOUNTY2007200820092007- 2009 11MONONGALIA3.102.702.500.60 10MINERAL1.400.900.70 9BRAXTON3.802.603.000.80 8BROOKE1.300.600.500.80 7GILMER1.801.400.90 6WYOMING4.304.003.301.00 5CALHOUN3.703.402.601.10 4ROANE3.102.901.901.20 3HAMPSHIRE2.80 1.501.30 2PLEASANTS2.002.100.501.50 1TAYLOR4.904.001.603.30 Rank Order of Counties by Increase in Dropout Rate (55-1)

81. Early Warning Indicators Early indicators of dropout are powerful tools at the K-12 level because they can potentially alert educators to students who need some level of intervention to stay on track to graduation. –Balfanz & Byrnes

82. Analysis of Early Warning Indicators for WV Conducted by Robert Balfanz, Johns Hopkins University 2008-09 data –21,244 6 th grade students –25,315 9 th grade students –20,315 12 th grade students –Total of 66,874 students across three grades

83. Early Warning Indicators For 9 th graders – typically include: –Attendance below 85%; –Two or more suspensions or serious disciplinary incidents; –Two or more semester course failures; –Failing a math course; and/or –Failing an English Language Arts course

84. Early Warning Indicators For 6 th graders – typically include: –Attendance below 90%; –One or more suspensions or serious disciplinary incidents; –One or more semester course failures; –Failing a math course; and/or –Failing an English Language Arts course

85. Overall State-Wide Rates of 6 th Grade Students with Key Indicators (223 schools with 6 th grade) Attendance <90% >=1 Minor Incidents Fail >=1 CoursesFail MathFail English>=1 of all Indicators Percent of all 6 th Grade Students (N = 21,244) 22%18%10%5%4%37% Percent of All Schools with 0 students with Indicator 6%10%29%39%93%2% Percent of All Schools with 10 or more students with Indicator 63%54%28%13%12%74% Percent of All Schools with 25 or more students with Indicator 35%27%13%4%3%47% Percent of All Schools with 50 or more students with Indicator 10%8%4%1%0%30% Percent of All Schools with 75 or more students with Indicator 2%1% 0% 13% Percent of All Schools with 100 or more students with Indicator <1% 0% 6%

86. Overall State-Wide Rates of 9 th Grade Students with Key Indicators (160 schools with 9 th grade) Attendance <85% >=2 Minor Incidents Fail >=2 CoursesFail MathFail English>=1 of all Indicators Percent of all 6 th Grade Students (N = 25,315) 20%15% 16%12%38% Percent of All Schools with 0 students with Indicator 7%9%11% 3% Percent of All Schools with 10 or more students with Indicator 68%58%61%52%50%78% Percent of All Schools with 25 or more students with Indicator 46%31%14%31%29%61% Percent of All Schools with 50 or more students with Indicator 27%13%6%18%13%44% Percent of All Schools with 75 or more students with Indicator 11%9%4%9%4%32% Percent of All Schools with 100 or more students with Indicator 6%5%3%4%1%20%

87. 25 Districts with the Most Students with 1 or More Key Indicators DISTRICTNUMBER OF STUDENTS% OF STUDENTS6 th, 9 th, & 12 th GRADE ENROLLMENT KANAWHA COUNTY 254037%6885 BERKELEY COUNTY 149635%4257 CABELL COUNTY 105836%2903 WOOD COUNTY 84027%3099 RALEIGH COUNTY 81429%2787 HARRISON COUNTY 80730%2730 MERCER COUNTY 70432%2201 JEFFERSON COUNTY 68737%1872 WAYNE COUNTY 55431%1816 MARION COUNTY 52027%1893 MONONGALIA COUNTY 51120%2552 LOGAN COUNTY 49934%1481 FAYETTE COUNTY 48130%1625 PUTNAM COUNTY 46623%2071 GREENBRIER COUNTY 43434%1272 OHIO COUNTY 39029%1337 BOONE COUNTY 38537%1052 JACKSON COUNTY 37530%1249 MINGO COUNTY 34132%1054 UPSHUR COUNTY 33137%884 MCDOWELL COUNTY 33039%840 LINCOLN COUNTY 32539%827 PRESTON COUNTY 31630%1064 MARSHALL COUNTY 30525%1209 WYOMING COUNTY 29333%892

88. 25 Middle Schools with the Most Students with 1 or More Key Indicators SCHOOLDISTRICT NUMBER OF STUDENTS % OF STUDENTS 6 th GRADE ENROLLMENT MUSSELMAN MSBERKELEY COUNTY21147%451 MARTINSBURG SOUTHBERKELEY COUNTY15949%324 BECKLEY-STRATTON MSRALEIGH COUNTY14359%241 MARTINSBURG NORTHBERKELEY COUNTY13359%225 WASHINGTON IRVINGHARRISON COUNTY12549%253 MADISON MSBOONE COUNTY11852%226 B-U MSUPSHUR COUNTY11844%267 HUNTINGTON MSCABELL COUNTY11453%217 HAYES MSKANAWHA COUNTY11252%217 BLUEFIELD MSMERCER COUNTY11156%197 RIPLEY MSJACKSON COUNTY10340%260 EASTERN GREENBRIERGREENBRIER COUNTY10137%270 SISSONVILLE MSKANAWHA COUNTY10060%168 COLLINS MIDDLEFAYETTE COUNTY9648%202 ROBERT BLAND MSLEWIS COUNTY9451%185 MOUNT VIEW HSMCDOWELL COUNTY9373%128 ANDREW JACKSON MSKANAWHA COUNTY9233%281 STONEWALL JACKSONKANAWHA COUNTY8953%169 BEVERLY HILLS MSCABELL COUNTY8944%204 EAST BANK MSKANAWHA COUNTY8863%139 ELKVIEW MSKANAWHA COUNTY8535%246 HEDGESVILLE MSBERKELEY COUNTY8435%238 PARK MSRALEIGH COUNTY8152%157 WEIR MSHANCOCK COUNTY7952%151 HORACE MANN MSKANAWHA COUNTY7946%172

89. 25 High Schools with the Most Students with 1 or More Key Indicators SCHOOLDISTRICT NUMBER OF STUDENTS % OF STUDENTS 9 h GRADE ENROLLMENT MARTINSBURG HSBERKELEY COUNTY28644%646 HEDGESVILLE HSBERKELEY COUNTY25344%573 CABELL MIDLAND HSCABELL COUNTY24443%563 HUNTINGTON HSCABELL COUNTY23848%495 WHEELING PARK HSOHIO COUNTY20943%490 RIVERSIDE HSKANAWHA COUNTY20650%412 CAPITAL HSKANAWHA COUNTY18550%369 PARKERSBURG HSWOOD COUNTY18134%532 BUCKHANNON UPSHURUPSHUR COUNTY16948%349 LIBERTY HSRALEIGH COUNTY16542%390 SAINT ALBANS HSKANAWHA COUNTY16444%369 SOUTH CHARLESTON HSKANAWHA COUNTY15847%334 WASHINGTON HSJEFFERSON COUNTY15846%343 PARKERSBURG SOUTHWOOD COUNTY15836%437 WOODROW WILSON HSRALEIGH COUNTY15737%424 LINCOLN COUNTY HSLINCOLN COUNTY15244%342 MUSSELMAN HSBERKELEY COUNTY15234%452 JEFFERSON HSJEFFERSON COUNTY15146%331 PRESTON HSPRESTON COUNTY15036%412 GREENBRIER EAST HSGREENBRIER COUNTY14440%363 ROBERT C. BYRD HSHARRISON COUNTY14151%274 UNIVERSITY HSMONONGALIA COUNTY14033%425 HERBERT HOOVER HSKANAWHA COUNTY13850%275 PRINCETON SENIOR HSMERCER COUNTY13441%327 MORGANTOWN HSMONONGALIA COUNTY13228%474

90. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? Although we are generally above the national average in graduation rate, our rate is declining. We are not doing enough, early enough, to keep our students in school. This is a systemic issue, not just a high school issue.

91. College and Career Readiness 91

92. Student Preparation More than one million students graduate each year from high school assuming they are ready for college or the workplace – and they are not ALL graduates need the same knowledge and skills to be successful in –Two- or four-year college –Job that offers a career path at a self-supporting wage –Apprenticeship or related training –Military ACT, 2008. Making the Dream a Reality: Action Steps for States to Prepare All Students for College and a Career

93. A Jobs Mismatch Shifts in Educational Attainment for All Occupations (Source: Inside Higher Ed. 6/15.2010) 1973199220072018 Master’s or higher7%10%11%10% Bachelor’s degree 9% 19%21% 23% Associate degree12%8%10%12% Some college n/a 19%17% High school diploma 40% 34%30% 28% High school dropout 32% 10%11% 10%

94. WV and National ACT-Tested Students College & Career Ready English Mathematics ReadingScienceAll Four 2008-2009 West Virginia71%30%54%25%17% Nation67%43%53%28%23% 2007-2008 West Virginia72%31%52%23%16% Nation68%43%53%28%22% 2006-2007 West Virginia72%30%50%22%16% Nation69%43%53%28%23% 2005-2006 West Virginia72%30%52%22%16% Nation69%42%53%27%21%

97. WV College Going Rate Fall 2009 – 61.5% Fall 2008 – 58.8% Fall 2007 – 57.5%

98. Student Preparation Students who take two or more remedial college courses are unlikely to graduate –Nearly 45% who plan to go to college after graduation have not taken courses that will allow them to proceed to credit-bearing, college courses ACT, 2004. On Course for Success

99. WV High School Graduates in Developmental Courses First-Time College Freshman Graduating Class% Developmental English % Developmental Mathematics 200915.7824.63 200815.7927.55 200716.2628.39 200614.0726.93

100. Assuring College Readiness Student Name/WVEIS ID WESTEST 2 Grade 11 Mathematics Performance Level Below Mastery or Novice Placement in College Transitions Mathematics course unless student meets following criteria for students in professional pathway or students in skilled pathway who have indicated they plan to attend 4-year college CriteriaCollege Readiness BenchmarkOn Track To Be College Ready EXPLORE Mathematics17Yes/No PLAN Mathematics19Yes/No WESTEST 2 Grade 10 Mathematics Performance Level MasteryYes/No College Transitions Mathematics course placement based on EXPLORE, PLAN and Grade 10 WESTEST 2 Mathematics Yes/No

101. Supporting College Readiness AP Potential –Using PLAN to identify student readiness for rigorous courses in high school Dual credit/college courses EDGE WV Virtual School

102. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? Our college going rate has improved slightly but we continue to be below the national average on ACT results. Our ACT results show college bound students lack necessary preparation in math and science. Too few WV students are being channeled into and challenged by AP classes, a strong predictor of college success. Our remediation rate for math has declined but our remediation rate for English has increased over four years.

103. 21st Century Skills 103

104. techSteps Participation rate of students in grades K-8 ranged from 65% in grade 3 to 74% in grade 8 6,354 teachers completed at least one project this year as compared to 1,954 last year

105. Infusion of 21 st Century Skills into the Core Content Of approx. 120,000 students in grades 3-8 –84,544 used technology to produce and publish content –74,132 used technology to gather and organize information –78,928 used technology to represent situations using symbolic, graphic and dynamic models –93,973 used technology productivity tools to research, think, learn and create

106. Infusion of 21 st Century Skills into the Core Content Of approx. 180,000 students in grades k-8 –95,656 completed one or more projects generating evidence related to Creativity and Innovation Skills –136,585 …related to Communication and Collaboration Skills –110,563…related to Research Skills and Information Fluency –132,583…related to Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Decision Making Skills –80,412…related to Digital Citizenship –141,619…related to Technology Operation Skills and Concepts

107. WESTEST 2 Math and Science

108. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? You have emphasized 21 st century skills in your districts and the data show promising practices and trends. You are to be congratulated. We need to continue our efforts in creating better ways to develop and assess student proficiency in this area.

109. So What Are the Data Telling Us and What Else Do We Need to Know and Do? Instead of what’s broken and how do we fix it? Ask what’s working and how can we do more of it?

110. Making a Personal and Public Commitment

111. Directions for Small Groups Grouped by similar levels of SES Facilitator for each group Data packet for each county Data on each of the 4 valued outcomes Time to review the data and reflect on priorities and actions Complete at least 2 charts for each student outcome At 4:30 – reports from groups