##### *2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) \[ X \]
Elementary \[ \] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[ \] Charter

Name of Principal: [Mrs. Beverly Dawson]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other) (As it should appear in the
official records)

Official School Name: [Sorgho Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address: [5390 Kentucky Highway
56\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[Owensboro\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Kentucky\_\_\_\_\_
\_42301-9303\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County: [Daviess County]{.underline} State School Code Number\*
[145-070]{.underline}

Telephone [( 270 ) 852-7470]{.underline} Fax [( 270 ) 852-7480
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Web site/URL [www.dcps.org/ses/](http://www.dcps.org/ses/) E-mail
<bdawson@dcps.org>[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge all information is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Tom Shelton]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

District Name [Daviess County]{.underline} Tel. [( 270 )
852-7000]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board Mrs. Mary Tim Griffin

President/Chairperson

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(School Board President's/Chairperson's Signature)

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

**\[Include this page in the school's application as page 2.\]**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school's eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

1.  The school has some configuration that includes grades K-12.
    (Schools on the same campus with one principal, even K-12 schools,
    must apply as an entire school.)

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not been identified by the state as "persistently
    dangerous" within the last two years. To meet final eligibility, the
    school must meet the state's adequate yearly progress requirement in
    the 2006-2007 school year.

3.  If the school includes grades 7 or higher, it has foreign language
    as a part of its core curriculum.

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

5.  The nominated school or district is not refusing OCR access to
    information necessary to investigate a civil rights complaint or to
    conduct a district‑wide compliance review.

6.  OCR has not issued a violation letter of findings to the school
    district concluding that the nominated school or the district as a
    whole has violated one or more of the civil rights statutes. A
    violation letter of findings will not be considered outstanding if
    OCR has accepted a corrective action plan from the district to
    remedy the violation.

7.  The U.S. Department of Justice does not have a pending suit alleging
    that the nominated school or the school district as a whole has
    violated one or more of the civil rights statutes or the
    Constitution's equal protection clause.

8.  There are no findings of violations of the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act in a U.S. Department of Education
    monitoring report that apply to the school or school district in
    question; or if there are such findings, the state or district has
    corrected, or agreed to correct, the findings.

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

**All data are the most recent year available.**

**DISTRICT** (Questions 1‑2 not applicable to private schools)

1\. Number of schools in the district: [12]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[3]{.underline} Middle schools

\_\_\_\_\_\_ Junior high schools

[2]{.underline} High schools

[1]{.underline} Other -- Alternative High School

[18]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$7,920]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,663]{.underline}

**SCHOOL** (To be completed by all schools)

3\. Category that best describes the area where the school is located:

> \[ \] Urban or large central city
>
> \[ X\] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [9]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

If fewer than three years, how long was the previous principal at this
school?

5\. Number of students as of October 1 enrolled at each grade level or
its equivalent in applying school only:

  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
  **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of                **Grade      **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of     **Grade
              Males**   Females**              Total**                  Males**   Females**   Total**

  **PreK**    38        30                     **68**       **7**                             

  **K**       37        31                     **68**       **8**                             

  **1**       38        32                     **70**       **9**                             

  **2**       34        33                     **67**       **10**                            

  **3**       39        30                     **69**       **11**                            

  **4**       39        35                     **74**       **12**                            

  **5**       31        33                     **64**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   480
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

> ***\[Throughout the document, round numbers 1 or higher to the nearest
> whole number.***
>
> ***Use decimals to one place only if the number is below 1.\]***

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [92]{.underline} % White

the school: [5]{.underline} % Black or African American

[2]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

[1]{.underline} % Asian/Pacific Islander

[0]{.underline} % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

Use only the five standard categories in reporting the racial/ethnic
composition of the school.

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[4]{.underline} %

> \[This rate should be calculated using the grid below. The answer to
> (6) is the mobility rate.\]

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      8
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      9
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    17
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 480
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  0.35
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3.5
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [2]{.underline} %

[9]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [2]{.underline}

Specify languages: Spanish, Pohnpei

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [51]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [245]{.underline}

> If this method does not produce an accurate estimate of the percentage
> of students from low‑income families, or the school does not
> participate in the federally supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services: [28]{.underline} %

[134]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

[3]{.underline}\_Autism [0]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

[0]{.underline} Deafness [17]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

[0]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [39]{.underline} Specific Learning
Disability

[17]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance [53]{.underline} Speech or
Language Impairment

[0]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [1]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
Injury

> [1]{.underline} Mental Retardation [0]{.underline} Visual Impairment
> Including Blindness
>
> [3]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities

11. Indicate number of full‑time and part‑time staff members in each of
    the categories below:

    **Number of Staff**

**[Full-time]{.underline}** **[Part-Time]{.underline}**

Administrator(s) [2]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers [23]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [10]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [14]{.underline} [4]{.underline}

> Support staff [13]{.underline} [4]{.underline}
>
> Total number [62]{.underline} [10]{.underline}

12. Average school student-classroom teacher ratio, that is, the number
    of

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 [21:1]{.underline}

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students as a
percentage. The student dropout rate is defined by the state. The
student drop-off rate is the difference between the number of entering
students and the number of exiting students from the same cohort. (From
the same cohort, subtract the number of exiting students from the number
of entering students; divide that number by the number of entering
students; multiply by 100 to get the percentage drop-off rate.) Briefly
explain in 100 words or fewer any major discrepancy between the dropout
rate and the drop-off rate. Only middle and high schools need to supply
dropout rates, and only high schools need to supply drop-off rates. Also
explain a high teacher turnover rate.

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Daily student attendance   97%         97%         96%         96%         96%

  Daily teacher attendance   97%         97%         97%         96%         98%

  Teacher turnover rate      7%          7%          7%          7%          11%

  Student dropout rate       \%          \%          \%          \%          \%
  (middle/high)                                                              

  Student drop-off rate      \%          \%          \%          \%          \%
  (high school)                                                              
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**[PART III ‑ SUMMARY]{.underline}**

Sorgho Elementary School can best be described as a school in
transition. People in the community still define the school by the "old
school" (built in 1937 and a cornerstone of the community), and the "new
school" (built in 1997). This transition from the old to new is more
than just the move of facilities. The "old" school was a true community
school in which only people who lived in the community attended Sorgho
School. This produced a homogeneous population of mostly rural, middle-
to lower-SES students, whose families were farmers or factory workers.
The move to the new building resulted in the size of the school nearly
doubling, a diversification of the population, and a substantial
increase in the number of "at-risk" students, all through redistricting.
However, even though people in the community may long for the "good old
days," this transition has also brought with it a significant
improvement in academic achievement. Thus, while the school has
significantly increased in size, in minority representation, and in
serving at-risk students, test scores have steadily and significantly
improved and remained high.

Sorgho Elementary School is located just west of Owensboro, Kentucky --
the third largest city in the state of Kentucky. Sorgho is a part of the
Daviess County Public School System, which adheres to the district motto
"It's About Kids." The mission of Sorgho is to be a Safe, Caring Haven
Of Outstanding Learning. Sorgho has established a culture of high
academic expectations while meeting the needs of a diverse population by
ensuring that the staff utilize research-based practices and establish
personal and caring relationships with parents and students. Sorgho has
opened its doors to many families through its three programs for
students with severe emotional and behavioral disabilities. These
programs are offered for students in grades kindergarten through grade
5. Sorgho also offers one preschool classroom for students with
disabilities (operating in two sessions) from across the county, and a
second preschool classroom (operating in two sessions) which is a
blended program with Head Start for students economically disadvantaged.
Sorgho is designated as school-wide Title I school due to the fact that
at least 50% of the students attending are enrolled in the Free/Reduced
School Lunch Program.

Sorgho has been identified by the Kentucky Department of Education as a
Pacesetter School by scoring in the top 5% of schools in the state for
the accountability cycles of 2000-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06. Sorgho was
selected as a State Title I Distinguished School in 2002. Practices that
have led to these distinctions include:

-   High Expectations -- Sorgho staff has extraordinarily high
    expectations for staff and students in regards to academic
    achievement. Academic engagement is expected and there is no
    tolerance for disruptions to student learning.

-   Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum -- Staff are expected to deliver
    high quality instruction at all times. Professional development is
    provided so that teachers can implement research-based content and
    practices.

-   Relationships -- All staff are hired and provided feedback on their
    ability to reach out to, and connect with, all students and parents.
    High value is placed on an invitational climate with a high degree
    of parent involvement.

-   Data-Driven Decisions -- Data is collected on students continuously
    and drives real-time changes.

    **[PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

1.  **Assessment Results:**

Sorgho Elementary School does not rely simply on the yearly state-wide
assessment results to gauge progress as a school or for individual
students. Instead, a variety of assessment tools have been put in place
to determine if progress is being made and the data obtained is mined to
look for patterns of lack of progress. When it is determined that an
individual student is not making satisfactory progress, an individual
plan is developed. If it is determined that a group of students in a
particular grade are not making progress, grade-level meetings are
conducted to determine what adjustments to instruction will be made. And
yearly, the results of the state-wide assessment are reviewed and used
to determine if the students are making adequate progress in learning
the Core Content.

In Kentucky, the goal is for every school to reach an Academic Index
score of 100 by 2014. In 1999 Sorgho had an overall Academic Index Score
of 76. It obtained a score of 101 in 2004 (a decade ahead of schedule)
and subsequently obtained scores of 103 in 2005 and 106 in 2006.

Not only has Sorgho improved in the overall Academic Index measure, but
significant improvements have been noted in all academic areas. The
current academic measures were developed in 1999 and Sorgho has noted
the following improvements over the past 8 years of using this system:

[2006]{.underline} [1999]{.underline} [Gain/Loss]{.underline}

**Writing 95.8 69 +27.**

**Reading 107 92 +15**

**Mathematics 115 61 +54**

As mentioned earlier, these improvements have been noted despite a
significant expansion and diversification of the student population. The
staff takes great pride in assuming responsibility for ALL students
achieving academic success. Approximately 50% of the students at Sorgho
are considered economically disadvantaged, and approximately 10% of the
students are minority. Despite these numbers, there are no achievement
gaps noted in the assessment scores among majority and minority students
or among disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. Sorgho Elementary
serves students from across the school district with emotional and
behavioral disabilities. These students are included in regular classes
and participate in the state assessment like all other students.

Ongoing assessment data is collected on students using a variety of
measures. The Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment is used
at least twice a year to measure student progress in the areas of
reading, language and math. Students receive their scores after the fall
assessment and they receive a target score to attain for the spring.
Also, students receive computer-based instruction in reading and math
using a program called SuccessMaker. This program assesses students'
individual skills, adjusts the curriculum for each student, and provides
teachers with progress data. Also, the STAR test is used to assess
student reading skills and to set reading levels for the Accelerated
Reader program. Students read books independently on their reading level
and take comprehension tests over the books read.

Information about Sorgho's assessment data can be found within the
Comprehensive School Improvement Plan, which can be accessed at the
following website: <http://www.dcps.org/ses/CSIP/CSIP.htm>

2.  **Using Assessment Results:**

Sorgho uses the Kentucky state assessment data only as a general
overview of how students are progressing in the curriculum. More
importantly the assessment data gathered throughout the year are used to
make decisions in a timelier manner. Sorgho has implemented a number of
methods for gathering data about how students are progressing. These
include:

-   Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) -- The MAP assessment is
    given to all students grades K-5 in the fall and spring. An
    additional testing window is open in the winter for any student whom
    a teacher feels the fall assessment was inaccurate, is failing to
    make adequate progress in the classroom, or for any student who has
    received interventions and the impact of those interventions needs
    to be determined. The fall assessment helps teachers to know where
    each student scores in reading and math. It provides students and
    teachers with not only a current score, but also a projected score
    for that student to make adequate yearly progress by the end of the
    year. Parents and students are provided with a report of the MAP
    assessment data and target goals. Teachers determine differentiated
    goals for each student based on this data. Spring testing allows
    teachers, students, and parents to assess how the child has
    progressed that year as well as help guide decisions for each child
    for the next year.

-   Other assessments

    -   Ongoing assessments tied to the Kentucky Core Content occur in
        classrooms.

    -   STAR (Standard Test for Achievement in Reading) tests are
        administered to each student to help place them in appropriate
        level books for the Accelerated Reader program.

    -   As of 2006-07 the GRADE assessment is being given to all
        students K-3 to identify and provide interventions for
        struggling readers.

    -   SuccessMaker reports are printed frequently to determine skills
        mastered/needed and grade level.

3.  **Communicating Assessment Results:**

A variety of methods are used to communicate assessment results to
stakeholders. First, an individual Student Profile sheet is completed on
each child once a year with all current assessment data (CATS, MAP,
STAR, etc.) and is sent home to parents in student report cards and
shared during parent-teacher conferences. A copy of each year's profile
is placed in each student's folder so academic progress can be monitored
across the years. Parents also receive a progress report midway through
each nine week grading period and a report card every nine weeks. The
school holds a Celebration Assembly each nine weeks to recognize
achievements. After the overall CATS testing school results are received
by the school, a "Success Flash" newsletter is sent home to all parents
with a breakdown of the assessment results in reader friendly language.
These results are shared with the Parent-Teacher organization and the
Site-Based Council. The scores are posted on the school and district
website and are printed in the local newspaper. A CATS Celebration
Assembly is held each spring, with medals presented to all Proficient
and Distinguished students in every area. Students sign their name to a
permanent Wall of Fame in our hallway.

**4**. **Sharing Success:**

The staff at Sorgho Elementary is extraordinarily proud of the school's
success as well as the successes of the students and staff members. A
lot of "word of mouth" success sharing takes place at statewide
conferences, in graduate classes, and in meetings and presentations
attended and conducted by staff members. Several schools a year ask and
are welcomed to visit Sorgho and watch classes in progress. The
administrators frequently receive and reply to emails sent by schools in
other school districts regarding how we attain success in specific
areas. Staff at Sorgho Elementary not only attend conferences, but also
often present at conferences at the state and national level.
Administrators and staff are often asked to conduct staff development
sessions at other schools and to relate how specific strategies are
developed, implemented, and adapted to the school. Sorgho has even
received emails from Board members of other districts and statewide
professional organizations inquiring as to how the school has attained
its success. Most interestingly, the nature of these communications tend
to center on how such a positive, healthy and welcoming environment can
be achieved and maintained while the pressures of high-stakes assessment
looms. Visitors often remark on the extremely positive culture and
climate at a school with such high academic success.

**[PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline}**

1.  **Curriculum:**

Sorgho Elementary implements a rigorous curriculum focused on high
expectations for all. Curriculum is aligned and based on national
standards and state requirements, such as the Program of Studies for
Primary and the Kentucky Core Content for Assessment standards. The
teachers complete a yearly overview calendar of content to be taught,
and to ensure staying on target they complete a weekly "In The Know"
overview content sheet. Computer software is chosen and used to enhance
the curriculum. Our school's basic belief is that if a child *thinks*
they can succeed, then it will happen. Teachers encourage and "set the
stage" for success.

The reading program at Sorgho Elementary is based on research of
effective methods. All students receive instruction to master knowledge
of reading skills and to enable students to effectively comprehend all
genres. A more detailed explanation follows.

The writing process is taught to all students beginning in Kindergarten
using developmentally appropriate practices and focusing on writing to
learn, writing to demonstrate learning, and writing to authentic
audiences for real purposes. Each student produces a working writing
portfolio that progresses with him/her throughout elementary school
demonstrating various types of writing and including personal,
reflective, literary, and transactive pieces. Pieces are selected for
scoring and analysis at faculty meetings to determine writing progress
of students and to identify instructional needs. At fourth grade, pieces
are selected for a writing portfolio and submitted to the state as part
of our assessment. We recently had a fun school assembly with the *Six
Plus 1 Traits of Writing* to reinforce school writing expectations and
to help motivate the students. Students are encouraged to enter writing
contests and to publish and share their work with others.

Math is taught using a high-level problem-solving spiraling curriculum.
Students learn to solve problems in a variety of ways. A more detailed
explanation follows.

The curriculum in Science and Social Studies focuses on development of
vocabulary and an application of the knowledge. All fourth grade
students participate in a science fair to show application of the
scientific method and content mastery. The students that are working
above level have extensions to complete on their project. Social Studies
uses a combination of text knowledge and student involvement through
such programs as *History Alive*.

Arts and Humanities is incorporated into the curriculum. Drama is
incorporated through plays in language arts and social studies. All
students receive weekly visual arts instruction from a specialized team
of teachers. Students are involved in the community through attending
performances at the RiverPark Arts Center, taking field trips to the Art
and Bluegrass Museums and the Symphony. Many school assemblies focus on
the arts such as the Bluegrass Music assembly. The school implements
*Espanol Pari Ti* program to expose students to a foreign language. All
students learn to play the keyboard in music class and learn all types
of dance through the physical education class.

**2a.** **Reading:**

Sorgho realizes that all students do not learn to read the same way,
therefore a variety of researched-based programs are used. Approximately
one third of our students arrive in kindergarten below readiness level,
according to our district kindergarten screener. Students grade 2 -- 5
are assessed in the fall using the *MAP* test, students K -- 3 are
assessed using the *GRADE*, and students 1 -- 5 are assessed using the
*STAR*. Primary teachers have been trained in *Developmental Reading
Assessment* (*DRA*) and use it for extra data when needed. Teachers
analyze all data and group students according to needs. A core
curriculum basal reading series was chosen based on an analysis of our
needs using the areas of phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension. All students receive instruction using this high level
series, as well as supplemental computer based work in *Earobics* and
*SuccessMaker*. Both computer programs allow each child to work at
his/her individual pace and level. Students working below grade level in
K - 3 receive instructional interventions using different research-based
programs such as *Lindamood-Bell* and *GRADE* strategies. First graders
functioning below grade level receive *Reading Recovery* instruction
from a trained teacher. Selected below-level second grade students
receive *Headsprout* computer based intervention. The Title I teacher
works with below level students on specific skills. Above level students
K- 5 receive higher level readers and work from the classroom teacher,
read with another grade level, and participate in programs such as
*Junior Great Books* with our Gifted Interventionist/Staff Developer.
All students read leveled books from the Accelerated Reader program. Our
goal is that every child leave his/her grade level reading at or above
grade level and no child leaves primary reading below level.

**3. Additional Curriculum Area:**

Math scores at Sorgho have improved dramatically due to a focus on math
instruction and an in-depth look at our curriculum. In 2000 the math
score for the school on the state *CATS* assessment was 68 and by 2006 a
score of 115 was achieved, far above the state required 100 for
Proficiency. This score placed us in the top 20 schools in Kentucky in
the area of math. Only one child scored Distinguished (above 100) in
2001, with an increase to 51 children scoring Distinguished in 2006.
This amazing feat was accomplished by changing the total math
curriculum. A new curriculum was adopted which focused on
problem-solving, application of learning, and higher-level critical
thinking. *Everyday Math* was adopted as the core curriculum, with
supplemental materials used as needed. Students learn to solve problems
in a variety of ways. Teachers implement learning basic skills (such a
skip counting) aligned K -- 5 to facilitate learning of number patterns
and multiplication. All sub-domains improved including
geometry/measurement, probability/statistics, algebraic ideas, and
numbers/computation. In all of these areas, students excelled in knowing
the concepts, skills, and relationships. Classroom instruction includes
practice with manipulatives, integration of computer skill games,
hands-on "game" practice of skills, and application in open-response
questions. Work is done whole group, small group, in cooperative groups,
and individually. All students use the *SuccessMaker* math program which
individualizes instruction for each child. Some students "top out" of
the program (end of 8^th^ grade level) while in 5^th^ grade. The math
success has transferred to other areas. Students are able to apply this
logical, critical thinking to all school subjects. Teachers have learned
they have the courage and skill to implement a very different curriculum
with success. Sorgho is proud of the positive changes in our math
culture.

**4**. **Instructional Methods:**

Varied and appropriate teaching strategies are employed to provide an
engaging environment and meet the needs of each child. Teachers have
been trained in differentiation skills and apply them in various ways.
Students may test out of a unit and be provided extended learning
activities. They may receive extra support in a small group or on an
individual basis. Based on assessments, students may be grouped for
higher level lessons (i.e. a fifth grade reading group using a seventh
grade novel). Learning styles are always taken into consideration with
lessons using visuals, hands-on (kinesthetic), and other strategies when
applicable. GEM (Gifted Education Model) methods are incorporated into
classroom learning, as well as other brain research methods (i.e.
Marzano and Sousa) that show how students learn best. For example, water
bottles are found on many students' desks as research shows water
increases learning in the brain (Sousa). Marzano strategies such as use
of graphic organizers and summarizing are used. Instruction is given
through whole group, small flexible groups, and individually depending
on needs. Differentiation Plans and Intervention Plans are completed on
each child working above or below level to ensure the appropriate
instruction beyond core curriculum. Lessons include higher order
thinking skills and application of skills instead of just knowledge
level. Other strategies used frequently include hands-on activities and
cooperative group work. Technology is incorporated in the classroom and
also through computer labs. Teachers in the classroom frequently use the
CPS system for teaching and assessment. They utilize programs such as
United Streaming and Brain Pop and use PowerPoints to enhance/reinforce
skills being taught. The computer labs contain software that teaches and
reinforces classroom skills. Computers are also used by students for
research. Students are prepared for assessments using an Open Response
Coaching model where all students learn they can earn a "four" (the top
score). Teachers meet daily to plan.

5.  **Professional Development:**

Sorgho believes the best professional development is focused on student
learning and is embedded in instruction. During the Consolidated
Planning process and the Evaluation/Growth plan process each spring,
teachers discuss and decide on needed professional development. This can
be school-wide and/or individualized according to need. Teachers use
professional development time every summer to horizontally and
vertically align the curriculum with district, state (Program of Studies
and Kentucky Core Content for Assessment), and national standards.
Throughout the school year instructional improvement is our focus.
Faculty meetings consist of trainings that have included writing
techniques, portfolio scoring/analysis, testing data analysis,
differentiation techniques, and techniques for teaching children with
ADHD, etc. Teachers attend outside trainings and present to the faculty.
Currently two teachers are sharing techniques acquired from attending
Literacy Cadre training. Teachers are participating in two book studies
which focus on instructional improvement. Both books, *Best Practice,
third edition* by Steven Zemelman and *A Handbook for Classroom
Instruction that Works* by Robert Marzano*,* have provided a guide for
discussion and implementation of good classroom instruction*.*
Substitutes are provided throughout the school year for teachers to
attend in-school professional development. Trainers from the adopted
core curriculum companies come to train and to answer questions (such as
*Scott Foresman* reading program and *Everyday Math* program). We have
found this to be particularly effective after the programs have been in
use a few months. This ensures each program is being properly
implemented. Planning time is also used for professional development
sessions, such as implementation of the technology portion of the
reading program and use of the Kentucky Virtual Library. The staff
developer works in classrooms to model lessons for job-embedded
professional development. Teachers are constantly teaming, sharing, and
learning to provide a quality learning environment.

**[PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS]{.underline}**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject [Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Grade [4]{.underline} \_\_ Test
[Kentucky Core Content Test]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [New version each year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                  107         107         101         100         97

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  94          94          96          86          83
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       22          23          6           12          10

  Number of students tested            65          62          51          51          \*

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100         100         100

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    \>1         0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.Free/Reduced Lunch                                                                 

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  90          89          94          83          71
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       9           11          5           13          \*

  Number of students tested            32          19          19          24          24

  2.Non Free/Reduced                                                                   

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  97          95          97          86          83
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       33          27          6           11          \*

  Number of students tested            33          44          32          27          28

  3.Disabled                                       N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  91                                              
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       8                                               

  Number of students tested            12                                              

  4\. Nondisabled                                  N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  95                                              
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       25                                              

  Number of students tested            53                                              
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* Disaggregated data not available for this year.

Subject [Writing]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Kentucky Core
Content Test]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [New version each year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                  96          92          93          93          91

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  98          73          92          88          \*
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       15          8           12          14          \*

  Number of students tested            65          63          51          50          \*

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100         100         100

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    \>1         0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.Free/Reduced Lunch                                                                 

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  97          89          89          87          \*
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       9           1           5           9           \*

  Number of students tested            32          19          19          24          24

  2.Non Free/Reduced                                                                   

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  100         88          94          89          \*
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       21          11          16          19          \*

  Number of students tested            33          44          32          27          28

  3.Disabled                                                                           

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  91          N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       8                                               

  Number of students tested            12                                              

  4\. Nondisabled                                  N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  100                                             
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       17                                              

  Number of students tested            53                                              
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* Disaggregated data not available for this year.

Subject [Mathematics]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Kentucky
Core Content Test]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [New version each year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                  115         103         109         76          79

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  89          81          87          39          \*
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       51          22          36          8           \*

  Number of students tested            61          59          55          52          59

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100         100         100

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.Free/Reduced Lunch                                                                 

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  76          84          90          30          39
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       35          21          15          0           \*

  Number of students tested            17          24          20          23          23

  2.Non Free/Reduced                                                                   

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  93          80          86          45          38
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       57          23          49          14          \*

  Number of students tested            44          35          35          29          36

  3.Disabled                           N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State                                                  
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                                                       

  Number of students tested                                                            

  4\. Nondisabled                      N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State                                                  
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                                                       

  Number of students tested                                                            
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* Disaggregated data not available for this year.