December 2016

Gilmer County Central Office Follow Up Audit

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

1

Introduction

An announced Education Performance Audit was conducted in the Gilmer County Board of Education office on October 27-28,

2016. The purpose of the review was to determine the effectiveness of the leadership of the Gilmer County Board of Education

and the degree to which Gilmer County may be ready for return of full control of their educational system. The intent of this

review was to update information that was gathered during the audit on February 16 and 17, 2016 and verify progress made by

Gilmer County Board of Education office since the inception of state intervention in 2011 and a return of partial control in 2013.

The Office of Education Performance Audits (OEPA) Team interviewed the Gilmer County Board of Education president and

members, the state appointed superintendent, and central office personnel in all areas of operation. Documentation was

reviewed in all areas to ensure State code and policy compliance. Through central office personnel interviews and a thorough

review of pertinent documentation, the Team found the operations of the central office staff continuing to function efficiently

and in compliance with State code and West Virginia Board of Education policy.

This follow up report presents the OEPA Team’s findings and recommendations regarding the Gilmer County Board of Education.

2

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM

Office of Education Performance Audits Coordinator – Allen Brock

NAME TITLE COUNTY CATEGORY

Rick Deuell

Team Leader

Retired, Assistant

Superintendent

Consultant, OEPA

Berkeley County

Superintendent

Board Members

Administrative Practices

Evaluations

Personnel

Policy

Steve Peer

Retired, Assistant

Superintendent,

Treasurer, Chief School

Business Official

Mineral County

Administrative Practices

Finances

Federal Programs

CEFP

Policy

Brad Simmons

Retired, High School Principal

County Board of Education

Member

Consultant, OEPA

Hardy County

Board Members

Curriculum and Instruction

Policy

3

GILMER COUNTY CENTRAL OFFICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Gilmer County Central Office is currently, as of May 2016, under West Virginia Board of Education control for facilities and

finance (facility finance expenditures). Historically, Gilmer County was placed under state intervention June 2011 in the areas of

finance, facilities, personnel, instructional programs and policy development. Due to progress made and verified by OEPA during

a December 2013 follow up review, a recommendation was made to WVBE to return partial control in the areas of curriculum,

policy, finance (except decisions regarding facility finance expenditures), transportation and the establishment and operation of

a school calendar. The December 2013 audit team documented concerns in the areas of Gilmer County Board of Education

leadership, personnel and facilities, in particular, the implementation of the Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP).

Gilmer County has a state appointed superintendent, Gabriel Devono. Lack of effective and consistent communication among

county board members and the county superintendent has resulted in failure to collaborate and interact with collegiality and

professionalism.

Although a difference of professional opinion exists among county board members and the state appointed superintendent on

the readiness of the board of education to regain full control of its educational system, the board of education office is

functioning efficiently and in compliance with State code and WVBE policy. Student achievement is stable and increasing with

the county school system receiving Full Approval status based on the performance grades of each school in the system.

Documentation of board of education office efficiency and effectiveness was gathered through personnel interviews and a

thorough review of pertinent documentation.

4

Findings and Recommendations

FEBRUARY 2016

SUPERINTENDENT

Findings: Communication; knowledge of and compliance with WVBE Policy 5310; and superintendent leadership.

The OEPA Team recommends:

effective and thorough communication between directors at the central office and the superintendent; senior staff meetings held at least twice monthly in addition to regularly scheduled principal and director meetings;

effective and thorough communication between the Superintendent and the county board of education;

training, for the superintendent, in West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5310, the West Virginia Educator Evaluation system; and

an effective mentor, for the superintendent, for specific trainings in the area of communications, conflict resolution and team building to improve county superintendent and county board relations; effective and efficient operation of the central office and schools; and information to the public.

OCTOBER 2016

Superintendent

The Team conducted an interview with the state appointed superintendent. The superintendent opposed the ending of the

state control, stating that the board remained dysfunctional, politicized, and incapable of functioning as a local board. He stated

more time was needed for the treasurer and personnel staff to acclimate to their job responsibilities.

FEBRUARY 2016

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Findings: Communication with the Superintendent; knowledge of finance, personnel and county board relations; and

knowledge and adherence of ethical standards pertaining, but not limited to, outside communications and confidentiality.

5

The OEPA Team Recommends:

ongoing training in effective and thorough communication techniques for county board members, central office

administrators, and the Superintendent; and

training on finance, personnel, board relations, and ethics for county board members, facilitated through the West

Virginia School Board Association and/or the Training Standards Review Committee.

OCTOBER 2016

County Board of Education

The Team found from interviews that the board of education remains divided. When asked about improvements or regressions

with the cohesiveness of the board, two board members stated relations between the superintendent and the local board were

worse than in February 2016. They stated that the superintendent is less receptive to sharing information with the board and

does not appear to want a working relationship with the local board. These two board members stated the county is ready for

local control to be granted.

Two board members are reportedly positive of the superintendent’s leadership, and both stated the county is not yet ready to

receive local control.

The newly elected fifth board member, who was also elected as board president, stated state control should end immediately.

He stated the local board is capable and, as board president, he could effectively guide the board.

The following recommendations were made in February 2016 and were partially completed.

1. Ongoing training in effective and thorough communication techniques for

county board members, central office administrators, and the state appointed superintendent;

Mrs. Beverly Kingery, chair of the Training Standards Review Committee of the West Virginia School Board Association, presented a workshop. The local board members stated that there was no follow-up from this training.

Jason Long, Attorney-at-Law, completed a workshop on personnel roles. The local board members stated that the

information was valuable and they would welcome more guidance related to board member roles and responsibilities.

2. Training on finance, personnel, board relations, and ethics for county board

6

members, facilitated through the West Virginia School Board Association and/or the Training Standards Review Committee.

One training session on personnel did take place

The state appointed superintendent was assigned a mentor.

Comments from Interviews of the Local Board Members:

Board Member 1

Believed the local board is ready to take back local control

Stated there remains issues with disposal of current school property and what to properly do with this property;

Indicated the same concerns today as in February, pertaining to superintendent leadership and issues related to a lack of local board control, i.e., inability of the local board to make decisions based on the needs of the county;

Stated problems remain in receiving information from the county superintendent;

Stated the local board is functioning well with the election of the new board member, who was also elected as board of education president. Stated the new member provides high quality board leadership;

Wanted to immediately secure a new superintendent if control is returned to the county and;

Requested any communication with the current county superintendent be in writing Board Member 2

Stated the local board is not ready for local control;

Stated that conditions had deteriorated since February 2016 concerning board cohesiveness;

Concerned that some board members may be, to some degree, political pawns of others within the county;

Stated the local on-line news was detrimental to electing good candidates to run for office due to the mudslinging;

Stated board training had not assisted the board’s ability to function;

Stated that resignation from the board is a possibility if local control is reinstated and improvements are not made and;

Stated the current board is “the most political non-partisan board” the member has seen Board Member 3

Stated local control needs to be returned;

Stated the central office was functioning well and was effective;

Stated that the county has political people who advised the superintendent and that this advice may not be in the best interest of the county schools;

Discussed with the superintendent that the superintendent has to change to meet the needs of the county school system and;

7

Stated disposal of old school properties is an issue that is a “finger in his eye”, and that the local board needs to be permitted to make the decision as to what happens to this property

Board Member 4

Stated the local board is ready, and always has been, to take back local control;

Stated the local board cannot function properly unless they have local control restored;

Stated disposal of old county property remains an issue;

Stated the local board members cannot get the information they need from the current superintendent;

Stated the local board is composed of intelligent members;

Stated that local control would mean new committee members would be appointed and;

Stated that a local, state or national superintendent search would take place when control was returned

Board Member 5

Stated that he and another board member are frustrated by the non-cohesive functioning of the local board;

Stated the local board is not yet ready for local control; however, progress in that direction is being made. Expressed concern about the potential for backslide if local control is returned soon;

Stated the current superintendent is doing a good job and;

Stated the State Board should retain control, then evaluate the situation in the Spring, with possible return to control at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year

FEBRUARY 2016

PERSONNEL

Findings: Outdated employment application; outdated professional bid sheet; knowledge of federal laws related to human

capital management; and collaboration with chief financial officer.

The OEPA Team recommends:

revision of county employment application based on the updates from Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP;

revision of the professional bid sheet based upon WVBE Policy 5000;

revisions of job descriptions to include information from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to allow for ADA accommodations; worker’s compensation return to work; and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

communication and collaborative work between the personnel director and finance officer to understand and develop the Certified List;

8

ongoing professional development for the personnel director, such as that offered by the American Association of School Personnel Administrators (AASPA) and/or the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM);

closing dates be added to all job postings to allow the county to review the list of applicants and hire from that list; and

reviewing length of time for reposting and determine sufficient time for applicants to apply.

OCTOBER 2016

Personnel Department

West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5800 Standards of Professional Practice for West Virginia Superintendents, Principals and Teacher Leaders is being followed;

Stated there is contention in the central office between the executive secretary and the other central office employees;

Stated that return to local control would most likely cause the current superintendent to be removed by the local board;

Stated local board members attempted to obtain formation from the central office personnel individually, not as a unified board, and use that information to further personal agendas;

Stated there are no collaborative efforts taking place across the county;

Stated the local board wants to micro-manage the central office and;

Stated the State Board should maintain control of the local board

FEBRUARY 2016

FINANCE

Findings: Communication; knowledge of generating specific budget reports from the West Virginia Education Information

System (WVEIS); and team building.

The OEPA Team recommends:

additional WVEIS training for the finance officer and appropriate central office staff to better manage budgets and

to generate specific budget reports.;

frequent and regular budget meetings scheduled by the finance officer with the Superintendent and personnel

director to improve communication and knowledge of the budget and understanding of the financial system; and

regular communication among the finance officer, personnel director, and the Superintendent to maximize staffing

ratios.

9

COMMENTS:

Based upon interviews and evidence presented, the audit team verified the central office and the schools are operating, for the most part, in an efficient and effective manner. The central office staff is competent to carry out the duties assigned to them.

Evidence indicates central office personnel and school staff have been properly trained and are able to handle the guidelines necessary to comply with West Virginia Code and WVBE personnel policy.

Leading Creek Elementary School, an intercounty Gilmer/Lewis initiative, should continue to receive support from the Gilmer County Superintendent through communication and collaboration with the Lewis County Central Office, and ongoing efforts to increase enrollment of Gilmer County students at the school.

OCTOBER 2016

Finance

Since the OEPA visit in February 2016, a new Chief School Business Official (CSBO)/Treasurer is in place in Gilmer County. This has been a major improvement to the operations of the Finance Office.

There are frequent meetings and open communication between the departments in dealing with Finance matters.

The new CSBO is helping program directors take control of and manage their grant budgets. He provides monthly reports to directors to help monitor their budgets.

Since the last OEPA visit, Gilmer County hired a payroll supervisor. This has taken a great deal of the work load from the CSBO and the accounts payable supervisor and allowed more efficient operation of the finance office.

The new CSBO has been instrumental in helping staff use West Virginia Education Information System (WVEIS) more efficiently.

OCTOBER 2016

Curriculum and Instruction

The county curriculum and instruction department is working with several state and local initiatives. These included, but are not limited to, the Learning Schools model, such as data walls, PLC notes, shared curriculum maps, and shared professional development plans per school, all collectively housed within OneDrive files.

The staff has attended many professional development sessions. The Team observed teacher, staff and Staff Development Council surveys, and sign-in sheets.

Writing was highlighted as a weakness, based on National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) surveys from a Literacy Innovations in Rural Education Communities (LIREC) grant. The county had developed multiple strategies to target needs of not only students, but support for professional practice in teaching writing skills in conjunction with inquiry cycles through NCTE.

10

When asked about leadership opportunities, many were highlighted throughout the Strategic Plan. The mission statement promotes “Learning, Leading, and Life Skills”. Multiple examples of school level leadership teams and teacher leadership measures were documented with goal #2 of the strategic plan.

A substantial amount of platforms are used within the district to promote instruction, learning, planning, and student application of technology. The district has a well-organized platform for housing the resources for both students and teachers for implementing one-to-one instruction techniques and ease of access for digital platforms.

Interventions were a focused action step for strategic plan Goal #1. Multiple avenues of intervention were implemented to target the five areas of the campaign for grade level reading. Attendance highlighted a truancy diversion specialist position. Extended Learning highlighted after school tutoring, accelerated mathematics practices, state and national competitions, novel study groups, and a rich summer school with support of NCTE. High quality instruction was evidenced through shared curriculum maps developed by teachers, Title I and academic coaching intervention was based on data utilizing an hourly instructional interventionist and co-teaching methods. School readiness efforts exemplified with interventions within PreK and through the literacy coach, which are based on data from Brigance and the Early Learning Reporting System (ELRS) PreK data. All interventions within parent involvement were promoted through a full time Student Assistance Team (SAT) coordinator at each school.

A Title I survey was distributed (2015-2016) and parents gave responses that drove the selected parent involvement activities at the consolidated elementary school in 2016-2017. All students in grades PreK-6 have their own data folders to communicate results of assessments (report cards), behavior, student goals, and interest from school to parents at home. Monthly district newsletters were distributed and published locally for families and community.

The writing program was being organically designed from teacher professional learning community (PLC) time with support for writing through teachers building curriculum maps and student work examples. The literacy coach promoted practices and strategies needed to improve learning based on the Early Learning Reporting System (ELRS), Brigance, STAR Assessment, WV General Summative Assessment and classroom assessments. Other general resources for writing instruction are Zaner-Bloser, Kansas Writing, and Four Square Writing.

Comments from Interviews with Personnel in the Finance and Curriculum Offices:

Stated Gilmer County Schools is capable of self-management and State control needs to end;

Stated that without a strong superintendent, the board members could revert to micro-management of the system;

Stated the community feels that with state control, the school system is not theirs and;

Stated the next levy vote may fail if the system remains under state control

OCTOBER 2016

Facilities:

11

Through interviews, the OEPA Team concluded the new consolidated elementary school opened on time and the facility meets the current requirements for the school system.

There remains much disagreement as to the disposal of the surplus property due to the consolidation. The superintendent and the board have not come to an agreement as to how, or even if, they plan to dispose of the properties. This continues to be a point of contention between the board and the superintendent.

The superintendent and three board members continue to be at odds in respect to the renovation of an existing but empty school for the purpose of opening a middle school. This had been planned for the 2016-2017 school year but did not happen due to the lack of School Building Authority (SBA) support and poor planning. In an interview with a central office staff, it was stressed the Comprehensive Educational Facility Plan (CEFP) committee wants the CEFP revised to reflect remodeling of the current primary school instead of building a new middle school.

The Leading Creek School tensions have greatly subsided since the February 2016 review.

Policy and Compliance:

The OEPA Team found Gilmer County to be in compliance with policies and procedures.

Policy 2340 West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress Program Full Compliance

Policy 2510 Assuring Quality of Education Regulations for Education Programs Full Compliance

Policy 4373 Expected Behavior in Safe and Supportive Schools Full Compliance

Policy 5000 Designated Hiring and Transfer of School Personnel Full Compliance

Summary

The Gilmer County Board of Education is operating well in spite of the still somewhat dysfunctional county board and the poor

relationship between some board members and the state appointed superintendent. The OEPA Team stated the board of

education office will continue to run effectively if the local board members respect and follow their roles and responsibilities

12

provided in State code, working with and through the county superintendent.

Based on evidence and interviews, the OEPA Team found the current local board and state appointed superintendent will not

make significant progress in relations regardless of state or local control. Differing personalities, personal agendas, and political

pressure will continue to plague the improvement in superintendent/board relations. Unused school property, personnel, and

the role of the local board in operations will continue to be a problem for the county.

The intention for the initial state takeover of Gilmer County Board of Education was due to improper functioning of the county

board of education office. This issue has been satisfactorily corrected under the state appointed superintendent and central

office staff. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the OEPA that full control be returned to Gilmer County Board of Education

and allow the county to determine its future operations.

13

School Monitoring Report Summary

14

Trend Data

15

Student Attendance Rates – 2015/2016

RESA County Attendance Rates

7 Gilmer 94.2 State 93.2

*95% is the accountability performance indicator

Gilmer94.2

State93.2

85.0

87.0

89.0

91.0

93.0

95.0

97.0

99.0

16

Career Technical Education Completers – 2014/2015

RESA County Name

Completers

7 Gilmer 70 7 RESA 7 Total 1422

*2014/2015 school year is the baseline year for CTE completers *Current certified data unavailable as of 12/20/2016

Gilmer705%

RESA 7 Total142295%

RESA 7

17

ACT Composite Scores – 2014/2015

RESA County Name

2013/2014 ACT composite scores

2014/2015 ACT composite scores

7 Gilmer 20.1 20.3

*2015 ACT National Score is 21.0 http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2015/states.html *Current certified data unavailable as of 12/20/2016

20

.1

20

.3

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

Gilmer

Gilmer County

2013/2014 ACT composite scores 2014/2015 ACT composite scores

18

SAT Overall Mean Scores – 2014/2015

RESA County Name Critical Reading Mean Mathematics Mean Writing Mean

7 Gilmer 0 0 0

*Current certified data unavailable as of 12/20/2016

19

Advanced Placement Percent Test Takers – 2014/2015

RESA County Name

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Tenth Grade

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Eleventh Grade

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Twelfth Grade

7 Gilmer 0.0 10.1 9.0

State 4.6 29.0 28.4

*Current certified data unavailable as of 12/20/2016

0.0

4.6

10

.1

29

.0

9.0

28

.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Gilmer State

Gilmer County

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Tenth Grade

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Eleventh Grade

APT (Advanced Placement Test) Percent Test Takers--Twelfth Grade

20

WV General Summative Assessment – 2015/2016

RESA County Math

Proficient% Reading

Proficient%

7 Gilmer 32 48

State 30 47

32

48

30

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Math Proficient% Reading Proficient%

Gilmer County

Gilmer State

21

WV General Summative Assessment-2015/2016:

Closing achievement gaps within subgroups

RESA County Math

Proficient% Reading

Proficient%

7 Gilmer 30 45

State 26 41

*Low SES public certified data on ZOOMW

30

45

26

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Math Proficient% Reading Proficient%

Gilmer County

Gilmer State

22

Graduation Rates – 2015/2016

RESA County Name

Graduation Rates

7 Gilmer 90.14 State 89.81

*90% is the state target

Gilmer, 90.14 State, 89.81

60.00

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

Gilmer County

23

Dropout Rates – 2014/2015

RESA County

Name 2013/2014 Dropout Rate

2014/2015 Dropout Rate

7 Gilmer 0.5 0.5 State 1.3 1.1

*Dropout Rates for grades 7-12

*Current certified data unavailable as of 12/20/2016

0.5

1.3

0.5

1.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Gilmer State

Gilmer County2013/2014 Dropout Rate 2014/2015 Dropout Rate