The Colorado Department of Education

Offices | Staff Contacts | Colorado.gov

Educational Service Providers - Provider Detail

The information provided regarding Educational Service Providers is provided for information only. The Colorado Department of Education does not endorse, represent or warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content, services or other materials provided by these educational service providers. Any reliance upon any information, content, materials, products, services or vendors included on or found through this listing shall be at the user's sole risk.

Provider

If not now ! Why not? L.L.C.

Contact Information

Primary

Taylor Young
543 West 77th Street
Tulsa, OK 74132

Phone: (918) 521-6240
Email: taylorlyoungphd@gmail.com

Secondary

Kayla Robinson
1736 S. Columbia Place
Tulsa, OK 74104

Phone: (918) 810-3331
Email: krobinson1521@gmail.com

General Information

Website: www.ifnotnowwhynot.com
Type of Organization: For Profit Company
Organization is best described as: For-Profit
Age of Firm / Number of Years in Operation: less than one year
Level(s) services may be provided: - Elementary
- Middle
- High School
- District
Provides performance guarantees in contract: NO
Educational Services Provided Assessment
Comprehensive & Effective Planning
Comprehensive Turnaround Provider
Curriculum Alignment
Diagnostic Review
District Culture
Educator Effectiveness
Instruction
Leadership
Organizational Structure and Resources
Professional Development
Program Evaluation Services
School and District Improvement
Unified Improvement Planning

Name of Schools/ Districts that this organization has served in Colorado:

We are a new company and currently do not have any contracts with schools or districts within the state at this time.

Recent References:

Recent References:

Larry Smith, Assistant Superintendent
Office of Accountability
Tulsa Public Schools
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74114
918-746-6214

Richard Desirey, Owner and Founder
A New Way Counseling Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74120

Vicki Schweinler
Director of Curriculum & Instruction
Emporia – USD #253
1700 W. 7th Avenue, P.O. Box 1008
Emporia, Kansas, 66801
620-341-2225

Name of Schools/ Districts that this organization has served in other states:

Our company has been newly formed within the last 30 days.

Qualifications of this Organization (licensure, trademark, etc.):

If not now! Why not? L.L.C.received a Certificate of Limited Liability from the Oklahoma Secreatary of State on July 9, 2012 and a Federal EIN on July 30, 2012.

Qualifications of Instructors/ Staff that Provide Services:

Qualifications of Instructors/ Staff that Provide Services:

If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. has developed a full team of specialists, many still working professionals in school districts and higher education, dedicated to providing quality key process analysis and school improvement support to schools and school districts. Each team member of If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. possesses a unique expertise, allowing If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. to truly differentiate services for each district based on findings through their own key process analysis and alignment of resources. If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. president and founder, Dr. Taylor Young, is a leading expert in the analysis of district data sources and program management. He has conducted numerous analysis for individual schools and school districts that have led to more efficient use of existing personnel, time, and school resources, resulting in improved student achievement. Ms. Kayla Robinson, vice-president and co-founder of If not now! Why not?, L.L.C., is a successful elementary principal and engaging staff developer. Her special expertise is in the development of school improvement plans and site or district based staff development and coaching processes. In addition to Dr. Young and Ms. Robinson, the If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. team includes instructors that have expert level experience in the design and implementation of school climate analysis, development of successful Positive Behavior Support Programs, new teacher support processes, teacher evaluation models and instructional improvement plans, team building and leadership development, and best practices for diverse learning populations. The specific qualifications and expert areas of each If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. team member are described on our website, www.ifnotnowwhynot.com.

Cost:

If now now! Why not?, L.L.C. provides fully customized root cause analysis, resource alignment studies, and school improvement plans, followed by coaching and follow-up monitoring. All services are described on our website. We customize our service plan to the unique needs of our client, and typically our per hour service fee is $230-250 per hour. We provide detailed cost estimates for our clients, considering their needs and available district resources.

Explanation of how we are able to provide differentiated services to meet the individual needs of schools and districts.

Explain how you are able to differentiate services to meet the individual needs of schools and districts.

If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. is a newly formed company of working school professionals dedicated to assisting schools that want to improve through their own capacity to change and sustain change. The team of If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. can provide schools with an insightful analysis of their existing resources, engaging the school’s stakeholders in a process that will empower the staff to determine the best pathway for the school or district to improved student performance. The If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. company mission is to lead the school improvement movement away from adding new programs and additional staff positions as a school improvement process. We work with schools to ask hard questions about their data, their work processes, and their use of time, people and money. We design improvement plans from the answers to the hard questions. Our improvement plans are reasonable, doable, and sustainable. If not now! Why not?, L.L.C. has developed a team of professionals with unique qualifications, allowing us to customize the supports needed by the schools, and then provide the coaching they need to implement new processes for improved results.

How will we evaluate our services and support to schools and districts and its effectiveness in school/ district/ student achievement?

A service feedback survey will be sent to each contact within a district and/or school requesting specific ranking and rating of the service provided to them. Summaries of feedback survey results will be posted to our website for all parties to view.

Overall effectiveness of our services will be evaluated in each service type by linking the recommendation provided to the actual outcomes implemented by the district/school, the level of fidelity used by the district/school in the implementation cycle and the corresponding results achieved.

Sample of services offered for a school or district:

Under 500 Students:

RTI: How a Community School Responds
When Students Struggle
By Kayla Robinson, Principal
Marshall Elementary
RTI in a Community School: A Community Forum Presentation developed with a K-5 Elementary School Staff.

Opening: Description of Marshall Elementary’s development as a Community School, and the role that RTI plays in the school's efforts to improve the conditions for learning for “all” children.

Audience Participation Questions: Discuss with a neighbor.
How does your school support struggling students? Talk about the steps that take place in your school when a student is “behind.” What do you think schools do, or what have you heard about what schools do when students struggle?

Answer these questions:
What tools do you use to determine how students are doing?
Are supports for students immediate, efficient, and effective?
Are supports only available after students experience failure and then proceed through a long process that requires that students qualify?

Consider two scenarios. Think about which best describes your school, or what you have heard about school practices.

A: At the start of the school year, the teacher is concerned about a second student’s progress in reading. She contacts the child’s parents to discuss her concern. The teacher refers the student to the Child Study Team and several weeks later, the student’s lack of progress is discussed, and some interventions are recommended. The teacher tries to implement the interventions on her own, but doesn’t find extra time in the school day to provide extra instruction. The student is enrolled in after-school tutoring, but parents don’t want him stay because it’s almost dark when it’s time to walk home.

By January, the CST meets again and the student has fallen further behind. The interventions aren’t working. The team recommends a comprehensive evaluation. That takes place in February and by March the team determines that the student does not meet eligibility qualifications for special education. The teacher still tries to implement the recommended interventions, but doesn’t have support from other teachers, time, and additional tools for addressing this student’s reading difficulties. The teacher is using all the strategies recommended in the reading program, but doesn’t know where to find additional research-based practices that might help this student progress, and has no idea when she would do anything differently anyway. The student never fully benefits from learning in the classroom and falls even further behind.


B: At the start of the school year, the teacher is concerned about a second grade student’s progress in reading. She quickly administers a battery of screening tools that pinpoint some missing literacy skills, placing the student more than one year behind the reading. The teacher quickly collaborates with her team members and locates a teacher that has formed a flexible skill group that will be learning the same skills that this particular student lacks. She immediately arranges for the student to “walk to” an additional skill group in the other classroom. The teacher reduces the amount of time the student would otherwise practice already learned skills at stations or centers and adds more explicit instruction with a certified teacher (provided a double-dip).

The teacher contacts the parents and shares with them her findings, and explains how another teacher will be supporting this student with more instruction on the skills that are “missing.” She also shows the parents how to practice the skills at home through reading selected decodable books.

Simultaneously, the building Response to Intervention team is busy placing this student in an RTI Group for the schoolwide RTI period, 2:00-2:30 p.m. three days each week. (Tier II Interventions) The RTI group will provide another opportunity for the student to get focused, explicit, immediate instruction in the skills needed to decode and understand more complex texts. The student’s progress will be monitored by the RTI team, reported to the classroom teacher for comparison to classroom progress, and the student will be regrouped in both the classroom and RTI as quickly as possible based on their progress.

This student will master multiple literacy skills in a short period of time, and will be expected to move closer to grade level in a matter of months. The focus of the RTI team will be to support the classroom teacher’s work so that the student benefits fully from classroom instruction and reaches grade level as quickly as possible.

500-1000 Students:

A School Improvement Planning Process Developed for a K-5 Urban Elementary School: Capacity Determination Questions
Provide evidence that historical data has been used to develop school level interventions.
Identify specific dates it was used (meetings, agendas, etc.) How it was use, what grade level, what subjects. Classify specific site interventions and the dates they were implemented. This information must be site specific and detailed in nature.
The Marshall Elementary staff began the close analysis of historical achievement data in September, 2011, with two focused staff meetings on September 19 and 26, 2011. The analysis process has continued through the use of a comprehensive data spreadsheet maintained by each teacher, as well as site-specific data collection systems, My Data First and SRI. (The agendas of the two major meetings in September are attached.) Agenda items included the use of the SRI results, updating data notebooks for each teacher, aligning all data sources including OPI scores, Lexiles, and other formative assessments, and then on November 14, the addition of the development of intervention plans with short-term goals and specific action steps for three students in each classroom that present the greatest challenges.
Is there a plan for developing school-level interventions for the upcoming school year based on historical and current data?
What is the site plan - specificity, conclusions, consequences, WISE tool, plan improvement, department plan of improvement, professional development, etc.
Marshall Elementary has worked closely with the district elementary turnaround officer to develop an instructional focus statement and related instructional strategies to be implemented this year in addition to those currently in our WISE plan. Our focus statement, strategies, and related professional development menu are as follows:
2011-12 Instructional Focus Statement:
Marshall Elementary is committed to a schoolwide plan to ensure that all students show significant growth in their ability to read and comprehend various types of texts.
Reading prosody will improve as a result of building our shared knowledge of research-based literacy instructional practices, consistent monitoring of student progress, swift intervention when students are struggling, and consistent teacher collaboration.
Growth will be measured by SRI Lexile scores, P.A.S.T., Phonics Assessment, and the Fluency Assessment.
Instructional Strategies:
1. One-Hour Whole Group Literacy Lesson Daily

• Students will be actively engaged in the following Essential Components of Whole Group Instruction
a. Read aloud – think aloud
b. Vocabulary or word study
c. Oral Language
d. Fluency practice
e. Walls that Teach
• There must be a high level of Academic Learning Time during whole-group instruction
• Whole-group activities
a. Should focus on the practice of skills for which all students have developed relative mastery as a result of small-group instruction
b. Can be used to provide overview knowledge of a skill that will later be explicitly taught during small-group instruction
c.
2. Monitored Independent Reading Daily
• Effective implementation of MIRP will help the student build a vocabulary of approximately 3,000 words per year and increase fluency
• Teachers will:
o Guide student book selection (Lexile)
o Listen to students (at least 5 per day) read during MIRP
o Devote 20 minutes per day, five days per week to MIRP
o Ensure that students are reading at least 60% nonfiction titles
o Ensure that time is provided (2 minutes) following each MIRP for brief pair discussions.
o Implement a record keeping system to record progress for each child.
o Submit progress charts weekly to SDT.

3. READ 180/ System 44 Implementation
• Students that are reading below grade level in grades 5 and 6 will receive reading instruction through the READ 180/System 44 process.
• Students will participate in the narrow reading of texts that have overlapping topics and recurring vocabulary to increase reading prosody.
• Narrow reading on a recurrent, nonfiction topic ensures that students have multiple exposures to important academic words that appear across content areas.
• Narrow reading will:
o Develop background knowledge
o Provide multiple exposures to vocabulary
o Provide multiple usages of new words
o Provide access to high-utility academic words
o Provide more reading practice
o Develop conceptual and lexical tools for writing

4. CARE : Children Achieving Reading Excellence
• All students in one and two will participate in a whole group word study daily lesson with focused attention to words and word elements with the goal of helping them become better readers and writers.
• The Word Study lesson:
o Will be delivered daily from 2:00 – 2:45 p.m.
o Will include direct instruction, repeated practice, manipulation of words and spelling patterns, and dictation.
o Will follow a prescribed lesson format
 Visual review
 Decoding
 Auditory Practice
 Vowel discrimination
 Spelling/dictation

Professional Development: 2011-12
August/ September, 2011 PLC Dev/ Data Analysis – Sept 14, 26
October, 2011 Read 180/System 44
Use of Lexile Scores
November, 2011 Edusoft Tools – Nov. 21
Data Analysis – Nov. 14
December, 2011 CARE Phonics – Dec. 2
January, 2012 Whole Group Literacy
M.I.R.P.
Lesson Planning
February, 2012 Instructional Rounds – Feb. 8
Bloom’s Taxonomy and DOK – Feb. 17


Strategic, yet attainable, goals at the district and school level including goals for each subgroup
What are the goals for all subgroups, including Special Ed., ELL, ethnic, etc? Have these goals been presented to all stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents, community members , board members, alumni and local business communities, etc. Is there evidence, agendas, meetings, etc.?


Through a careful analysis of student achievement data, primarily 2011 OCCT results, but also including district benchmarks, on-site literacy and mathematics assessments, several areas of need have been identified:


MATHEMATICS
Third Grade - Overall, average third grade performance on the OCCT mathematics test fell 88 points from 2010 to 2011 (from 732/proficient to 644/limited knowledge), with 27% scoring proficient or better. Closer examination of sub-group performance across all standards and objectives revealed insignificant differences between regular education students, students with IEPs, and ELL students. Accordingly, all students' needs will be addressed in terms of increasing academic achievement in the domain of 3rd grade mathematics. Areas of greatest concern and needing the most improvement include the following:

2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s)

2.2 - Number Operations 40% All Students
4.0 - Measurement 33% All Students
5.0 - Data Analysis 43% All Students

The distribution of individual 3rd grade 2011 OCCT Math scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that of the 11 students scoring proficient, 45% (n=5) were in the top two quartiles of the proficient range. Likewise, of the 13 students scoring Limited Knowledge, 31% (n=4) were in the top quartile of that range, and of the 22 students scoring Unsatisfactory, 77% (n=17) scored in the two top quartiles of that range. Accordingly, these individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

Based upon these considerations, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for 3rd grade students are as follows:

M1 - The median percent correct for all 3rd grade students on the OCCT Number Operations test items will increase from 40% to 50% in 2012;
M2 - The median percent correct for all 3rd grade students on the OCCT Measurement test items will increase from 33% to 44% in 2012; and
M3 - The median percent correct for all 3rd grade students on the OCCT Data Analysis test items will increase from 43% to 57%.

Fourth Grade: The 4th grade performance on the 2011 OCCT reflected little change from the 2010 results, decreasing 7 percentage points to an aggregate OPI of 688 (unsatisfactory). Overall, 43% of the students scored proficient or better, compared to 49% the previous year. Subgroup performance reflected a notable difference in ELL student performance, in that ELL students outperformed non-ELL students (720/proficient versus 695/limited knowledge). In addition, regular education students maintained proficient performance (aggregate OPI of 702), while IEP students scored in the Limited Knowledge range (629 with accommodations/669 without accommodations).

Areas in greatest need of improvement include:

2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s)

1.0 – Algebraic Reasoning:
Patterns & Relationships 43% IEP
2.0 – Number Sense &Operations 61% All Students
2.1 – Number Sense 50% Regular Ed
38% IEP
2.2 – Number Operations 50% Regular Ed, ELL
65% IEP
3.0 – Geometry 56% Regular Ed
67% ELL
44% IEP
4.0 – Measurement 67% Regular Ed, ELL
44% IEP
5.0 – Data Analysis 57% Regular Ed
33% IEP

The distribution of individual 4th grade 2011 OCCT Math scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that of the 21 students scoring proficient, 29% (n=6) were in the top two quartiles of the proficient range. Likewise, of the 13 students scoring Limited Knowledge, 61% (n=8) were in the top two quartiles of that range, and of the 18 students scoring Unsatisfactory, 89% (n=16) scored in the two top quartiles of that range (72% (n=13) scored in the top quartile of the Unsatisfactory range). Accordingly, these individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

Accordingly, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for the 4th grade groups are as follows:

M4 - The median percent correct for 4th grade IEP students on the OCCT Algebraic Reasoning: Patterns & Relationships test items will increase from 43% to 57% in 2012;
M5 – The median percent correct for all 4th grade students on the OCCT Number Sense and Operations test items will increase from 61% to 67%;
M5a – The median percent correct on OCCT Number Sense test items will increase from 50% to 63% for 4th grade regular education students, and from 38% to 50% for 4th grade IEP students;
M5b – The median percent correct on OCCT Number Operations test items will increase from 50% to 60% for 4th grade regular education and ELL students, and from 65% to 75% for 4th grade IEP students;
M6 - The median percent correct on OCCT Geometry test items will increase from 56% to 67% for 4th grade regular education students, from 67% to 78% for 4th grade ELL students, and from 44% to 56% for 4th grade IEP students;
M7 - The median percent correct on OCCT Measurement test items will increase from 67% to 78% for all 4th grade Regular Education and ELL students, and from 44% to 56% for 4th grade IEP students; and
M8 - The median percent correct on OCCT Data Analysis test items will increase from 57% to 71% for all 4th grade Regular Education students, and from 38% to 50 for 4th grade IEP students in 2012.

Fifth Grade: The fifth grade groups again showed the highest overall performance of the three testing grades, (79% scored at or above proficiency on the OCCT, with similar performance across subgroups), and reflected a decrease of only 13 points on the aggregate OPI from 2010. Such performance notwithstanding, closer examination of overall and sub-group performance across all standards and objectives revealed the following areas in need of improvement:
2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s) 1.0 – Algebraic Reasoning:
Patterns & Relationships 62% ELL
43% IEP
2.1 – Number Sense 63% ELL
69% IEP
2.2 – Number Operations 63% Regular ed, IEP
57% ELL
3.0 – Geometry 57% ELL
54% IEP
4.0 – Measurement 64% IEP

The distribution of individual 4th grade 2011 OCCT Math scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that of the 12 5th grade students scoring below proficient, 2 were in the top sub-quartile of the Limited Knowledge performance quartile, and 4 were in the top quartile of the Unsatisfactory performance quartile. These six individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

All of the above taken into consideration, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for the 5th grade groups are as follows:

M9 - The median percent correct for 5th grade ELL and IEP students on the OCCT Algebraic Reasoning: Patterns and Relationships test items will increase from 62% to 69% (ELL) and from 43% to 54% (IEP)in 2012;
M10 – The median percent correct on the OCCT Number Sense test items will increase from 63% to 75% for 5th grade ELL students, and from 69% to 80% for 5th grade IEP students;

M11 – The median percent correct on the OCCT Number Operations test items will increase from 63% to 75% for 5th grade regular education students, from 57% to 71% for 5th grade ELL students, and from 63% to 75% for 5th grade IEP students;
M12 – The median percent correct on the OCCT Geometry test items will increase from 57% to 71% for 5th grade ELL students, and from 54% to 75% for 5th grade IEP students; and
M13 – The median percent correct on the OCCT Measurement test items will increase from 64% to 80% for 5th grade IEP students.

READING
Third Grade: – In sharp contrast to third grade students’ historical performance, only 25% of the 3rd grade students scored proficient on the 2011 OCCT Reading test. Overall aggregate OPI Reading scores fell 94 points from 724 in 2010 to 630 in 2011. There was little variation in performance across subgroups, although regular education and ELL students generally performed higher than IEP students.
A closer examination of sub-group performance across all standards and objectives revealed the following areas in need of improvement:

2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s)

1.0 – Vocabulary 50% Regular ed
42% ELL
40% IEP
4.0 – Comprehension/Critical Literacy 56% Regular ed, ELL
33% IEP
5.0 – Literature 63% Regular ed
50% ELL
36% IEP
6.0 – Research and Information 33% Regular ed, IEP
25% ELL

The distribution of individual 3rd grade 2011 OCCT Reading scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that of the 12 students scoring proficient, 8% (n=1) were in the top two quartiles of the proficient range. Likewise, of the 10 students scoring Limited Knowledge, 50% (n=5) were in the top two quartiles of that range, and of the 26 students scoring Unsatisfactory, 21% (n=21) scored in the two top quartiles of that range. Accordingly, these individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

Baseline scores on the Scholastic Reading Inventory show 10% of the 3rd grade students scoring at or above grade level. Accordingly, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for 3rd grade groups are as follows:

R1 - The median percent correct for 3rd grade ELL students on the 2012 OCCT Vocabulary test items will increase from 50% to 75% for regular education students, from 42% to 50% for ELL students, and from 40% to 50% for IEP students;
R2 - The median percent correct for 3rd grade IEP students on the 2012 OCCT Comprehension/Critical Literacy test items will increase from 56% to 65% for regular education and ELL students, and from 33% to 38% for IEP students;
R3 - The median percent correct for 3rd grade ELL students on the 2012 OCCT Literature test items will increase from 63% to 75% for regular education students, from 50% to 63% for ELL students, and from 36% to 50% for IEP students;
R4 - The median percent correct for 3rd grade IEP students on the 2012 OCCT Research and Information test items will increase from 33% to 50% for regular education and IEP students, and from 25% to 45% for ELL students; and
R5 – All 3rd grade students will raise their Lexile scores at least 100 points by the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. Students with the lowest Lexile scores will be afforded READ 180 to increase their chances for growth in excess of the minimum 100 Lexile points.


Fourth Grade: At this level, only 43% of the 4thgrade students scored at or above proficiency on the 2011 OCCT Reading test, compared with 55% on the 2010 OCCT, and the overall aggregate OPI score fell from 681 (2010) to 635 (2011). There was little performance variation across subgroups (regular education, ELL, and IEP). A closer examination of sub-group performances across all standards and objectives revealed all main subgroups (Regular Education, IEP, and ELL) in need of improvement in the following areas:

2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s)


1.0 – Vocabulary 58% Regular Ed
50% IEP
42% ELL
3.0 – Comprehension/Critical Literacy 57% Regular Ed
52% ELL
35% IEP
4.0 – Literature 44% Regular Ed
33% ELL, IEP
5.0 – Research and Information 50% ELL
33% Regular Ed
29% IEP

The distribution of individual 4th grade 2011 OCCT Reading scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that the 10 students scoring proficient were in the bottom two quartiles of the proficient range. On the other hand, of the 9 students scoring Limited Knowledge, 55% (n=5) were in the top two quartiles of that range, and of the 36 students scoring Unsatisfactory, 94% (n=34) scored in the two top quartiles of that range. Accordingly, these individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

Baseline scores on the Scholastic Reading Inventory show 13% of the 4th grade students scoring at or above grade level. Accordingly, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for 4thgrade groups are as follows:

R6 - The median percent correct for all 4th grade students on the OCCT Vocabulary test items will increase from 58% to 67% for the regular ed students, from 50% to 58% for the IEP students, and from 42% to 50% for the ELL students;
R7 - The median percent correct for all 4th grade students on the OCCT Comprehension/Critical Literacy test items will increase from 57% to 61% for the regular ed students, from 52% to 57% for the ELL students, and from 35% to 39% for the IEP students;
R8 - The median percent correct for all 4th grade students on the OCCT Literature test items will increase from 44% to 56 for the regular ed students, and from 33% to 44% for the ELL and IEP students;
R9 - The median percent correct for all 4th grade students on the OCCT Research and Information test items will increase from 50% to 67% for the ELL students, from 33% to 50% for the regular education students, and from 29% to 43% for the IEP students; and
R10 - All 4th grade students will raise their Lexile scores at least 100 points by the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. Students with the lowest Lexile scores will be afforded READ 180 to increase their chances for growth in excess of the minimum 100 Lexile points.

Fifth Grade: The fifth grade’s overall performance on the 2011 OCCT Reading test showed a dramatic drop in performance, with only 16% scoring at or above proficiency, compared with 54% in 2010. Aggregate OPI scores dropped 50 points from 693 (2010) to 643(2011). There was little performance variation across subgroups (regular education, ELL, and IEP). A closer examination of sub-group performances across all standards and objectives revealed all main subgroups (Regular Education, IEP, and ELL) in need of improvement in the following areas:

2011
Median %
PASS Standard/Objective Correct Subgroup(s)

1.0 – Vocabulary 67% Regular Education
46% ELL
38% IEP
1.1 – Words in Context 50% ELL
1.2 – Affixes, Roots, & Stems 38% ELL
1.3 – Synonyms, Antonyms,
and Homonyms 50% All students
3.0 – Comprehension/Critical Literacy 55% ELL, IEP
3.1 – Literal Understanding 50% Regular Ed, ELL
25% IEP
4.0 Literature 58% Regular Education
33% ELL
25% IEP
4.2 – Literary Elements 50% Regular Education
25% ELL, IEP
4.3 – Figurative Language/
Sound Device 50% Regular Education
25% IEP
5.0 – Research and Information 67% Regular Education
33% ELL, IEP

The distribution of individual 5th grade 2011 OCCT Reading scores within the sub-quartile of each of the four performance quartiles reveals that the 7 students scoring proficient were in the bottom two quartiles of the proficient range. However, of the 18 students scoring Limited Knowledge, 39% (n=7) were in the top two quartiles of that range, and of the 19 students scoring Unsatisfactory, 95% (n=18) scored in the two top quartiles of that range. Accordingly, these individual students can be identified and given specific academic support, instruction, and intervention with the likely result of moving the students’ 2012 scores up into the next higher performance quartile.

Baseline scores on the Scholastic Reading Inventory show 25% of the 5th grade students scoring at or above grade level. Accordingly, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for 5thgrade groups are as follows:

Accordingly, Marshall's goals within the context of this plan for the 5th grade are as follows:

R11 - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Vocabulary test items will increase from 67% to 75% for regular education students, from 46% to 55% for ELL students, and from 38% to 47 % for IEP students;
R11a - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Words in Context test items will increase from 50% to 75% for ELL students;
R11b - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Affixes, Roots, and Stems test items will increase from 38% to 50% % for ELL students;
R11c - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Synonyms, Antonyms, and Homonyms test items will increase from 50% to 75% % for all students (regular ed, ELL, and IEP);
R12 - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Comprehension/Critical Literacy test items will increase from 55% to 60% for ELL and IEP students;
R12a - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Literal Understanding test items will increase from 50% to 75% for regular education and ELL students, and from 25% to 50% for IEP students;
R13 - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Literature test items will increase from 58% to 75% for regular education students, from 33% to 60% for ELL students, and from 25% to 50% for IEP students;
R13a - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Literary Elements test items will increase from 50% to 75% for regular education students, and from 25% to 50% for ELL and IEP students;
R 13b - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Figurative Language/Sound Devices test items will increase from 50% to 75% for regular education students, and from 25% to 50% for IEP students;

R14 - The median percent correct for 5th grade students on the 2012 OCCT Research and Information test items will increase from 67% to 83% for regular education students, and from 33% to 50% for ELL and IEP students; and
R15 - All 5th grade students will raise their Lexile scores at least 100 points by the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. Students with the lowest Lexile scores will be afforded READ 180 to increase their chances for growth in excess of the minimum 100 Lexile points.


Is there a communication plan for involvement of all stakeholders in meeting annual goals?
Who was involved in development of the plan, how was it developed, when was it developed where and when and to whom was it communicated. What were the results?
Marshall has created a Site Improvement Plan Monitoring Committee which consists of the Principal, the Process Manager, the Staff Development Teacher, the Social Services Coordinator, one primary PLC Leader, one intermediate PLC Leader, one Special Education teacher, and one parent from each grade level. This Committee will meet semiannually, once in December, and again in June, to monitor plan progress. The primary purpose of the June meeting will be to determine whether the plan has been implemented as written and whether the SMART goals were met. If necessary, the Committee will revise the schoolwide plan as appropriate, which may include setting new SMART goals, revising action steps to achieve goals not met, or revising information related to any of the required components. A written report of the June meeting findings and actions will be provided to all staff and parents at the beginning of the next school year (early August).
The committee met in December and reviewed the BRIDGES plan, and how the new action steps were included in the WISE Plan. The committee approved the instructional focus statement, and discussed how each of the additional strategies were selected to strengthen our action steps. The professional development plan were reviewed, and Instructional Rounds training was added, to begin in February, 2012.

District curriculum aligned to state standards
Is curriculum aligned to PASS and Common Core – if not, is there progress being made on alignment. Who is responsible for alignment – meetings, agendas, evidence? Who is responsible for alignment- who is involved,
District level Academic Coaches are working on the alignment of the district curriculum to Common Core. The current curriculum is aligned to PASS, and district pacing calendars are used at each grade level to guide our building implementation of the standards.



School and classroom alignment to district curriculum expectations
Who in the school and/or classroom makes decisions on alignment of the district curriculum expectations? What is being done to ensure the teaching the aligned curriculum is being accomplished.
It is the primary role of the building Staff Development Teacher to meet with the grade level teams weekly to identify the essential skills/standards that are being taught, which students are able to demonstrate mastery, and which students are struggling. Lesson plans are posted weekly on a building WIKI, and reviewed by the principal, SDT, and grade level PLCs. These plans are not only aligned to the district curriculum, but reflect the results of grade level formative assessments.
Is there a plan for periodic progress monitoring in reading/ language arts and English?
Who is responsible for implementing periodic progress monitoring and who is responsible for evaluating the progress?
Marshall Elementary’s plan for periodic progress monitoring in reading/language arts consists of multiple processes, each serving a different purpose but all designed to ensure that students reach grade level proficiency in reading.
First, each student is monitored through the use of formative assessments in Phonological Awareness and Phonics, updated on an on-going basis, starting in Kindergarten. When PLC teams meet, they identify students that are not currently at grade level, and set timelines for specific skill instruction for those students, as well as the inclusion of interventions and/or RTI. Students that have mastered all the PA and Phonics skills, are monitored with weekly Monitored Independent Reading Practice logs that include a multidimensional fluency scale rubric. Each student’s MDFS rating is compared to their Lexile score, and then goals for explicit instruction in reading fluency are set for flexible skill groups.
Students are also progress monitored through quarterly benchmark assessments. Following each assessment, teachers use Edusoft tools to design additional practice items to address areas of low performance.
Is there a plan for periodic progress monitoring in mathematics?
Who is responsible for implementing periodic progress monitoring and who is responsible for evaluating the progress?
Marshall Elementary currently uses the Saxon mathematics methodology. This instructional model includes weekly assessments that are monitored by the Staff Development Teacher, reviewed in weekly PLC meetings. The Saxon methodology provides instruction in mathematics through a spiraled approach, so students are regularly assessed on all the standards, allowing teachers to plan for maintenance and application of skills.
These assessments are compared to quarterly benchmark assessments in mathematics, and weak areas are included in a variety of intervention processes described in the building RTI plan. A variety of resources can be included in the lesson progression when assessment data indicates that additional practice, or different strategies are needed to assist students with skill mastery.
Is your district and site using periodic benchmark assessments aligned to state standards?
Provide evidence, timelines, Vendors, or district developed benchmark systems, who is responsible implementation and monitoring progress?
Marshall Elementary uses the district Edusoft benchmark assessments, which are aligned to state and district standards. In addition to these benchmarks, Marshall also utilizes the Scholastic Reading Inventory three times yearly to assess our students’ Lexile growth. At the building level, the staff development teacher and site intervention team are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of progress, as well as the building principal.
Is every teacher in your school using benchmark assessments to inform and adjust instruction?
Are benchmarks supported in all classes – not just math and language arts.
Who monitors informed and adjustment of instruction?
Currently, benchmarks assessments (district benchmarks and SRI) are used only in reading/language arts and mathematics. Every teacher in the school is using benchmark assessments at grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Teachers in grades PK, K and 1 are using other formative assessments in reading and math to assess and monitor progress.
Instruction is monitored by the grade level PLC process with the involvement of the building Staff Development Teacher, the site intervention team, and the building principal. Grade level teams (PLCs) meet weekly, and the site intervention team meets weekly to plan for RTI.
Are timely and effective student interventions being implemented in the classroom?
Who decides the level of intervention and what types of interventions are in place based on student need? What is the turnaround for student interventions based on evaluations or recommendations?
WISE EEIA 1.07: Over the past decade, Marshall Elementary leadership conducted extensive research to find and implement research-based programs designed to insure all students received appropriate instruction to support them in succeeding academically. As a result of that work, and in order to address the two primary areas of the academic core curriculum, reading and mathematics, Marshall Elementary utilizes two very specific, research-based programs/processes: The Literacy First Process for reading and language arts, and Saxon Math for mathematics. Both programs are in place and in use across all grades - PK through 5th, and all students, regular, ELL, special education, etc., are included and actively involved in both processes within the regular education classroom, with very few exceptions.

Both Saxon Math and Literacy First utilize intensive use of assessment to drive instruction, and continuous assessments are also utilized to monitor students’ needs for interventions. Likewise, both programs are aligned to the Response To Intervention protocol’s three tiers of instruction that allow instructional staff to meet the needs of those students whose needs are not addressed by the core curriculum without needlessly isolating or separating them from the general environment.

The Response to Intervention Protocol:
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered approach to providing services and interventions to Marshall Elementary students at increasing levels of intensity based on progress monitoring and data analysis. Rate of progress over time is used to make important educational decisions, including possible determination for exceptional education services. The data used at Marshall for RTI decisions are derived from assessments that measure student achievement within the context of the classroom curriculum. In addition, English Language Learner (ELL) students’ results on the WIDA and ACCESS tests are analyzed to determine what, if any, additional services will support their success in the regular classroom.

Literacy First and the RTI Protocol:
Literacy First is a comprehensive reading reform process which addresses the goal of closing the reading achievement gap and ensuring that all students become fluent readers who comprehend grade level texts. Literacy First focuses on the five essential components for reading instruction:
1-Phonological Awareness
2-Phonics/Word Study
3-Vocabulary Development
4-Fluency
5-Comprehension Skills and Strategic Reading Tools.
Phonological Awareness, Phonics, and Comprehension resources provide materials needed for systematic, explicit instruction.

Tier One (Students at risk of academic failure):
• Whole group core instruction is differentiated to meet the needs of all students. Individual students are assessed using the Phonological Awareness Skills Test (PAST), Literacy First Phonics Assessment, Oral Reading Fluency Assessment, the Multidimensional Fluency Scale and Comprehension Assessment.
• Assessment results determine student participation in specified, small/flexible group instruction in phonological awareness, phonics/word study, fluency, comprehension skills and strategies.
• Student data is entered and student progress is monitored using the computer program “My Data First”.

Tier Two (Students who require additional academic supports, i.e., instructional time and focus):
• Students who have received core instruction and small group instruction yet still have skill deficits are candidates for the RTI process. They will receive immediate, intensive intervention from classroom teachers in small groups and individually.
• When the teacher determines the student has mastered the skill, instruction stops. After two weeks, progress monitoring assessments are given. If the student is still not successful, additional interventions may be initiated. Careful study of barriers and instructional techniques will take place to ensure students receive instruction commensurate with their specific needs.

Tier Three (Students who require small group, or individual intervention of longer duration to increase rate of progress):
• Academic Review Committees (Child Study Team) will meet to thoroughly analyze the performance of students who continue to show evidence of deficits. Personnel on these committees will be the principal, teacher, school psychologist, curriculum resource teacher and guidance counselor. Each member of the committee will share perceptions and give input based on his or her area of expertise. Information derived from Literacy First Assessments will be used to support educational decisions.

• Depending on the committee’s decision, students may receive more intensive assessment which could be administered by the school psychologist.
• If students do not qualify for ESE services, more intensive interventions are continued. It is possible that an alternative intervention that is different than those previously used could be selected.

Saxon Math and the RTI Protocol:
Tier 1 – Primary Prevention: Students in this level receive quick-paced instruction with a variety of activities and high levels of engagement. The lessons incorporate challenging standards of achievement and implement verbal communication between the teacher ad students. Additionally, physical and visual representations of number concepts and problem solving situations are utilized.

• Incremental lessons and time gained by the distributive approach with repeated practice and frequent, cumulative assessment. Cumulative assessments begin after lesson 10, initially covering lessons 1-5, and then continue after every 5th lesson, covering the material presented up to 5 lessons immediately preceding the assessment (to afford students adequate “practice time” with the concepts). Every 4th assessment is replaced with a Benchmark Test. All intermediate (3rd-5th grade) assessments are scored by the Math Specialist, and maintained in a database that is centrally accessible to all concerned staff.
• Assessment data directs decisions as to what additional interventions individual students may require, including Reteaching of, or even Expansion on, critical skills.
• Primary students are also assessed after every 5 lessons, with oral assessments of critical skills assessed after every 20 lessons. Math “facts”, practiced daily, are assessed alongside the routine written assessments. This data is kept and maintained by the individual teacher, and governs decisions as to what additional interventions, or challenges, need to be offered to individual students.
• At primary levels, The Meeting and hands-on lessons offer quick-paced instruction with varied activities and high levels of engagement.
• The Meeting, New Concepts and the Guided Class Practice in the primary program incorporate challenging standards for higher achievement with open-ended questions and higher order thinking skill opportunities.
• Because students are engaged in the lessons, they have daily opportunities to see, hear, say and think about math with self-created and teacher-created visual models to demonstrate and represent number concepts and problem-solving situations.

• Opportunities for differentiated instruction are embedded within the lesson to ensure seamless instruction and modifications for Tier 1 students.
• At the intermediate level (3rd – 5th grades) “Power Up” and the “New Concept” portions of the daily lessons offer quick-paced instructional activities to keep students engaged and motivated.
• The “Manipulatives in Motion” CD, used in conjunction with the Smartboard technology in every classroom, brings abstract math concepts to life by engaging students in highly interactive exercises that are both meaningful and illustrative.
• Mental Math and Problem Solving offer daily opportunities to build confidence and challenge students so that they experience daily doses of success and are prepared for “what’s next”.
• The Math Problem Solving Strategies and Graphic Organizers at all grade levels support the concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) modeling, which aids in retention and conceptual understanding.
• Power Up, New Concept, and Written Practice allow students the opportunity to see, hear and speak about math. Students are able to build mental pictures that relate to number and problem solving and develop a deeper understanding from one concept to the next.


Tier Two – Secondary Prevention:

The goal of secondary prevention is to better student progress with minimal invasiveness to target children. Students in the Tier 2 category remain in the regular classroom but instruction is adapted, often using small groups, to allow students to work the lessons, practice and assessments with ease.
As with Tier 1, the primary and intermediate Saxon Math program provides the modifications and activities to meet the needs of students in Tier 2.
• The Meeting, Power Up and Guided Class Practice in the primary levels and Lesson Practice and Written Practice in the intermediate level offer open-ended opportunities so that students participate at their own level. Teachers can then adjust their instruction based on student responses.
• Alternative instruction suggestions to meet the needs of all learners is provided in the program, for example, the Guide to Differentiated Instruction, Math Center Activities, reassessment questions, Reteaching Activities, Learning Stations, Test and Practice Generator, Benchmark Assessment Generator, and online activities allow the teacher to augment instruction as necessary without interrupting the rest of the class.
• The incremental approach, intrinsic to Saxon Math, allows time and practice for all students to master content at their own pace and ability level.
• Adaptations for Saxon Math in the intermediate courses is designed to be used in the regular classroom alongside the teacher’s “regular” instruction, yet adapts content to support individual pacing and scaffolds modifications without disrupting the core curriculum or students at other levels.

Tier Three – Tertiary Prevention:

Students at the Tier 3 level require intensive, individualized instruction with specialized resources that address specific learning difficulties. Determining the proper placement and instruction for a student is crucial. Saxon Math provides placement tests for each level with careful consideration given to the texts and administration of these tests. In addition, the incremental lessons and cumulative assessment process aid in administering Tier 3 interventions. Again, as with Literacy First Tier 3 situations, the Academic Review Committee will meet to thoroughly analyze the performance of students who continue to show evidence of deficits. Interventions available at this level include:
• Students at the Tier 3 level benefit from the modifications in the Adaptations parallel support program that adapts every lesson and problem so students of varying abilities can work the same problems alongside the regular education students.
• The Adaptations portion of the Saxon program contains additional intensive, supplemental and hands-on strategies and hints, as well as sequence charts and short-term instructional objectives used for self-paced and highly individualized instruction.
• Reference and resource tools such as Math Folders, Math Offices, Concept Posters, Manipulatives, Manipulatives in Motion CD, and Student Reference Guides can all be used for individualized instruction supporting Tier 3 students.
• Saxon Math is utilized in many special education and resource classrooms across the nation for the incremental instruction that distributes content throughout the year and allows students the time to internalize, practice, learn and master math.
• The result is success for special education students and others who are able to learn math at their own pace while maintaining consistent academic achievement.



In addition to the RTI model, ELL interventions are implemented. Students are “pulled” from the regular classroom in small groups for 30 minutes to work intensively on critical skills. This “pull out” time is kept at a minimum, and provides optimum support for ELL students within the regular classroom the remainder of the time. As a result of this approach in the 2009-2010 school year, 18 ELL students (approximately 12-15%) were moved to “monitoring” status based upon their 2010 ACCESS test data.

In addition to all of the above described, Marshall also employs an academic tutor, who provides 240 hours of instruction to students that read on or above grade level in second or third grade. These are students that do not qualify for a Reading Sufficiency Act plan of intervention. Instruction is in non-fiction writing. The tutor teaches the process to identified students using texts that are at their identified Lexile range and “stretch” range. This tutoring program frees the classroom teacher to provide additional direct instruction to small flexible skill groups in literacy during the literacy block. The additional instructional piece for on or above grade level students is designed specifically for students that are not in need of skills practice at centers during the literacy block. Their literacy instruction period is shortened from 120 minutes to 90 minutes with the inclusion of a thirty minute period for non-fiction writing. This is an acceleration tutorial.

Lastly, Intersession classes are an integral part of the overall continuous learning calendar philosophy and program at Marshall Elementary. Intersession provides students an additional opportunity for instruction beyond the required number of instructional hours, and Title I funds are utilized to stipend teachers that provide this program. To meet the needs of our specific school population, intersession classes are designed to provide enhanced opportunities to increase the acquisition of language skills, including reading, writing, speaking and listening. Students are grouped according to their instructional needs, and the learning environment is designed around real-life "being there" experiences to accelerate the use of language. Some intersession classes focus on the practice of test-taking skills, as well as writing. Each intersession is staffed by 6-8 classroom teachers, with a total enrollment in grades K-6 of approximately 150 students two times each school year.
(RTI Graphic overview is attached.)


Does you district or site have a data collections system that stores, and disseminates timely school and student level academic data?
Provide evidence, system name, process, how complex is the system and who accesses the system; provide examples of information accessed by site.
In addition to district benchmark data collection through EduSoft, and the storage of OCCT test data on our district Dashboard, Marshall Elementary utilized three additional data collection, storage, and analysis systems.
My Data First is a web-based data collection system used at Marshall to collect, store and analyze all reading formative assessment data. My Data First is purchased from Catapult Learning, renewal each year for a per student fee. The specific instruments used are the P.A.S.T., Phonics Assessment, Fluency Assessment, BEAR Spelling Inventory, and Comprehension Assessment. Marshall has historical reading assessment data in My Data First beginning in 2002-03. Teachers enter individual student data on an on-going basis, with quarterly updates for all students. My Data First provides summary reports that indicate percentage of students that meet grade level criteria at three benchmarking points during the school year. Data can be analyzed by teacher, grade, and school, and accessed by all teachers, specialists, and principal, as well as identified district administrators. (Sample summary reports are attached.)
Comprehend Pro is also a web-based data collection system used at Marshall to collect and store OCCT data, and now WIDA data. Comprehend Pro is a product purchased from the Aurora Learning Communities Association, Fairview, Oklahoma, renewed each year for a per test score fee. Marshall has five years of historical data in this system. Comprehend Pro allows teachers to view individual student historical data, class, and grade level data. Teachers can sort student data into new class configurations each year to monitor student progress and plan for needed interventions. Data trends can be identified through a variety of data filters; NFAY, FAY, ELL, Special Education, test year, gender, subject, etc. Data can be accessed by all teachers, specialists, and the principal, as well as identified district administrators. ( Data analysis forms are attached, as well as sample data charts.)
The SRI, Scholastic Reading Inventory, is administered at Marshall, three times per year, and that data is stored in a data base that is accessed by teachers and staff, but monitored at the district level as well by the office of program management. Site licenses for this inventory are owned by Tulsa Public Schools and moved from school site to site as needed for test administration. This data is used districtwide to measure reading comprehension progress for all students, but at Marshall, is used as well to monitor the progress of students that are currently in a READ 180 reading class, and those that will be joining a System 44 Class in the near future. An optional mid-year SRI inventory was recently administered at Marshall.





Special education resources aligned with the needs of the students
Provide evidence that Special Ed resources are serving those student’s needs – identify programs that are designed to accelerate the learning of this subgroup of students.
Special Education teachers at Marshall are trained in the Literacy First Reading Process methodology, just as regular education teachers are trained. The methodology is used with all students at Marshall, but is specialized for students with an IEP in this way. Special education students receive instruction in specific reading skills in small flexible skill groups with their regular education teacher, and then receive a second flexible skill group with their special education resource teacher, utilizing additional manipulatives, sorts, decodable texts, and other reading tools. They receive this additional explicit instruction on the skills that are within each student’s zone of proximal development, and as identified in the IEP.
Marshall Elementary also provides a READ 180 class to fifth and sixth grade students with IEPs that are reading below grade level, but have mastered all basic decoding skills. We are currently preparing for the addition of a System 44 class for fourth grade students that are reading below grade level and struggling with decoding skills, including students with an IEP. All Literacy First formative reading assessment data is used to identify the specific skills that IEP students must master, and are used to closely monitor their progress.
English Language Learner resources aligned with needs of the students
Identify programs that are designed specifically increasing success for this subgroup of students and provide evidence funding steams.
Marshall Elementary has two ELL resource teachers funded through Title III funds to provide direct instruction in the areas of reading, writing, listening and speaking for ELL students. Students are “pulled” from the regular classroom for thirty minutes of direct instruction targeted to their areas of deficiency as determined by WIDA data. This “pull” out time is scheduled outside of the regular classroom literacy block to ensure that students are receiving instruction in a flexible skill group in their regular classroom, with the added support of the language classes each week. Title III funds are used to purchase materials that support the development of all areas; reading, writing, listening, and speaking for ELLs.
There is much emphasis on the development of shared language in the regular classroom as well as with the ELL resource teachers. Teachers are well-trained in the development of whole group instruction that includes much student partnering, “turn and tell”, overview oral language comprehension skills, and fluency practice.
Title III funds have also provided SIOP training for resource teachers and regular classroom teachers to ensure that teachers have the skills needed to build background knowledge, develop vocabulary, and make content comprehensible for ELLs at Marshall Elementary

1000+ Students:

See responses above. A sample comprehensive gap analysis is available upon request. Please use contact section on website.

<< Return to Provider List