Review the following case scenario and complete the tasks: Student: Marius Age: 8 Grade: 3 Marius is a third grade student who transferred to Oakwood Elementary School late in the fall. His teacher, Mrs. Pfirman, has noticed that he seems to struggle with many independent reading assignments. When Mrs. Pfirman administered the mid-year universal screening measure, she was not surprised to see that Marius’ reading score was below the grade-level benchmark. Consequently, Mrs. Pfirman decided to begin Level 1 RTI by monitoring Marius’ reading performance once a week for seven weeks using measures to assess his decoding, phonemic awareness, and vocabulary skills. Marius’ mother indicates that he was on grade level prior to moving; however, records received from his previous school do not show this. In other subject areas, Marius excels. His math skills are above the benchmark for his grade level. His speaking skills and verbal vocabulary are also on or above grade level. On the initial assessment, the Beginning Phonics Diagnostic Assessment, Marius scored perfectly on all consonants and uppercase letters. He was able to sound out all short vowel letter sounds, and all vowel-consonant (VC) and consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words with beginning and continuous sounds. However, he was unable to read four of the six words on the measure of CVC words beginning with stop sounds, and only read one of the words on the consonant-consonant-vowel-consonant (CCVC) words with beginning blends sub-test. He read no other words on the rest of the assessment correctly. On the Acadience Reading third grade beginning of the year assessment, Marius scored intensive. His scores on this assessment for weeks 5, 6, and 7 were 22, 27, and 33. The benchmark that would be expected after the 7 weeks of interventions is 30 and the expected criteria is 1.6. In addition, Marius’ rate of growth was 1.4. On a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, he scored in the 84th percentile, which is well above average. Marius is extremely interested in dinosaurs, Minecraft, and science. He has two dogs that he is extremely fond of and shares stories about these dogs in school. He is sometimes off task, pretending to be a dinosaur or a character from Minecraft. He knows just about every dinosaur by name, geographical region found and era. He knows what they all eat, how they lived, and when they were killed. He has seen all of the Jurassic Park movies (according to his self-report anyway) and is eagerly hoping to one day bring the dinosaurs back using DNA like they do in the movies. Marius is from a single parent home and appears to move frequently. His mother does have a good job, though, and he appears to have other strong family ties, including some visitations with his dad. Marius is from a bi-racial couple who never married and do not live together, although they maintain a good parenting relationship. Compose a 500-750 word evaluation of Marius incorporating the following: · Determine whe.

1. Review the following case scenario and complete the tasks:
Student: Marius
Age: 8
Grade: 3
Marius is a third grade student who transferred to Oakwood
Elementary School late in the fall. His teacher, Mrs. Pfirman,
has noticed that he seems to struggle with many independent
reading assignments. When Mrs. Pfirman administered the mid-
year universal screening measure, she was not surprised to see
that Marius’ reading score was below the grade-level
benchmark. Consequently, Mrs. Pfirman decided to begin Level
1 RTI by monitoring Marius’ reading performance once a week
for seven weeks using measures to assess his decoding,
phonemic awareness, and vocabulary skills. Marius’ mother
indicates that he was on grade level prior to moving; however,
records received from his previous school do not show this. In
other subject areas, Marius excels. His math skills are above the
benchmark for his grade level. His speaking skills and verbal
vocabulary are also on or above grade level.
On the initial assessment, the Beginning Phonics Diagnostic
Assessment, Marius scored perfectly on all consonants and
uppercase letters. He was able to sound out all short vowel
letter sounds, and all vowel-consonant (VC) and consonant-
vowel-consonant (CVC) words with beginning and continuous
sounds. However, he was unable to read four of the six words
on the measure of CVC words beginning with stop sounds, and
only read one of the words on the consonant-consonant-vowel-
consonant (CCVC) words with beginning blends sub-test. He
read no other words on the rest of the assessment correctly.
On the Acadience Reading third grade beginning of the year
assessment, Marius scored intensive. His scores on this
assessment for weeks 5, 6, and 7 were 22, 27, and 33. The
benchmark that would be expected after the 7 weeks of
interventions is 30 and the expected criteria is 1.6. In addition,

2. Marius’ rate of growth was 1.4.
On a Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, he scored in the 84th
percentile, which is well above average.
Marius is extremely interested in dinosaurs, Minecraft, and
science. He has two dogs that he is extremely fond of and shares
stories about these dogs in school. He is sometimes off task,
pretending to be a dinosaur or a character from Minecraft. He
knows just about every dinosaur by name, geographical region
found and era. He knows what they all eat, how they lived, and
when they were killed. He has seen all of the Jurassic Park
movies (according to his self-report anyway) and is eagerly
hoping to one day bring the dinosaurs back using DNA like they
do in the movies.
Marius is from a single parent home and appears to move
frequently. His mother does have a good job, though, and he
appears to have other strong family ties, including some
visitations with his dad. Marius is from a bi-racial couple who
never married and do not live together, although they maintain a
good parenting relationship.
Compose a 500-750 word evaluation of Marius incorporating
the following:
· Determine whether Marius is responding adequately to Tier 1
instruction, rationalizing your response.
· Based on your determination above and additional research,
what tier of instruction would you recommend for Marius?
· What do you recommend Marius read, based on his interests
and background? List three titles you would suggest.
· Determine what cultural and linguistic factors his teacher must
consider when planning an intervention for him, given the
scenario and data.
· In what learning environments do you think Marius would
learn best? Why? Justify your choices with information from the
scenario and your research.
· For next steps, would there be any reasons to simply wait and
see how Marius does in the next quarter or do you believe
immediate intervention is necessary? Explain your answer.

3. Support your evaluation with a minimum of two scholarly
resources.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the
APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An
abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to
beginning the assignment to become familiar with the
expectations for successful completion.
Running head: WORLDWIDE PAPER COMPANY
1
WORLDWIDE PAPER COMPANY
4
Worldwide Paper Company Capital Budgeting Evaluation.
Name
Institution
The theory of finance suggests that managers only pursue

4. capital investment ventures if they add value to the company.
This means that they should recognize and implement all
enterprise value-added programs to maximize returns (2020). In
addition to this, the intended outcomes ought to be generated.
Capital expenditure decisions will then be based on valuation
calculations using methods such as discounted cash flow
(DCF) and, specifically, the method of Net Present Value
(2020). This paper focuses on the Blue Ridge Mill, the
Worldwide Paper Company, case study whereby the director,
Lucy Lang, was contemplating building a new long lumber yard
on site. This introduction would generate primary benefits
including removing the need to buy long-lumber from an
external supplier, providing the ability to sell long-lumber on
the open market as a new market entry as well as lowering
operating costs while growing revenues. The question under
review was whether the anticipated benefits over the six-year
life of the project were adequate to warrant the $18 million
capital outlay plus the additional expenditure in working
capital. This can be assessed and evaluated after determining
the NPV.
Setting the estimated value of projects includes calculating
cumulative capital flows throughout project process pertinent to
both the present value of capital and the expense involved. If it
is successful according to results, then the project is
valuable and therefore should be pursued. Organizations
planning investments in new ventures must also first estimate
future cash flows based on the procedure.
To calculate NPV for six years, it is equated to the sum of each
future value of capital or the working capital divided by one
added to the interest rate powered to the nth year. In the case
of Worldwide Paper Company, the capital for the year 2017 is
$16million but for the year 2018 has to be calculated first.
$2million was the capital invested, added $2million as operating
savings together with 10% of the annual revenue of $4million in
that year. For the year 2019, the WC would be 10% of the
incremental sale in the year added the $3.5million operating

5. savings. The result remains the same for subsequent years.
To measure the interest rates for each year, the expense of the
product produced must be applied, which is 75% of turnover
and 5% of earnings, being the SG&A spending.
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Future Value of revenue($million)
16
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Interest(cost on capital) ($million)
12.8
3.52
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
The table below shows the summary of future values and
interest rates required to calculate the Net Present Value.
To get the NPV= FV/(1+i)n
=16/(1+12.8)1 + 4.4/(1+3.52)2 + 4.5/(1+3.6)3 + 4.5/(1+3.6)4 +
4.5/(1+3.6)5 + 4.5/(1+3.6)6=$1.43million
Since the results give us a positive figure, it implies that the
project earns an excess return by the end of the sixth year. This
is evident that the projected benefits were reasonable to validate
the $18 million investment of capital plus incremental growth in
cash flow over the project's six-year.

6. References
(2020). Retrieved 15 April 2020, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228630008_Capital_b
udgeting_A_case_study_analysis_of_the_role_of_formal_evalua
tion_techniques_in_the_decision_making_process
(2020). Retrieved 15 April 2020, from
https://www.academia.edu/7825719/STRATEGIES_FOR_GLOB
AL_INVESTMENT_and_EVALUATION_OF_CAPITAL_PROJ
ECTS
Evaluation Techniques of Capital Budgeting - Financial Web.
(2020). Retrieved 15 April 2020, from
https://www.finweb.com/financial-planning/evaluation-
techniques-of-capital-budgeting.html
Sheet1FUTURE VALUESYearValues $Million2017capital
invested162018capital invested2Operating Savings2Working
Capital(10%of annual ravevenue- $4million)0.42019Working
Capital(10% of Incremental sales-$10million)1operating
Savings3.52020Working Capital(10% of Incremental sales-
$10million)1Operating Savings3.52021Working Capital(10% of
Incremental sales-$10million)1Operating
Savings3.52022Working Capital (10% of incremental sales-
$10million)1Operating Savings3.5INTEREST
RATESYEARValues in $million2017 cost of goods -75% of
ravenues-$16million12SG&A- 5% of ravenue-
$16million0.82018cost of goods-75% of $4.4million3.3SG&A-
5% of ravenue-$4.4million0.222019cost of goods-75% of
$4.5million3.375SG&A-5% of $4.5million0.2252020cost of
goods- 75% of $4.5million3.375SG&A- 5% of
$4.5million0.2252021cost of goods-75% of
$4.5million3.375SG&A-5% of $4.5million0.2252022cost of
goods- 75% of $4.5million3.375SG&A- 5% of
$4.5million0.225YEAR201720182019202020212022FUTURE
VALUE164.44.54.54.54.5INTEREST
RATE12.83.523.63.63.63.6

7. Income StatementStar Oil & Gas, Inc.Consolidated Income
StatementsYear Ended May
312010201120122013201420152016(In millions except per
share
data)Revenues4,760.86,470.69,186.59,553.18,776.98,995.19,48
8.8Cost of goods
sold2,865.33,906.75,503.06,065.55,493.55,403.85,784.9Gross
profit1,895.62,563.93,683.53,487.63,283.43,591.33,703.9Sellin
g and
administrative1,209.81,588.62,303.72,623.82,426.62,606.42,689
.7Operating
income685.8975.31,379.8863.8856.8984.91,014.2Interest
expense24.239.552.360.044.145.058.7Other expense,
net11.736.732.320.921.523.234.1Restructuring charge, net---
129.945.1(2.5)-Income before income
taxes649.9899.11,295.2653.0746.1919.2921.4Income
taxes250.2345.9499.4253.4294.7340.1331.7Net
income399.7553.2795.8399.6451.4579.1589.7Diluted earnings
per common share1.361.882.681.351.572.072.16Average shares
outstanding
(diluted)294.0293.6297.0296.0287.5279.8273.3Growth
(%)Revenue35.942.04.0(8.1)2.55.5Operating
income42.241.5(37.4)(0.8)15.03.0Net
income38.443.9(49.8)13.028.31.8Margins (%)Gross
margin39.640.136.537.439.939.0Operating
margin15.115.09.09.810.910.7Net
margin8.58.74.25.16.46.2Effective tax rate
(%)*38.538.638.839.537.036.0*The U.S. statutory tax rate was
35%. The state tax varied yearly from 2.5% to 3.5%.
DCF AnalysisExhibit 2Star Oil and Gas, IncDiscounted Cash
Flow
Analysis2017201820192020202120222023202420252026Assum
ptions:Revenue growth
(%)7.06.56.56.56.06.06.06.06.06.0COGS/Sales
(%)60.060.059.559.559.059.058.558.558.058.0S&A/Sales
(%)28.027.527.026.526.025.525.025.025.025.0Tax rate

8. (%)38.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.0Current
assets/Sales
(%)38.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.038.0Current
liabilities/Sales
(%)11.511.511.511.511.511.511.511.511.511.5Yearly
depreciation and capex equal each other.Terminal value growth
rate (%)3.0
Balance SheetStar O&G, IncConsolidated Balance SheetsAs
ofMay 31(In millions)20152016AssetsCurrent Assets:Cash and
equivalents$254.3$304.0Accounts
receivable1,569.41,621.4Inventories1,446.01,424.1Deferred
income taxes111.5113.3Prepaid expenses215.2162.5Total
current assets3,596.43,625.3Property, plant and equipment,
net1,583.41,618.8Identifiable intangible assets and goodwill,
net410.9397.3Deferred income taxes and other
assets266.2178.2Total assets$5,856.9$5,819.6Liabilities and
shareholders' equityCurrent Liabilities:Current portion of long-
term debt$50.1$5.4Notes payable924.2855.3Accounts
payable543.8432.0Accrued liabilities621.9472.1Income taxes
payable-21.9Total current liabilities2,140.01,786.7Long-term
debt470.3435.9Deferred income taxes and other
liabilities110.3102.2Redeemable preferred
stock0.30.3Shareholders' equity:Common stock,
par2.82.8Capital in excess of stated value369.0459.4Unearned
stock compensation(11.7)(9.9)Accumulated other
comprehensive income(111.1)(152.1)Retained
earnings2,887.03,194.3Total shareholders'
equity3,136.03,494.5Total liabilities and shareholders'
equity$5,856.9$5,819.6Source: Company 10-K SEC filing
Cost of Capital infoStar Oil & Gas, Inc.Capital Market and
Financial InformationOn or Around July 5,2016Current vields
on U.S. TreasuriesStar O&G Share Price Performance Relative
to S&P500:January 2015 to July 5, 20163-month3.59%6-
month3.59%I-year3.59%5-year4.88%10- year5.39%20-
year5.74%Historical Equitv Risk Premiums (1926-
2016)Geometric mean5.90%Arithmetic mean7.50%Current

9. Yield on Publiclv Traded Star O&G Debt*Coupon6.75% paid
semi-annuallyIssued7/15/11Maturity7/15/36Current
Price$95.60Settlement Date7/5/16Star O&G Historic
Betas20110.9820120.84Star O&G share price on July 5, 2016:
$ 42.0920130.8420140.63Dividend Historv and
Forecasts20150.83Paymt Dates31-Mar30-Jun30-Sep31-
DecTotalYTD
06/30/150.6920120.100.100.100.100.4020130.120.120.120.120.
48Average0.8020140.120.120.120.120.4820150.120.120.120.12
0.48Consensus EPS estimates:20160.120.12FY 2017FY
2018$2.32$2.67Value Line Forecast of Dividend Growth from
'14-'16 to '2018-2020:5.50%
Case Study - Star Oil & Gas
Mo Alkassar was considering buying some stock in Star Oil &
Gas Corporation for a portfolio he
manages. Star O&G shares had declined significantly since the
beginning of the year. A recent Star O&G
meeting indicated management wanted to revitalize the
company, including top line and operating
performance. To boost sales, the company was going to
produce more oil in the Permian. Star O&G
planned to also expand holdings in the Eagleford, which has
been performing extremely well. Star O&G
would also work on controlling costs and expenses. Star O&G
managers reiterated their long term
growth targets of 9-10% in revenue and earnings growth of

10. 15%.
Mo read the analysis reports and they were mixed in their
opinions and gave no clear guidance.
Mo decided to develop his own cash flow forecast to make a
decision. His forecast showed that at a
discount rate of 12%, Star O&G was overvalued at its current
stock price ($42). But, after he performed
a sensitivity analysis, he determined that Star O&G was
undervalued at discount rates below 11%. Mo
decided to ask his newly hired assistant, James Shaw (a finance
graduate from MSU), to estimate Star
O&G’s cost of capital.
James gathered the following data to determine if Star Oil &
Gas was undervalued or
overvalued.
Rubic_Print_FormatCourse CodeClass CodeAssignment
TitleTotal PointsSPD-580SPD-580-O501At-Risk and Struggling
Readers80.0CriteriaPercentageNo Submission
(0.00%)Insufficient (69.00%)Approaching (74.00%)Acceptable
(87.00%)Target (100.00%)CommentsPoints
EarnedCriteria100.0%Tier of Instruction15.0%Not addressed.An
unconvincing justification of how the student is responding to
Tier 1 interventions is provided.A weak justification of how the
student is responding to Tier 1 interventions is provided.Clear

11. justification of how the student is responding to Tier 1
interventions is provided.Thorough rationalization of how the
student is responding to Tier 1 interventions is provided.Student
Recommendations15.0%Not addressed.Irrelevant
recommendations of tiered instruction for the student is given
and suggested reading are ineffective or
inappropriate.Recommendations of tiered instruction for the
student is overly simplistic or overly complex. Readings are
suggested but minimally relate to the students’ interest or
background.Clear recommendations of tiered instructions for
the student are logical, and appropriate readings are suggested
based on the students’ interest or background.Insightful
recommendations of tiered instruction that is needed for the
student is given, and quality readings are suggested based on
students’ interest or background.Cultural and Linguistic
Factors15.0%Not addressed.List of cultural and linguistic
factors that must be considered when planning an intervention
for the student is inadequate, missing several key elements, or
including elements that have no basis. The items on the list are
not clearly supported by data from the scenario.List of cultural
and linguistic factors that must be considered when planning an
intervention for the student is missing some key elements. The
items on the list are broadly supported by data from the
scenario.An appropriate list of cultural and linguistic factors
that must be considered when planning an intervention for the
student is provided, and is supported by data from the
scenario.A thorough list of cultural and linguistic factors that
must be considered when planning an intervention for the
student is provided, and is well-supported by data from the
scenario.Environment10.0%Not addressed.The evaluation
unconvincingly explains the best learning environment for the
student and an unrelated reasoning is provided.The evaluation
weakly explains the best learning environment for the student
and an underdeveloped reasoning is provided.The evaluation
clearly explains the best learning environment for the student
and a logical justification is provided.The evaluation thoroughly

12. explains the best learning environment for the student and a
quality justification is provided.Next Steps15.0%Not
addressed.Presents an ineffective argument for next steps.
Position may be stated unclearly, or several key factors were
not addressed.Presents a simplistic argument for next steps,
either to wait and see how the student does in the next quarter,
or to begin immediate intervention. It appears not all key
factors where considered.Presents a clear, reasonable argument
for next steps, either to wait and see how the student does in the
next quarter, or to begin immediate intervention.Presents a
cohesive, convincing argument for next steps, either to wait and
see how the student does in the next quarter, or to begin
immediate intervention.Organization10.0%Not addressed.An
attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is
indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and
may not relate to each other.The content may not be adequately
organized even though it provides the audience with a sense of
the main idea.The content is logically organized. The ideas
presented relate to each other. The content provides the
audience with a clear sense of the main idea.The content is
well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of
ideas that relate to each other. The content is presented as a
cohesive unit and provides the audience with a clear sense of
the main idea.Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)10.0%Not
addressed.Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction are used.Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register) and/or word choice are
present.Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they
do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence
structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related
language.Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors.
Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and
content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and

13. engaging.Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major
and assignment)5.0%Not addressed.Template is not used
appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed
correctly.Appropriate template is used, but some elements are
missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is
apparent.Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually
no errors in formatting style.All template and format elements
are correct.Research Citations (in-text citations for
paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and
formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)5.0%Not
addressed.No reference page is included. No citations are
used.Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently
used.Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited
sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is
usually correct.In-text citations and a reference page are
complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is
free of error.Total Weightage100%