University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

(USC Thesis Other)

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT: CLOSING THE HISPANIC
ENGLISH LEARNERS ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN A HIGH PERFORMING
DISTRICT

by

Alberto Alvarez

_________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Alberto Alvarez
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation, and the work that went into it, are dedicated to my beloved
wife, Marisol, my son, Josshua, and my precious princesses: Krystal, Alexandra,
and Veronica. To my beloved mother, Maximina, who brought me to this land of
opportunities to become “un hombre de bién”. You see mamá, I made good on my
promise. I hope I made you proud. To my brothers Antonio and Isidro, who are
celebrating with me from heaven, to Ramiro and my sisters, Rita, Ana Maria, and
Maria Griselda, thanks for understanding and being patient with me. My natural
family has been so supportive throughout this journey. Thank you all from the
bottom of my heart.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my Trojan Family: the USC faculty,
especially Dr. Robert S. Rueda, Dr. David Marsh, and Dr. Michael Escalante. Thank
you all for your wisdom, guidance, and patience. Special thanks to Dr. Rey Baca,
USC faculty for believing in me. To my cohort colleagues; God bless each and
every one of you. It is truly an honor to have worked alongside some of the most
loving, dedicated, and passionate professionals I have ever met.
Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to all EL students who continuously
struggle in our classrooms. I hope that this dissertation gives you a ‘voice’ and that
you can be heard through this work.
Fight On!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank my family, friends, colleagues,
classmates, and professors for pushing, supporting, guiding, and believing in, me.
Learning is a life-long, rewarding process. Learning promotes and brings about
constant change; change can be difficult and challenging, yet rewarding. ALL who
have been around me throughout this process will surely notice the changes in me.
Each and every one of you have inspired, driven, and motivated me to complete this
process.
I would like to acknowledge my Trojan Family for all the support and
guidance that you all gave me. My hope is that someday I can pay it forward.
Fight On!
No matter what….!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ...ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….. ...iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………...v
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………... ...vi
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………… ...1
Chapter Two: Chapter Two: Part A: Literature Review……………………. ...15
Chapter Two: Part B: Methodology…………………………. ...31
Chapter Two: Part C: Common Findings……………………....50
Chapter Three: Chapter Three: Part A: Literature Review: A Focus………......66
on Solutions
Chapter Three: Part B: Proposed Solutions Summary……... ...91
Glossary…………………………………………………………………………...100
References……………………………………………………………………… ...117
Appendices
Appendix A: Work Done in Rowland USD Outlined by Semester...…...128
Appendix B: District Assistance Project: Scanning Interview………. ...129
Appendix C: One Month Interview…………………………………... ...131
Appendix D: Round 2 Interview Questions…………………………... ...132
Appendix E: Triangulation…………………………………………… ...133
Appendix F: Executive Summary: Examining the Effectiveness……. ...134
of Reform Implementation through Gap Analysis:
Hispanic EL Academic Achievement Gap
Appendix G: Proposed Solution Powerpoint Presentation…………… ...155
Appendix H: Hispanic English Language Learner Table…………….. ...173
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Language Skills Measured at Kindergarten and Grade Five…………. ...4
in California and the U.S., by Language Characteristics
Table 2. Achievement of English only Students and English Learners………... ...5
California Standards Test, English Language Arts Battery
2003-2009
Table 3. Work Done in Rowland USD Outlined by Semester………………......45
vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this inquiry project was to identify root causes for the
persistent Hispanic English Learner (EL) achievement gap in Rowland Unified
School District (RUSD). A consultative model approach was utilized during the
inquiry in attempts to help RUSD. Using a gap analysis model, the inquiry team
looked at knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors to uncover causes that
manifest in student underperformance. This qualitative inquiry focused on
elementary and middle grades. The objective was to find research based practices to
maximize RUSD’s resources and efforts in supplementing practical strategies to
enhance RUSD’s work in closing its Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Despite its commitment to academic excellence, district wide literacy
implementation of the Ball Foundation’s vision, and EL reform initiatives, RUSD
found that their ELs’ academic needs were not being met. Through reflective
practice and reform initiatives, RUSD addressed these needs by adopting district
wide reform targeting all students, but specifically ELs. Although commitment was
evident top down throughout RUSD, fidelity and consistency issues in
implementation at the school level surfaced. These implementation gaps may be the
result from RUSD’s commitment to a philosophy of decentralized district practice.
Staffs at various levels demonstrated impassioned commitment to their
students’ progress. However, a significant number of staffs demonstrated limited
knowledge, motivation, and organizational awareness. This limitation may be
impacting staffs’ ability to collaborate and operate at optimal levels. This absence of
vii
implementation fidelity reflected itself in awareness, affecting classroom instruction
and expectations. Recommendations were made to the district based on current
theory and research, about possible steps to take that might serve to close the gaps.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Currently, there seems to be a growing and expanding crisis in American
education. There are significant achievement gaps among different groups of
students that are systemic, (Garcia, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Reeves, 2009; CDE, 2010;
Horwitz, et al., 2007). The effects of such inequities present far reaching challenges
into the core of American society. Some indicators which shed light on the scope of
this growing problem include: student performance markers like the federal Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) as is currently measured by the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001, and the California student outcome measurement marker
commonly referred to as the Academic Performance Index (API), high school
graduation rates, passage rates of the state’s California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), and college going rates.
The Term Hispanic
The term Hispanic is commonly found and used in research. Research uses
the term interchangeably to make reference to similar ethnic and cultural subgroups,
such as Latinos, and English Language Learners (ELs). The term Hispanic was first
adopted by the United States government in the early 1970s, during the
administration of Richard Nixon, and has since been used in local and federal
employment, mass media, academia, and business market research. It has been used
in the U.S. Census since 1980. Hispanic defines a region of origin, not a person’s
race. It’s a term referring to a person of Latin American descent living in the United
2
States. Historically, areas conquered by the Spaniards were considered part of a
region originally called Hispania. Modern countries which can trace their history to
Spain are now considered to be Hispanic, and include Mexico, Central America, and
most of South America where Spanish is the primary language. The only exception
to this Hispanic designation is Brazil, which was settled by Portugal, not Spain. Any
citizen of those countries originally colonized by Spain can be considered Hispanic.
People from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and other areas south of the
American border would all be considered Hispanic. Often the term "Hispanic" is
used synonymously with the word "Latino", and frequently with "Latin" as well.
Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are not completely
synonymous. For purposes of uniformity and consistency throughout the project, it
was decided to use the term Hispanic EL throughout to make reference to students
who are not yet proficient in English.
EdSource (2007), and Olsen (2010), concur that currently, American schools
struggle with a persistent and disturbing trend. Hispanic English Learners (ELs)
consistently, and in an increasing fashion, perform at levels below those of white and
of other minority EL students. The National Center for Education Statistics, (NCES)
cites that in 1990, “32 million people over the age of five in the United States spoke
a language other than English in their home,” (p. 1). This comprises roughly 14
percent of the total U. S. population. By the year 2000, that number climbed to 18
percent of the total population in the nation, (NCES, 2004). Such growth trends
increased EL student enrollment from 5 to 7 percent. Although the growth patterns
3
were unevenly spread across the country, the concentration of EL growth centered
around the Western U.S. region, “in the West, 37 percent of public schools reported
ELL populations under 1 percent and 19 percent reported ELL populations of at least
25 percent,” (NCES, 2004, p, 1). This fact is significant because, ELL
concentrations (are) most prevalent in the West, (p. 1) especially in California.
California currently houses one of the largest concentrations of ELs in the nation,
(CDE, 2010). This EL concentration trend resulted in increasing concerns regarding
its impact on public education. These resulting concerns seem to fall around the
state’s apparent growing inability to mandate, support, allocate, and deliver and
implement effective policies to address the existing pressing educational issues
associated with ELs. Those concerns primarily circumvent around academic and
educational equity.
In California, the state’s Department of Education, (CDE) studied the average
performance of language minority elementary students at the national and state
levels, (CDE, 2010). Mirroring the national trends, state trends also emerge as data
analyses reveal that the achievement gap between kindergarten Spanish speaking
ELs and native English speakers’ levels closed nationally, but widened in California
during the 1998-1999 school year, (CDE, 2010). Table 1. illustrates the basic
findings of CDE’s (2010) research. Nationally, Hispanic ELs progress at a slower
rate than other students, (Horwits, et al., 2010). In California, the problem is
increasingly concerning because research results, as shown in Table 1, that Hispanic
ELs regress in language skills attainment in grades Kindergarten through 5. In
4
addition, Horwitz, et al., (2010) found that, “in a given year, most middle school
students make less than a year’s progress, and a significant number actually regress,”
as measured by California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores.

Table 1. Language Skills Measured at Kindergarten and Grade Five in California
and the U.S., by Language Characteristics

California U.S.
Kindergarten Grade 5 Kindergarten Grade 5
All students -0.21 -0.11 0.00 0.00
English only 0.10 0.21 0.13 0.09
Hispanic students -0.50 -0.41 -0.35 -0.20
English dominant -0.19 0.05 -0.16 0.02
Spanish dominant -0.71 -0.75 -0.19 0.18
Source: University of California Linguistic Minority Institute Newsletter, (in CDE, 2010).

Table 1 (above), shows the results of a national study, which traced the
academic progress of minority linguistic students during their primary grades.
Results in Table 1 are expressed in standard deviation units from a normalized
national mean of zero. The results shown are from a population sample of students
who were kindergarteners in 1998-99, (n=9,796) and fifth-graders in 2004-05.
Research results indicate that at the kindergarten level in the 1998-99 school year,
the achievement gap between Spanish speaking English learners and native speakers
of English is 1.22 in California, and .91 in the remaining U.S.
5
Analysis of the results above, point to the fact that, compared to native
English speakers, Spanish speaking English Learners begin school with a clear
academic disadvantage. Consequently, the gap in language skills is closed only
slightly for Spanish dominant students nationally. In contrast, the gap widens in
California schools. The pattern can be seen consistently throughout California
schools, (CDE, 2010).
Table 2 (below) shows current trends in performance by student subgroups in
California schools.

Table 2. Achievement of English only Students and English Learners. California
Standards Test, English Language Arts Battery 2003-2009

Grade
%age of EO students deemed
proficient/ advanced 2003
%age of EO students deemed
proficient/ advanced 2009
Change
%age of EL students deemed
proficient/ advanced 2003
%age of EL students deemed
proficient/ advanced 2009
Change
Gap in
2003
Gap in
2009
3rd 42 53 +11 13 20 + 7 29 33
5th 44 62 +18 19 19 +10 35 43
8th 38 57 +19 4 8 + 4 34 49
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. (In CDE, 2010)
6
Table 2 (above) shows the achievement gap between the English Only (EO)
students and English Learners (ELs). It compares the results of the California State
Test (CST) language arts battery results for English Learners (ELs) and EO students
over a five year period, between 2003 and 2009. Results in Table 2 show that both
student groups, ELs and EOs progressed academically. However, the gap between
ELs and EOs continues to widen at each of the four grade levels over the five year
period in California schools. This is significant because according to the National
Education Association (NEA, 2008), “by 2015, EL student enrollment in U.S.
schools will reach 10 million, and by 2025, nearly one out of every four public
school students will be an English Learner,” (p. 1). These figures demonstrate the
dire need for effective educational reform that will enable Hispanic EL students to
gain access to educational equity in California schools. As the number of Hispanic
ELs enrolled in schools continues to rise, the urgency to adequately prepare all
students for success becomes pressingly evident. Simply put, all students must
become academically proficient in order to become productive and marketable in the
current and future global economies. The existing educational practices and policies
yield inequities in education which increasingly plague our public schools. These
inequities will inevitably translate into increasing rates in school drop out,
unemployment, crime, and various other negative and destructive societal outcomes.
The effects of these persistent gaps in student outcomes will ultimately prove
disastrous for American society as a whole. According to Garcia, (2002) and
Maume, (1999) the impact that these trends will have on American society, will
7
prove to be very costly. The middle class in American may consequently disappear
as the amount of limited resources for the middle class will become increasingly
scarce and ultimately disappear, (Garcia, 2002). Also, Maume (1999), states that in
the business sector, resulting competition for top positions in corporate America will
become blocked by an effect referred to as the glass ceiling effect. Maume, (1999)
describes this labor phenomenon as the resulting effect that a member of a minority
group experiences when he or she is able to view desirable top managerial positions,
but becomes increasingly unable to access such positions because these positions
have grown unattainable due to the glass ceiling which results and functions as a
structural barrier in career ladders.
These two ideas proposed by Garcia, (2002) and Maume, (1999) clearly
illustrate the impact that the achievement gap poses when it is applied to the current
levels of performance by students in American public schools. Since the inception
of the existing accountability systems that are used to grade public schools as
mandated by legislative orders outlined in NCLB (2001), the academic attainment
and educational progress of major student subgroups attending American schools is
now made public. To ensure that all students’ needs are being met, all student
progress is measured by one uniform benchmark throughout the state. According to
EdSource (2008), during the last decade, test data collected has consistently shown
that, on average, Hispanic ELs’ achievement level falls consistently below the
average levels of all other subgroups enrolled in American public schools.
8
Throughout American history, federal policies like the No Child Left Behind,
(NCLB) Act (2001), the American Education Act (1974), and others, have attempted
to make these academic outcomes gaps disappear. Christensen, (2008), Hochschild
and Scovronic, (2004), Garcia, (2002), and Maume, (1999), all concur that the
increasing demands generated in the existing trade global markets promote such
levels of competition, that the resulting pressures on existing educational
organizations, like schools and districts, to prepare students with academic, social,
and personal skills continue to rise exponentially. Meanwhile, the ability of
American public schools to prepare all students to meet such demands currently
seems inadequate. Hanushek and Lindseth, (2009) conclude that each generation of
Americans has outperformed its parents in education, in literacy, and in economic
attainment. They propose that for the first time in the history of our county, the
educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even
approach, those of their parents. They cite that “American students are no longer
competitive… Huge numbers of children cannot perform at basic levels in reading,
math, and science… This crisis is a national one, and the failure to find effective
solutions threatens not only our individual well-being, but also our country’s position
as a global leader in the world community,” (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009, p. 1).
The good news is that throughout history, American public schools have consistently
risen to, and successfully dealt with, challenges such as the one described above.
Our educational organizations continuously adjust their practices and policies to
serve and meet society’s changing needs. Marzano, (2003), Christensen, (2008), and
9
Hochschild and Scovronic, (2004) point out that, despite these challenges, in the
past, American schools have successfully met social demands and improved student
achievement. In order to sustain such educational gains, though, American schools
must once more adjust their current practices and policies and evolve from their
current policies in educating today’s twenty first century students. Compared to
other leading nations, Americans have earned a strong reputation of effectively
preparing young students for global competition in academics. However, in an
alarmingly increasing trend, American public schools operate in hostile
environments where the perception seems to be that the current state of American
public schools system warrants a call similar to that of a national emergency.
Given the long standing nature of the problem, and the seriousness of the
issue for public education, the current project focused on the achievement gap in a
specific urban district. In the following section, the district is described, including
how the general achievement gap issue described above is manifested in that setting.
Background of the Problem
The District
In this project, Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) collaborated with
faculty and doctoral candidates from a local university to examine the root causes of
minority students' underperformance as compared to other subgroups, and to explore
possible solutions. RUSD is a large urban district located in California’s San Gabriel
Valley. It is located about 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, California,
(rowlandschools.org, 2010). RUSD enrolls over 16, 000 students of which
10
approximately 5400 are designated as ELs. Of those ELs, approximately fifty
percent are Asian ELs, and approximately fifty percent are Hispanic ELs, (CDE,
2010). This is important because Asian ELs consistently perform above average
levels of mainstream students in RUSD. In contrast, Hispanic ELs consistently
perform below average in state and federal benchmarks as measured by California
State (standards) Tests, (CSTs).
RUSD gained national recognition as “One of the Top High Schools in the
Nation,” (Newsweek, 2009). Also, RUSD has been awarded more Golden Bell
awards than any California local district. It is home district to more than a dozen
schools holding California Distinguished School status, and to four National Blue
Ribbon Schools. RUSD is also the recipient of the national Ball Foundation grant
based in Chicago, Illinois to help with its district wide work in literacy improvement.
In spite of all the above-mentioned accomplishments, the district has two schools in
Program Improvement (PI) year three status, one school in PI year two status, and
eight schools in PI year one status, (Rowland Heights Unified School District, 2010,
CDE, 2010). In California, schools attain PI status after all enrolled subgroups fail to
meet federal and/or state growth targets as measured by California state testing
(CST) for three consecutive years. RUSD had several schools which had recently
entered Program Improvement (PI) status due to its Hispanic EL students not
meeting their AYP and API growth targets. Consequently, RUSD entered PI status
as a district because numerous RUSD schools failed to meet state mandated growth
11
targets, (CDE, 2010). Since RUSD became a PI district, the district has implemented
numerous initiatives specifically aimed to help RUSD work its way out of PI status.
Importance of the Problem
Within the constraints of California’s current state budget crisis, RUSD’s
vision and ability to provide an adequate level of quality educational services may
have become increasingly challenging. RUSD currently finds itself struggling with
pressing issues associated with effectively and consistently promoting levels of
student academic improvement evenly throughout the district. Like numerous others
in the nation, RUSD struggles to improve student performance, especially within
minority language student populations. As a result, the district has endured
numerous challenges in consistently sustaining effective programs that adequately
address its Hispanic EL students’ needs. RUSD faces numerous challenges that
negatively impact both the level and instructional quality and its effectiveness in
ensuring educational equity for all, but most dramatically, for its Hispanic EL
student population.
Admirably, RUSD has successfully promoted overall student academic
growth. Student performance levels continue to grow consistently yielding positive
district gains. Consequently, the district has earned a distinctive reputation as a high
performing district: an achievement that the district is very proud of. RUSD’s
District Office plays a critical leadership role in the quality of education that is
practiced throughout its schools. Such a role is crucial to the success of its students
and consequently, to the wellness of its community as a whole.
12
However, academic success is not spread evenly. According to the California
Department of Education, (2010) data, Asian ELs currently outperform Hispanic
ELs, as measured by CST scores. In general, the gap between Asian ELs’ academic
performance and the Hispanic EL student population continues to widen, (CDE,
2010). Currently, RUSD serves over 5,400 ELLs (CDE, 2010). RUSD serves two
major EL subgroups: Asian and Hispanic ELs. Asian ELs and Hispanics ELs make
up the two largest EL language minority subgroups in RUSD, (CDE, 2010). Despite
the district’s efforts, resource allocation, and planning, the performance gap between
EL students and non EL student populations persists. In fact, there is a widening
performance gap within RUSD’s EL population. RUSD serves its two major ethnic
subgroups of ELs.
Importance to the District
Successful student preparation is a key responsibility of both school and
district. The role of schools’ and districts’ funding is dependent on their Average
Daily Attendance (ADA). This is also important because performance of minority
language students renders school districts to receive fiscal sanctions from federal
NCLB and state legislatures. From a social perspective, this problem becomes an
incentive issue. Residents within the community may become disappointed and
disinterested in the school district’s dismal services. Parents in the RUSD may
exercise their right of school choice (Marzano, 2003), and ultimately disenroll their
child from RUSD because of the negative connotations of failing school that can
become associated with a school that has earned PI status.
13
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this inquiry project was to identify root causes and other
factors that feed the existing student performance gaps in RUSD. This inquiry
project addressed the following question: Despite the implemented district wide
reform efforts, what are the roots causes to the persistent achievement gaps amongst
Hispanic EL students in RUSD?
The inquiry team’s identification of such root causes and factors was
facilitated by a problem solving framework as proposed by Clark and Estes, (2002).
The Clark and Este’s gap analysis model enabled the inquiry project teams to apply a
specific framework to help the inquiry teams identify potential root causes and
factors. This in turn can lead to possible solutions to help ameliorate the Hispanic
EL performance gap in RUSD.
In addition, the Seven Stages of Concern (SoC) (Hord, 1990) inquiry model
was used during the data collection phases. These problem solving models gave the
project teams two basic supports: (1) the problem solving models acted as lenses
which helped guide the team’s observations and interpretations, and (2) the problem
solving models provided research background and supported the project’s findings.
At the conclusion of the project, its findings facilitated a venerability and
applicability to various other school districts which may find themselves also
struggling to meet the needs of their EL students, or otherwise in similar scenarios.
Finally, the inquiry project’s results generated a basis from which the inquiry teams
formulated and then presented recommendations for RUSD personnel and staff to
14
implement as potential strategies to improve the current levels of Hispanic EL
students’ performance. The inquiry project has a potential to provide a platform
from which considerations for future research can be originated. The project and its
results may generate a quest for educational equity and for improvements to the
current educational and instructional practices of Hispanic EL students and the quest
to fulfill our traditions and ideals of ensuring equity in education for all.
15
CHAPTER TWO
PART A: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The focus of this inquiry project was the Hispanic EL achievement gap in one
school district. This chapter provides the reader with an overview of the literature
that is relevant to the issue of the expanding achievement gap within the Hispanic EL
student population in RUSD. First, the chapter discusses current government
policies and interventions at three levels: national, state and local. Then it describes
the characteristics of an English Learner, next, the impact that the academic
achievement gap has on minority communities and then society as a whole, and ends
by summarizing possible root causes for the achievement gap, which will then be
examined in practice in a local district later in the following chapter.
Policy and Interventions
At the national level, the federal government has historically answered the
call by responding and addressing the alleged education crises that plague American
schools by establishing laws and regulations such as the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act, (2001) to promote national reform efforts in public education. Such
reform efforts include: the development of national standards, the introduction of
grants such as the Race to the Top Grant and conversations about teacher merit pay,
or teacher pay and teacher salaries based on their students’ outcomes and academic
performances.
16
Ironically, the federal mandates within NCLB, (2001) have consistently
unveiled pervasive and consistent patterns of educational practices which promote
educational inequities throughout U. S. public schools and educational organizations,
(Garcia, 2002). In fact, implementation of the federal guidelines in NCLB in
disaggregating student performance data by ethnic subgroup, revealed significant
performance gaps within minority subgroup populations in public schools, but most
prominently within the Hispanic English Learner (EL) ethnic subgroup. Williams in
EdSource, (2007) cites that gaps in student performance seem to become
increasingly common in public education. Specifically focusing on EL API Scores,
(Williams in EdSource, 2007), found an EL achievement gap which seemed
prominent across California. Researchers looked at 237 elementary schools with EL
population of the total student body. The calculated range of EL API was 303
points. This is significant because it reveals that although instructional resources and
policies are aimed at providing and ensuring educational equity, student outcomes
range by a difference of 303 API points. This resulting gap clearly suggests that
there may be inconsistencies in the delivery of educational equity for some
subgroups.
Indicators of Growth
Hanushek, and Lindseth (2004) concur that “high school completion rates
peaked at about 80 percent in the 1960s and have fallen by approximately four
percentage points...” (p. 24). Since then, that rate has been consistently dropping,
especially within minorities. Hanushek and Lindseth (2004) identified the
17
considerably numerous challenges that American public schools consistently face.
The current challenges included: 1.) consistent low graduation rates, and 2.) lack of
significant improvements in the educational programs and in curriculum in spite of
greater economic rewards for earned high school diplomas. The 1970’s were the
highpoint for high school graduation, but since then, the graduation rate ceased
increasing and has since become stagnant. The negative views of the U.S. school
dropout problems have evolved into one which places the blame on student
behaviors (i.e., bad [student] decisions) as one possibility for this persistent pattern
of the absence in increased high school graduation rate. Hanushek and Lindseth,
(2004), however, propose alternatives to explain root causes which claim that it is the
students’ bad decision making process that fosters students’ disinterest in school.
The researchers offer the alternate view that American students may not be learning
enough to justify their time spent in school. Therefore, Hanushek and Lindseth
(2004), contend that American schools must do more to ensure that education is
perceived by their overall student body as economically sensible. Hanushek and
Lindseth, (2004) also caution that while the U.S. rate has flattened in terms of
achievement gains in national years, the global competition has caught up and
currently exceeds the number of college degreed workforce that is being produced
worldwide. As their major point of concern, they contend that by 1975, nearly
seventy five percent of American students graduated from high school, but, that
level, they argue, was reached 30 years ago and there has been no increments or
improvements in American schools’ graduation rates. In terms of achievement
18
levels, Hanushek and Lindseth, (2004) cite that although math, reading and science
tests results seem dismal for minorities, more alarmingly, thirty three percent of
white students fail basic math and science tests.
According to the National Association of Educational Programs (NAEP),
since the1970’s, student performance at the primary grades has generally improved.
However, seventeen-year old American students still need to master academic skills
before they go on to high school. Current results in national low test scores feed the
growing concern levels over the preparation that our current labor force possesses.
These levels of mediocre preparation that American students possess are causes for
serious concerns because although our schools currently spend three times the
money, results are relatively the same, or lower, as compared to other nations. This
becomes a significant fiscal concern because Americans receive fewer returns for the
resources spent to promote public education reform efforts.
Global Comparisons
In international comparisons, results are not comforting for the U.S. either.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000, which provide
standard assessments in math, science and reading, found that American 15 year
olds, in the U.S. rank: 25
th
in math, 20
th
in science, and 16
th
in reading when
compared to 30 other participating countries. In fact, the U.S. now holds the lead in
secondary education dropout percentage, and is behind also in higher education
degrees completed. These sobering results that widen the achievement gap may be
attributed to policy decisions like those in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
19
where mandatory desegregation attempts led minorities to consistently underperform
as compared to whites for the past 25 years. Hispanics yield the largest achievement
gap that has not tended to close over time. In fact, over 70 percent of the students in
large urban districts are minorities, and better than 25 percent of Hispanics attend
schools in one of the largest school districts in the nation. Gersten et al., (2007) cite
that, “Despite progress in the earlier grades, major problems persist. For instance,
the 2005 achievement gap of 35 points in reading between fourth- grade English
Learners and non-English Learners was greater than the Black-White achievement
gap,” (p. 1). Large urban districts are therefore rendered to face the numerous
challenges in preparing a considerable number of minority students and to close the
resulting persistent achievement gaps. These persistent patterns of
underperformance tend to cycle, and current minority students will bear offspring
who will inherit their position in the poverty and underperformance cycle. Marginal
conditions such as the ones described above seem most persistent in large urban
school districts. According to CDE, (2010), California has the largest number of
districts that serve densely populated, language minority, poor families.
Impact on California’s English Language Learners
In California, statewide studies consistently show disproportionate patterns of
specific student subgroup achievement levels, (NCLB, 2001). Specifically, patterns
of EL students’ underperformance have increased and have become increasingly
evident. The numbers of districts with underperforming EL students continue to
grow at alarming rates. As a direct result of these underperformances, the number of
20
districts being labeled as Program Improvement (PI) continues to grow
exponentially, (CDE, 2010). As more ELs enroll in California schools, this pattern
of underperformance carries potentially damaging effects to state and, consequently,
to national economies. These trends jeopardize our collective well being as resulting
widening gaps now extend from national, state, and into local economies. In its
quest to promote and spread a philosophy of equity in American education, the
federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), delineated federal academic
performance educational growth targets and requirements for all children attending
schools in the U.S. Most importantly, such growth targets specifically function to
highlight the existing educational system’s ability to meet the academic needs of all
students, including minority students. Student results data become disaggregated by
the mandates within NCLB, and the major ethnic subgroups’ achievement levels are
analyzed, (NCLB, 2001). The academic achievement of minorities can be quantified
and thus measured against federally pre established growth targets. In theory, the
objectives in NCLB, (2001) are: assure that all students, especially minority
students’ academic needs are consistently addressed and met and that all students,
but especially minority students, consistently and systemically receive equal access
to high-quality education. Such goals and ideals are set so all students, but
especially minority students, are consistently granted access to the quality of
education that will prepare them to reach a productive and prosperous life.
21
Impact on California’s Schools
Estimates suggest that in the past twenty-five years, the EL subgroup student
population has steadily grown from 8 percent to 25 percent enrolled, (EdSource, p.
1). California schools educate 6.3 million students out of which 1.5 million are
designated as ELs. Future enrollment projections suggest that these demographical
trends will hold steady, (Garcia, 2002). These students combined, make up a
significant number of the school age population. According to Genesse, Lindholm-
Leary, Saunders, and Christian, (2005), only 18.7 percent of students designated as
limited English proficient students met the state norms for reading in English, (p.
364). This is important because federal government guidelines have designated
students into ethnic groups. Through NCLB, the federal government mandates that
all ethnic subgroups in California have, and meet, specific academic growth targets
known as the Academic Performance Index (API). Currently, an alarmingly
increasing number of schools find it difficult to prepare their EL students to meet the
API as set by the state. Consequently, the majority of Hispanic ELs are not meeting
their academic growth targets. As a result, numerous districts struggle to provide
better educational services for these minority subgroups. Several of these districts
strive to become more responsive to deliver quality educational programs to all
students in meeting their responsibilities. Other districts, however, currently find
themselves struggling trying to figure out where they can begin to address the rising
Hispanic EL achievement gaps. EdSource (2007) cites that close “to 1.6 million
students in California are labeled English Language Learners,” (p. 1). According to
22
the California Department of Education (CDE, 2010), an “English Learner is a K 12
student who, based on objective assessment, has not developed listening, speaking,
reading, and writing proficiencies in English sufficiently for participation in the
regular school program.” These students make up twenty four percent of all students
enrolled in California schools as English Learners. Garcia, (2002), and EdSource,
(2007), cite that, in California, the correlation between student achievement and
social status has evolved into a critical and sensitive political issue. Because
California has very high EL student enrollments, ensuring educational equity
becomes even more important.
Causes of the Achievement Gaps
Clark and Estes (2002) propose that organizations sustain performance gaps
for three main reasons: knowledge, motivation, and organizational. The frame
proposed by Clark and Estes provides a lens by which to uncover causes of existing
performance gaps within districts and schools. The Clark and Estes’ gap analysis
frame enabled this inquiry team to uncover root causes for students’
underperformance in RUSD. Based on the findings, the team then provided
recommendations for solutions to address the root causes.
The first component factor that affects an organization’s performance is its
knowledge and skills level. Clark and Estes (2002) cite that during the gap analysis
process, it is important to determine to what extent performers know how to achieve
their performance goals or objectives. Simply stated, it is critical to determine a
person’s knowledge and skill levels when assigning performance targets for them.
23
The people’s probability of success meeting a performance target is determined by
the skill and knowledge they possess. Applying this simple idea to current trends in
education helps explain the Hispanic achievement gap. According to CDE, (2010),
in California, students who speak a language that is not English, begin school
academically behind their peers. Progressively, these students find that this pattern
continues into middle and high school, (CDE, 2010). Clearly, these students’
knowledge and skills are impacted by the quality of daily classroom instruction.
Schools and districts experience similar frustrations as they struggle to find ways to
meet all their students’ needs. The frustrations may be caused because performers
may not possess the knowledge or skills, (Clark & Estes, 2002) necessary to
effectively perform their duties and responsibilities.
A second component factor affecting performance is motivation. Clark and
Estes (2002) propose that motivation can be the result of three influential aspects in
individuals: choosing to work towards the goal, persisting until it is completed, and
the mental effort that can be spared or spent on reaching the goal. In simplest terms,
people’s level of motivation to get a task completed tends to depend on the value
given to the goal. For example, a meaningful goal, one that is valued, is more likely
to receive a stronger effort than one which is unattractive, or less valued, will. A
person’s will to persist at a task and its completion determines their level of
motivation. The amount of mental effort a person is willing to expend also plays a
role in task completion. Clark and Estes, (2002) explain that people will perform
according to the level of their motivation. Essentially, students will perform to
24
please their teachers, as long as they feel they are regarded as a member of the
school’s culture, (Rueda et al., 2003). Similarly, each stakeholder will perform their
best as long as they view themselves and feel valued, respected and regarded by
others. A motivated student will usually persist at tasks which he values until they
are completed.
The third component factors are organizational barriers. Clark and Estes
(2002) explain that organizations are structured in ways which may encourage or
inhibit performance. In order for an organization to move forward to complete a
task, the organization has to structurally and organizationally support such efforts.
State policies may be structuring districts in ways that inhibit the progress of certain
groups. In California, districts must test all students enrolled in their schools,
regardless of the students’ language proficiency levels and needs. Students who
have not yet attained English proficiency are also required to test yearly. During
testing, districts and schools are discouraged from accommodating to students’
language needs, yet failure to meet federal and state growth mandates trigger
sanctions against districts because their students do not meet specific performance
targets. In California, several schools employ a common strategy: to quickly build
up ELs’ academic vocabulary.
According to Francis, et al., (2006), “ELLs present a unique set of challenges
to educators because of the central role played by academic language proficiency in
the acquisition and assessment of content-area knowledge” (p. 1). Francis, et al.,
(2006) propose implementation of a framework to support EL education. They
25
propose five principles as outlined in their research with ELs in Language Arts and
Mathematics instruction for ELs. They found that “between former and current
Limited English Proficient (LEP) students when disaggregating accountability data
makes it difficult to know how students are performing once they become proficient
speakers of English, which in turn, makes it difficult to accurately evaluate the
performance of schools in education ELLs” (p. 5). This is a key point that shows
that current accountability measurements as proposed by NCLB (2001), may be
misrepresenting the levels of academic performance of ELs. Findings of their
research propose a parallel finding in research conducted with native English
speakers in which they found that many ELs “would benefit from a better fit
between their instructional needs and the instructional environment in order to
prevent some of their academic difficulties primarily in language development and
mathematical skills sets” (p. 5). Findings of the research consistently suggest that
mastery of academic language plays a key role in students’ academic factors that
affect other factors including motivation, persistence, and quantitative skills. ELs
may be kept from the hidden curriculum because of their inability to access and
master academic language proficiency thereby limiting their access to academic
content. One key reason to the persistence of the academic performance gap in ELs,
is the lack of academic language proficiency to access the academic curriculum.
According to Francis et al., (2006) “The proficient use of-and control over-academic
language is the key to content area learning” (p. 7).
26
Francis and colleagues (2006), recommend a framework which includes five
principles for implementation while planning effective instruction and interventions
for ELs. First, ELs must be instructed to effectively apply their reading skills to
learn new concepts and to build new knowledge across a range of content areas.
Second, educators must have a clear understanding of their students’ specific sources
of difficulties or weaknesses. Third, ELs often lack the academic language that is
needed for comprehending and analyzing text. Often, educators making instructional
decisions for ELs unknowingly make erroneous assumptions in the assessment of
academic language that students possess. Educators make these assumptions based
on ELs conversational language, ignoring their academic language needs. The fourth
principle is related to reading difficulties, and it related to ELs’ struggles with the
skill set associated with fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, (p. 15). Finally,
the fifth principle calls for the dire need to consider the function of the instruction.
In other words, is the function of the instruction preventive, augmentative, or
remedial. The function of augmentative instruction is to add to the skill set that
students already possess, and to prevent difficulties and gaps in learning, while the
remedial function is supplemental to target specific skills gaps.
Francis et al., (2006) propose that ELs need early, explicit, and intensive
instruction in phonological awareness and phonics in order to build decoding skills,
and suggest that ELs bring skills sets in decoding in their primary language (L1).
Instruction should target teaching them to crack the code. The persistent gap may be
the result of educators making instructional decisions not having the knowledge and
27
skills set to plan instruction to enable ELs to crack the code. EL students’
knowledge and skills may not be at a level where they can make learning decisions
to augment their primary language and target language (English).
Second, K-12 classrooms must increase opportunities for ELs to develop
sophisticated vocabulary knowledge. Francis et al. (2006) found that as students
progress from elementary to middle and on to secondary grades, vocabulary
instruction is weaned as content demands limit the instructional time. Genessee, et
al., (2005) cite that, “English language acquisition does not call on exclusively
implicit processes, but it can also entail conscious or explicit strategies” (p. 369). As
a result, ELs’ academic vocabulary needs are neglected even further, as instructional
time is progressively limited in the classroom because demands are placed on
content. The researchers propose that educators increase and strengthen vocabulary
instruction in order to give ELs access to content curriculum and to increase their
academic language. They propose that “effective vocabulary instruction must be
frequent, intensive, and complex” (p. 21). Educators may not posses the knowledge
and skills to identify the ELs’ unique instructional needs. Often, teachers may
intentionally lower academic rigor in their curriculum to make it accessible for their
ELs without verifying and validating the background knowledge that these students
may posses in their primary language. One danger in this common approach is that
ELs may become disengaged as the curriculum may seem inappropriately watered
down, affecting the student’s motivation and self-efficacy. As mentioned above,
28
educators need to know their ELs’ skill and knowledge levels to plan and design take
off platforms for instructional opportunities.
Recommendation number three is reading instruction in K 12 classrooms
must equip ELs with strategies and knowledge to comprehend and analyze
challenging narrative and expository texts. Genesse, et al., (2005) found that, “Both
types of literacy development are influenced by learner’s oral language skills and by
metacognitive skills linked to reading” (p. 370). The researchers suggest that current
comprehension instruction is mostly product oriented, in that, typically, students
demonstrate comprehension by producing the expectedly appropriate knowledge
form text by answering multiple choice questions. The gradual weaning away from
actively and consciously self monitoring strategies involved in the process of
negotiating the text for meaning. The authors recommend an active and
collaborative approach where oral language opportunities are scaffolded as
engagement with peers, and critically analyzing the text is encouraged and
facilitated, enriching it with the students’ own prior knowledge. Such opportunities
for engaging with the text and peers must be consistently implemented throughout
the content areas and in all classes throughout ELs’ school schedule. Providing ELs
with opportunities to engage in meaningful, critical text conversations with peers and
teachers will undoubtedly foster a positive relationship within the classrooms. The
current, disconnecting approach to comprehension instruction between curriculum,
teachers and pupils seems to be driven by publishers’ approach to comprehension
assessments. This approach seems to have driven instruction into the current state of
29
passively near unconscious self monitoring one dimensional approach. One danger
that this approach poses is that students may be erroneously labeled as disengaged,
especially ELs, when they are negated the opportunities to critically analyze and
debate over the text in their primary language. Many ELs may become disinterested
in class because they have no voice.
The fourth recommendation is to target instruction and interventions to
promote ELs reading fluency to focus on vocabulary and increase ELs exposure to
print. Researchers suggest activities to engage all students such as oral reading to
increase vocabulary. Focused and immediate corrective feedback is critically
important to address miscues. Open discussions and questionings surrounding the
books in oral readings support and engage ELs academic vocabulary needs, as does
an increased exposure to print.
The final recommendation is that ELs need significant, legitimate
opportunities to engage in structured, academic talk. Legitimate, and meaningful
classroom interaction with peers may engage ELs while reinforcing newly acquired
academic vocabulary and critical thinking skills. The authors found that “Like most
other academic skills, the development of oral language is a cumulative process and
one that must be supported from kindergarten through twelfth grade” (p. 28). A
possible danger is that teachers and administrators may lack skills and knowledge of
the benefits of such structured classroom activities that facilitate conversational
activities. Support from administrators may be minimal because the lack of
knowledge may taint their perception of such an activity towards erroneously
30
perceiving this type of activity as the teacher exercising poor classroom management
and discouraging such activities. Additionally, the pressures and demands on student
performance normally documented by concrete measures may cause this to be
viewed as misuse of instructional minutes. A teacher who may not possess the
knowledge to direct oral activities such as debates, may find these types of activities
as intimidating because they may feel like they are giving up control of the
classroom. These factors may be magnified when a new teacher’s job may be
dependent on the administration’s perceptions of their classroom management skills,
affecting the level of teacher motivation to try these critically important strategies
that support ELs.
The achievement gap may continue to persist due to all these reasons. These
factors play critical roles in the knowledge and skill, motivation and organizational
barriers and structures that affect performance levels of ELs.
31
CHAPTER TWO
PART B: METHODOLOGY
Co-written by: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava,
Lesette Molina-Solis
Gap Analysis and Implementation
The purpose of this formative inquiry project was to examine possible factors
related to current educational reform efforts in Rowland Unified School District
(RUSD) for the Hispanic student population. The purpose is also to understand the
motivational, organizational or knowledge based barriers leading to the Hispanic
achievement gap, utilizing the Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model as the
problem solving framework for analyzing the Hispanic achievement gap. RUSD is a
district with multiple achievements, including having sixteen California
Distinguished schools and four Blue Ribbon Schools. Despite these and other
educational honors, state testing data indicates the Hispanic student population
continues to lag behind the Asian and White student population. Thus, this inquiry
project’s focus is to examine the current state of the various reform efforts instilled
in Rowland Unified to address the achievement gaps as noted by API and AYP
amongst the Hispanic student population. The following question will guide this
inquiry project: What are possible knowledge, motivational and organizational gaps
in current efforts to close the district achievement gap?
32
Gap Analysis Overview
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to helping improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The Gap
model is an effective tool for explicitly communicating the problem statement using
goals, measures/performance indicators, standards, and gaps. The Gap analysis
model is designed to help organizations in identifying goals with the purpose of
gaining a deeper understanding of any possible root causes that could be impeding
the organization from achieving its goal. In order to be able to accurately develop a
problem statement, a thorough analysis of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational/cultural barriers must be done. The gap analysis model functions
from the premise that performance gaps derive from one or more of the following: a
lack of knowledge and skills, a lack of motivation, and/or a lack of tools, facilities, or
some type of organizational barrier. Once the root cause(s) are identified, effective
solutions and performance indicators are established. The last step in this model is
the incorporation of an evaluation plan to assess the success of the solution after the
implementation cycle.
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the model.
The first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how the performance goals
should be written and how to create a plan to achieve the goals. In this step the goals
will be examined at three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day to day
goals. Goals are reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are
measurable, and that goals fit in within each other. The goals that are set need to be
33
‘concrete’ goals that are clear, measurable and supported by all the stakeholders
because they are ‘C3 Goals’ (Clark & Estes 2002). “The best work goals are C3
Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current.” (Clark & Estes 2002, p.26). A concrete
goal is one that is easy to understand and can be measured. A challenging goal is
one that would be a feasible next step. A current goal is one that can be attained in a
shorter amount of time (weeks or months) vs. years.
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This
comparison would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that
are currently meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the
organization's current performance in comparison to the achievement of other
organizations that have achieved the desired goal. The difference between the
current performance and desired performance becomes the gap.
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal
analysis consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less
than desired performance. A root cause is defined as the underlying factor/s
contributing to the gap between achieved and desired goals. This analysis is
specifically done by looking at the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational/cultural for the potential causes of the gap. The organization using
the Gap model will look at all of the stakeholders in the organization and examine
them in each area. Knowledge refers to things such as education, information, and
professional development. Motivation refers to such things as willingness to
34
participate and effort. Organizational gaps refer to things such as the climate of the
organization, its practices and norms. Each potential cause in these three areas is
assessed and ruled out. By using this process of elimination, a clearer picture can be
obtained of what is likely causing the performance gap/s.
Once all the plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated,
eliminated or accepted, solutions can be identified leading to the fourth step: Propose
Solutions. An emphasis is placed on providing solutions that target the areas of
learning, motivation, and organization. Solutions are research based and address
problems that are directly tied to the root causes from the previous step.
The fifth and final step is to Evaluate Outcomes. An important step in
ensuring program or solution effectiveness is evaluating the results. The results of
the implemented solutions are evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation
process itself has four levels according to the GAP model. The four levels are:
reactions, impact during the program, transfer, and the bottom line. This is an
ongoing process and by which the solutions may be modified and re-implemented
until the desired goals are achieved. Without this key component of the GAP model,
true program effectiveness may not be determined, thus the gap itself may not be
narrowed. Due to time limitations, it is noteworthy to mention that this inquiry
project did not include this final step in the gap analysis process. However, it is a
very important part of the overall process.
35
Project Design
Given that the data collected was via interviews and observations and that the
ultimate purpose of this inquiry project was to provide RUSD Board Members
plausible solutions to their dilemma, it was the determination of the inquiry team that
a qualitative design was the best method to conduct this project. “A qualitative
design needs to remain sufficiently open and flexible to permit exploration of
whatever the phenomenon under study offers for inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 255).
From this perspective, solutions were presented. Given current literature, it is the
assumption that the achievement gap in RUSD may be associated with motivational
student/teacher factors, organizational factors, and knowledge based factors of both
students and educators.
The inquiry team agreed upon conducting a formative inquiry project, in that
the purpose of this project was to “judge the processes and outcomes aimed at
attempted solutions” (Patton, 2002, pg. 218). RUSD has implemented various
district wide reform efforts to address the mandates articulated by the federal
legislation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the fact their district has recently
become a Program Improvement One district (PI 1). Their entering this status is due
in large part to their Hispanic population not meeting the state testing guidelines.
Thus, this inquiry project analyzed the current reform efforts, how these compared to
research based literature, and how much the reform efforts have served to improve
the educational outcomes for the Hispanic student population.
36
Additionally, at the conclusion of collecting and analyzing the data, the
inquiry team members presented findings to the RUSD Board of Education so as to
suggest improvements upon their current reform efforts, staff development, and
organizational support. It was the intent of the doctoral candidates to provide
fiscally responsible and empirically based solutions to the current Hispanic
Achievement Gap in RUSD. It was also the intent of the doctoral candidates to
provide suggestions for further inquiry as every possible reason leading to the
Hispanic Achievement Gap may not be answered given the time limitation of the
study. However, it was the intent of the doctoral students to attempt to provide
sufficient answers so that RUSD may continue on its quest for continued academic
achievement. The inquiry team began the project in the Fall of 2009 and concluded
in the Fall of 2010 (Appendix A).
Focus of the Gap Analysis Inquiry
The focus of analysis in this project was Rowland Unified School District
along with the corresponding state testing data, reform program elements, teacher
instruction, whole program implementation, school administrative support, and
organizational support. The purpose of this inquiry project suggested using a
qualitative methodology to investigate findings for proposal to the RUSD Board of
Education. This project’s focus was to understand the Hispanic achievement gap
despite district wide reform efforts. Therefore, this inquiry project used purposeful
sampling methods to gather data. A lead district level participant provided additional
resources, leading to the use of chain sampling, which is an approach for locating
37
information-rich informants by asking well-situated people for leads (Patton, 2002).
Strategically chosen interviews were the primary data collection tool. In addition,
data was gathered by conducting detailed observations and distributing surveys and
questionnaires. For the purposes of this project, a naturalistic inquiry approach was
exercised.
Data Collection Tools
Given the nature of this project, utilization of data collection sources such as
observations, interviews, and questionnaires were seen as the most appropriate to
provide answers in the guiding questions (Appendix B). The observation protocol
included sections to examine posted class work, evidence of use of district reform
strategies, visuals, district EL materials and resources. In addition, the inquiry team
conducted three levels of interviews, Phase I, II and III (Appendix B, C, and D). The
first level of interviews consisted of questions regarding the achievement gap,
perceived reasons for the gap and desired outcomes for the district regarding
Hispanic EL achievement. The second level of interviews consisted of questions
regarding teacher implementation of reform efforts, knowledge of the EL reform
strategies, and perceived district wide support for addressing EL educational needs.
The questionnaires provided information regarding collaboration, student needs and
knowledge about diverse teaching strategies. During this phase the inquiry team
utilized the Stages of Concern model to gather a deeper understanding for the current
gap (Bailey and Palsha, 1992). Additionally, given the problem-solution framework
this project was working with, it was decided by the team that this was the best way
38
to look at the Hispanic achievement gap holistically. The team not only looked at
the responses of individual participants, but also looked at the organization of
RUSD, the people and community, which is of great influence amongst the Hispanic
population. Lastly, the team conducted phase III level of interviews to gain a deeper
understanding of the unique problems associated with the EL Hispanic achievement
gap. The informants provided the depth needed to analyze the presented problem.
Validity and confidence for the project was improved by implementing the use of
triangulation. As stated in Patton, (2002) “a rich variety of methodological
combinations can be employed to illuminate an inquiry question” (p. 248). Patton
also states that using triangulation allows for testing of consistency, increasing the
credibility of a study or project.
Procedures
The project commenced in the Fall of 2009 with a presentation conducted by
the Board of RUSD to eighteen Doctoral Students in the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California (see Appendix A). The Board presented
areas of concern for their district, of which one included the Hispanic Achievement
Gap. In the early Spring of 2010, the three authors (doctoral students) inquiring
about the Hispanic EL Achievement Gap began initial interviews with key district
level members from the district’s office of Bilingual Education. These phase I
interviews provided an overview for the context of the gap in addition to some
analysis of documents (Appendix B). These participants also provided school based
leads as potential participants.
39
From this point, the inquiry team began the second phase of the interview
process, including use of the Stages of Concern methodology. The inquiry team
contacted the school leads provided by the district level members. Once contact was
made, interviews were established with principals, classroom teachers, and EL
Leads. These interviews were conducted in person or over the phone by one to three
members of the inquiry team. The team then continued with level three phase of
interviews, including classroom observations, distribution of surveys and
questionnaires to follow up on unique issues that continued throughout the Spring
2010 semester (Appendix D).
During the Summer 2010 semester, the team began analyzing the data and
identifying the performance gaps with their root causes. These findings were
compared with empirically based literature. Additionally, the team prepared for a
presentation of findings with present and future recommendations to the RUSD
Superintendent and executive board. During the early Fall 2010 semester, the team
presented an executive summary of its findings to the Superintendent and her
executive board. The team, along with two other inquiry groups from the university,
attended a meeting with the Superintendent and related staff. At this meeting, the
district presented new information regarding changes in the district and other
relevant information to provide further insight to the findings presented in the
executive summary. At this point, the inquiry team looked at the gathered data,
included the information from this meeting and established more coherent findings.
Then, the team continued to work on its empirically based literature aligned with the
40
findings and prepared for a presentation to the Superintendent and her board. In
November of the Fall 2010 semester, the team presented its findings to the district
(Appendix H). At the conclusion of the meeting, the team was asked to present its
findings to the Board of Education and school principals. This presentation was
scheduled to occur early in the Spring 2011 semester.
Entry to RUSD was facilitated by the doctoral students’ university chairs.
The district superintendent agreed upon having doctoral students perform inquiry
projects in areas the superintendent and Board of Education deemed essential for
continued district wide improvement. The initial meeting, Board of Education
presentation, was facilitated by the university chairs and district representatives. At
this meeting, doctoral students received the contact information specific to the areas
of inquiry in addition to learning about the district’s vision and mission statements.
The district also presented current reform efforts that have been a part of RUSD's
strategic plan for improvement. A significant part of their presentation focused on
information regarding the district's partnership with 'The Ball Foundation’
(Appendix A). Therefore, it was crucial that the inquiry group become
knowledgeable about the foundation and the work implemented in RUSD as a result
of this partnership.
The authors made contact with RUSD’s Director of Bilingual Education for
an initial interview. During this interview, one of the group's objectives was to
establish a professional working relationship that included a high level of mutual
trust and respect. In order to establish a healthy working relationship, it was
41
imperative that the inquiry group be transparent in its intent and processes. The
group quickly introduced each member, emphasizing once again that the group’s role
was to help the district with their effort in addressing the needs of their Hispanic
subgroup.
The inquiry team proceeded to explain the GAP analysis model and the
rationale for its use with enough detail to build support. At this point the group asked
the Director of Bilingual Education to share where RUSD currently stood with
addressing the Hispanic achievement gap in their district. The inquiry group also
requested any additional district documents that would provide more information. As
a conclusion to the initial interview, it was imperative to ask for guidance in
suggesting nine people that would be great "next interviews" in getting a further
understanding of the Hispanic achievement gap in RUSD. The inquiry group at that
time established the most convenient way to communicate with the Director of
Bilingual Education and confirmed the best way to get in contact with the nine
suggested interviewees.
This initial interview served as the official initiation to the data collection that
transpired over the next several months. A letter, indicating the intent of the project,
was sent to the Director of Bilingual Education for review and acceptance. Once the
approval was received, it was sent to the principals at the school sites recommended
by the district level contact. The inquiry group proceeded to make contact and
interviewed school administrators. Contact was also made via telephone and email.
Once the respondents acknowledged willingness to participate in the project,
42
interview dates were established. At the conclusion of these interviews, follow-up
interview and observation dates were set with classroom teachers.
A set of round one and round two interviews with teachers followed. Round
One interviews consisted of gathering an overview of information regarding possible
root causes to the achievement gap in RUSD. This interview also included an
overview of the participants’ Stages of Concern, understanding and conceptualizing
professionals’ concerns regarding innovation (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). In this
project, the concern for innovation included district initiatives to address EL
instruction. Additionally, questions involved a scanning interview where educators
were asked about their understanding of the problem, instructional tools used to
address the problem, and reasons for the existing problem (Appendix B). These
interviews were conducted in person by a single or two person team or over the
phone. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed by the project team members.
The main purpose of the interviews was to gather data in the 'subjects’ own words'.
Round Two interviews of classroom teachers included a month survey of
instruction (Appendix C). These in person interviews, conducted by a single or two-
person team, involved gathering further information to support or refute possible
gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Once again, interviews
were recorded and later transcribed for accuracy. During the interview, project team
members scanned the classroom environment for evidence of using instructional
materials or tools presented by interviewees during the interview process. For the
43
purposes of practicality and respect for the participants’ time, Round One and Round
Two interviews did not exceed forty minutes.
Confidentiality
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration.
The intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a
traditional dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of
providing consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not
considered as research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research
designed to produce generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a
University Institutional Review Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the
present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge”
1
(45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a
hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually
described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of
procedures to reach that objective.

“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work
(e.g., routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for
internal management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance,

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings
can be applied to populations or situations beyond that studied.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and
autonomy) for human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
44
quality improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or
contracted-for services. It generally does not include journalism or political
polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute research in
circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2. My
emphasis.)

Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the
data derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the
efficiency of an institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research
Subjects, p. 4. My emphasis.)

The Process of Helping
This dissertation is an alternative capstone project that has taken the
traditional dissertation and added a real-world, real-time element. This additional
component to the dissertation allowed the inquiry team to serve as consultants. As
consultants, our role was to take a problem selected by the district we were
supporting and utilize the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model to help
determine root causes and develop possible solutions. Our inquiry team was charged
with the task to look at closing the achievement gap of the Hispanic students in
Rowland Unified School District.
Project Design
The inquiry team project took eighteen months to complete. Below is a table
that outlines the work done during this time frame.
45
Table 3. Work Done in Rowland USD Outlined by Semester

Semester Steps taken in Inquiry Process
Fall 2009 • Inquiry Team Formation
• Context of District Need
• Understanding District Priorities
• Narrowing inquiry focus
Spring 2010 • Exploring the Roots
• Data Collection
Summer 2010 • Data Analysis
• Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root Causes
• Development of Findings &
Recommendations/Considerations
Fall 2010 • Presentation of Findings &
Recommendations/considerations to District Groups

In the fall of 2009 our entire dissertation group of eighteen students was
invited to RUSD to receive a presentation that gave some history and background of
the district to our group. The presentation was given by the Superintendent, Dr.
Maria Ott and her cabinet. In addition to the historical background of the district we
also received information on the current reform effort and partnership with the Ball
Foundation.
After attending the introduction meeting at Rowland the two dissertation
advisors along with the Superintendent narrowed the areas of interest into three
topics. The three selected areas of focus were: comprehensive school reform efforts,
46
closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English Language Learners, and looking at
the factors contributing to the disparity between the districts two high schools. Once
the topics of focus were selected the teams were formed. The group of eighteen
students was then placed into two groups of nine. Each team was given one district
and then the teams were further grouped into triads. Each topic of focus had three
students assigned to it. I was assigned to the team looking at closing the Hispanic
ELL achievement gap. The team looking at the Hispanic EL achievement gap
consisted of a county AVID coordinator, an intermediate principal and an elementary
assistant principal with extensive administrative experience and expertise in working
with school districts serving the needs of Hispanic EL students. The rest of the fall
semester was spent developing a deeper understanding of the districts culture,
history, needs, and current practices with Hispanic EL’s. Throughout this time the
triads worked collaboratively to prepare for the qualification exam in February 2010.
During the spring semester of 2010 the team prepared for the data collection
phase of the project. There was a semi-structured interview guide that was
developed by the entire dissertation team. This collaborative effort was completed
over the course of several work sessions during the months of February and March.
Data Collection
Data was collected by the team in several ways. Data was collected at the
district office level and from the k-8 school sites that were visited. The data was
collected via one on one interviews, group interviews and observations. These
interviews were conducted by the team members individually, in pairs and on several
47
occasions as the complete team of three. These interviews were conducted from
March-June 2010. Once the interviews were completed the analysis of the data took
place from June through August 2010. During this time the inquiry team also
created an executive summary that was submitted to the district leadership team.
Executive Summary
Once our initial data analysis was complete and the inquiry team had a more
authentic understanding of the root problems we met with our dissertation advisor,
Dr. Rueda. As a group we agreed that the best way to communicate our progress to
the leadership team at Rowland was to provide them with an executive summary.
The executive summary gave a brief background of our work as well as a summary
of the identified performance gaps. It also provided what the inquiry team found to
be the root causes of the identified perceived problem by the district. All three
Rowland inquiry teams created an executive summary for their particular area of
focus.
After the executive summary had been made available to the leadership team
at Rowland a date was set so that the inquiry teams could present and field any
questions surrounding the executive summary. The three groups met with the
Rowland USD Superintendent and her leadership team comprised of her assistant
superintendents and directors.
48
Culminating Presentation
Group PowerPoint
In preparation for the final presentation of our findings there was a lot of
additional work involved. As a team of nine we met with our advisor to brainstorm
and work out what our final presentation to the district would be and how it should
best be presented. We agreed that there were some initial factors that needed
consensus before moving forward. As a team of nine we needed to understand the
findings, solutions, and recommendations of all three groups to ensure that we were
consistent in what we would be presenting. The last thing we wanted was to present
conflicting information, which could potentially discredit all of our work. Once we
were able to align the common findings among the three groups we then focused on
the unique aspects of each area of focus.
At that time we agreed that a streamlined power point would be the best place
to start. Every group was assigned the responsibility to produce three to five slides
that would convey the information that their team wanted to present. This
assignment was undertaken with the understanding the there would be an initial set
of slides that would frame the inquiry project and lay out the commonalities among
the three groups. The group was very clear that the power point should flow in a way
that did not feel fragmented or disconnected. Although there were three groups
looking at three different topics we did not want three different styles and voices
coming through the power point. We wanted it to be about Rowland and the work
we had done to find the answers they sought.
49
Possible Solutions Presentation
The presentation of our collective work was also strategically planned. One
member from each inquiry team presented the main slides pertaining to their groups
work. In addition to having a presenter from each team, the group had one additional
member open and close the presentation providing a coordinated introduction and
conclusion. The other team members were able to help and support the presentation
throughout the presentation during the time that was built into the presentation for
questions and discussion.
Additional Presentations to District Groups
At the closing of the presentation Dr. Maria Ott, the Rowland USD made a
formal request to our advisor for our district team to make this formal presentation
two more times. Once to all the school site principals and an additional time to their
school board of education. The three inquiry teams were honored by the request and
unanimously agreed to return on a mutually agreed upon date and time which has
been tentatively set for February 16
th
, 2011.
50

CHAPTER TWO
PART C: COMMON FINDINGS
Co-written by: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava,
Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
As a subgroup, Hispanics in the United States have historically struggled
academically. This had been especially true in large urban school districts that have
large percentages of EL students. Further compounding the challenge is the
challenge of how to help these students become academically successful, given the
current stressors that accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
have added. NCLB has raised the stakes for schools and districts, requiring them to
disaggregate data to show that their Hispanic ELL subgroups are making adequate
progress within a specified time frame. Rowland Unified School District is no
exception to the accountability pressures of this reform.
In its efforts to meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance,
Rowland Unified School District has made their Hispanic ELL subgroup a priority.
Among the different schools we visited, it became clear that the NCLB requirements
have significantly changed the academic course of Rowland USD. These changes
have fundamentally influenced the way the district and the school sites are making
decisions for ELs. Some areas that have been greatly influenced are the allocation of
funds and selection of instructional programs. The decisions are made in the areas
51
that directly and indirectly support the progress of the district EL reform. The
leadership team at Rowland understands that NCLB has placed a spotlight on the
Hispanic and EL subgroups. Although these accountability measures have been
imposed by NCLB, Rowland’s leadership team has found a way to capitalize on this
situation as an opportunity to support the district reform and help all students
succeed.
This alternative capstone project focused primarily at looking at the
achievement gap of Hispanic EL’s in Rowland Unified. The project team reviewed
existing district documents (Strategic Plan, Master Plan for English Learners, Single
Action Plan for Student Achievement, School Accountability Report Cards, etc.) and
conducted a series of structured interviews with the intent of getting a better
understanding of why there continues to be an achievement gap for the Hispanic
ELL subgroup within the district.
After collecting and analyzing the data gathered from the scanning interviews
conducted in March and April of 2010, several themes emerged. Throughout these
themes a number of factors surfaced that hindered the positive impact of programs,
initiatives and diverted attention and resources from the goal of improving teaching
and learning for ELs. These areas of focus were evident across multiple data
sources. The documents, surveys, interviews, and observations soundly supported
the following areas of focus:
1. Curriculum - What programs were being used to address the needs of
Hispanic EL students
52
2. Collaboration – How did teachers work together as professionals to
support the Hispanic EL Students
3. Communication – How key information was transmitted from the district
office to the teachers at the school sites
4. Professional Development – What PD was offered to teachers to support
the needs of ELs, how were teachers selected (or not selected) to attend,
and who was actually attending
5. Teacher Efficacy – What responsibility did teachers believe they had to
the Hispanic EL students that they serviced
6. Leadership – How were the principals at the individual school sites
ensuring that the academic needs of the Hispanic EL students became a
school wide focus
These areas of focus became the backdrop for the second round of interviews, which
were completed at a variety of schools K-8 within the district. The team used these
areas of focus as a point of departure when interviewing classroom teachers in both
elementary and intermediate sites.
After the team conducted the second round of interviews, reviewed
documents, and analyzed the complete interview process the team found that some
performance/work goals are being met towards accomplishing the organizational
goal to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap. While also revealing that other
performance goals/objectives have not been made clear or were yet to be identified.
This has resulted in essential performance goals not being met. These performance
53
gaps stem from deficiencies in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
processes and resources. The team analyzed the responses to see if they related with
knowledge and skill, motivation, and or organizational barriers.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through the review of
documents and interview process. First are our positive findings of the activities
that take place at the district and school levels towards meeting the organizational
goal of closing the Hispanic academic achievement gap. Then there is a more in-
depth explanation of key concepts for analyzing data. This is followed by a
summary of the root causes of the performance gaps in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational procedures and resources that we believe has
prevented Rowland USD from closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a highly successful district as evidenced by countless honors and
national respect it has received. RUSD earned four National Blue Ribbon, sixteen
California Distinguished Schools, and several Golden Bell Awards. There are
numerous exceptional practices that RUSD already has in place that are an excellent
launching pad for propelling their efforts to close the EL Hispanic achievement gap.
Rowland has a culture of professionalism and high expectations among the
staff that contribute to the academic success of students. Every person that the
inquiry team encountered expressed personal pride they had in working for Rowland
and for the children they serve. Many of those interviewed were also proud to share
54
that they are alumni of RUSD and that they have placed their own children in the
Rowland school district.
Clear Vision for Reform
In RUSD, there seems to be a great support for the advancement of a clear
and unified vision of the district reform efforts. The process of establishing this
vision and rallying support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make
the reform implementation successful. RUSD’s shared vision for reform has
signaled a district commitment to system-wide change.
From the very first interaction with the district it was clear that through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation there had been substantial work on creating a
clear vision. All the district leadership was able to articulate how their particular
department contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped guide and advance the
district’s EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in specific is the Director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education. Everyone interviewed spoke about the positive
support for the changes in the EL reform from the school board, the superintendent,
and the bilingual education director. The superintendent and the director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education not only have the expertise needed but also the
commitment required for improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The
Curriculum and Bilingual Education Director has taken proactive steps to build a
55
culture of collaboration. The Bilingual Education Director understands the
importance of setting high standards for EL achievement. The Bilingual Education
Director also makes every effort to provide the tools and curriculum support that
schools may need to meet these high standards. The director believes in the
importance of research based strategies and supporting the use of data to improve
instruction and services for ELs.
Bilingual Education Office
When Rowland USD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the
office of Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district,
there was consistent feedback about how important the role of the Curriculum and
Bilingual Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a district-wide
focus area. The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other
districts office departments to support instructional improvement for ELs in making
the EL focus an integrated part of all support offered from all the departments. It
was also mentioned repeatedly how the department of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education is included in the highest levels of decision-making, which helps to keep
the needs of Hispanic EL students on the table.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD has created a district wide Master Plan for English Learners. This
plan includes specific efforts to systematically build schools’ capacity to instruct and
support ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the
community were essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively
56
engaged teachers, principals, and other school administrators in the adoption of
organizational and instructional strategies.
RUSD identified a deliberate policy and specific practices for the English
Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices signal an
implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs: to acquire both
proficiency in English and the literacy skills to comprehend content. RUSD supports
ELs by providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education
throughout the district.
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD has taken the initiative
to implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the
ongoing needs of ELLs, RUSD has created the EL lead position at each school site
with the intent to improve the quality of the EL program. RUSD has also taken major
steps to better coordinate district resources in order to meet its organizational goals.
For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead teacher who provides
information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative model of instruction,
conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works with school
personnel to facilitate professional development activities. These lead teachers
essentially act as liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools
had the support they needed in meeting the needs of EL students. Also, depending
on if a school has a Structured English Immersion program or a Bilingual Education
Program, the Office of Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site.
57
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged.
One or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held. These themes first surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and
continued to come up during the follow-up interviews and school visits with site
administrators and teachers. The four emergent themes that were identified were: 1)
the academic impact of a decentralized district on the Hispanic EL subgroup, 2) an
absence of a clearly identified plan and support for the progress of ELs, 3) the
perception of professional accountability for the progress of Hispanic ELs, and, 4) a
gap of cultural knowledge of students’ backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that for the specific topic of Hispanic EL
achievement the advantages of decentralization seem to have created some
unintended disadvantages for Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student
progress seems to be the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic
EL achievement gap in a decentralized setting. For example, among the interviews
that were conducted there was a widely expressed feeling that no two schools
addressed the needs of ELs in the same way. Furthermore, within each site, every
classroom was an island unto its own. Many site administrators and teachers believe
there are no explicit goals or targets for student progress in place. There was also a
belief that no system was in place to support or monitor the implementation of
adopted programs because "everyone is doing something different". This perceived
58
lack of support and oversight leads to inconsistency in the implementation of the
curriculum, and programs for ELs. Any and all decisions regarding curriculum and
levels of implementation is left at the discretion of the leadership of the individual
schools sites. The byproduct of all these decentralized decisions is the delivery of an
ELD academic program that potentially can vary not only from school to school, but
from classroom to classroom.
Although many teachers like the ability to make independent decisions, some
teachers specified that they would prefer the district to impose more structure when it
came to issues surrounding ELs. Teachers and administrators that stated this felt that
not enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL reform
at the schools. They added that they did not feel they had the curricular knowledge
or the content expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this lens, the
teachers do not see the district valuing certain reform activities nor providing enough
follow-up support.
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the Progress of ELs
Through interviews with administrators and teachers, it became clear that
some people interviewed believe that the district has not effectively articulated or
communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants for their ELs.
Many administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the district had not clearly
communicated their goals. Some teachers expressed their awareness of the district’s
general expectations for ELs, but shared their frustration over the absence of clear
performance goals. In the absence of clear performance goals, people tend to focus
59
on tasks they deem important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal
(Clark & Estes, 2002). The perceived lack of a comprehensive and concrete plan to
meet the needs of ELs is an example of how some respondents feel that the district
seemingly has no clear performance goals or expectations for schools.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed feeling
that they are working as hard as they can for the best of their students but they really
do not know what the district preferences are. During one interview, a lead ELD
teacher at a site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL students, the
teacher responded, “I didn’t know there were any. If there are, I would love to know
what they are.” There was also a voiced frustration that not all lead teachers are
allowed the time or forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message
that they were entrusted in “taking back” to their respective sites. One veteran lead
teacher stated, “Well it all depends if your site principal values what you are bringing
back. Some principals make room for you on the agenda, while others just put you
off by saying that the staff knows where to find you if they have EL questions.”
The degree of the gap ranged between teachers that were extremely
knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district provided, to teachers
that did not know they existed. The knowledgeable teachers were able to articulate
the best instructional practices for ELs and how to access support. At the other
extreme, some teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their site or
that the position even existed. Many teachers expressed that EL trainings were only
for EL teachers and not accessible to all.
60
The topic of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews.
Many teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district
or site administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that
was repeatedly given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial
implementation of an organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of
strong verbal commitment but a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions
include that EL instruction is a separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an
integrated part of the core curriculum nor is it monitored to ensure consistency.
Although the district does mandate specialized language support for ELs, there is no
system in place for guidance and oversight of the EL program component.
Individual schools end up adopting different approaches for implementation. Sites
vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They vary in how ELD groups are formed,
the size of the groups, how many levels are in a group, and how teachers are
assigned to teach these groups. The most common variation of the ELD program
consisted of having EL students leave the homeroom during core instruction to
receive a pull-out ELD intervention. This is not very effective as students are
missing core instruction to provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials, nor have they been trained on how the
program components should be integrated with the core curriculum. Many general
education teachers have not received any specialized training in English language
development strategies or differentiated instruction.
61
Another layer of frustration by some teachers was the perception that
resources were not equal between school sites or even within departments. These
perceived inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers
were ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that there
are no conversations or collaboration around how to meet the needs of EL students
throughout the day and across the curriculum. There was little evidence of
collaboration between teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration
between school sites. Working in isolation can be considered an organizational
problem. It can also negatively impact motivation because teachers feel that
everyone is not held accountable. Teachers who serve EL students voiced feeling
that they carry a heavy burden of responsibility and moral obligation for the student
population. They also believe that the teachers who don’t service EL students wash
their hands of that “problem” because those are “not their kids”.
Some of the teachers and administrators that were interviewed felt that there
is little professional development for teaching literacy to ELs. There are even fewer
professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to address the
needs of ELs during core curriculum. Teachers need PD to show them how to
effectively teach their student the core content while helping them acquire the
academic English necessary to be successful in the content area. Those interviewed
explained that teachers who have not been selected or have self-selected to work
62
with EL students feel that they are not adequately prepared to work with EL students.
This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates the unspoken practice of not taking ownersip
of EL students by teachers who feel they are not qualified to support them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of
responsibility that is placed on them to have ‘success with those students’. There is
also a belief that the majority of the staff who are not “responsible” for ELs are
“allowed” to put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the
Hispanic achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy, or
teachers’ perceptions that their efforts as a group will not positively impact student
achievement. This is important, since a low collective efficacy affects persistence
and can create a culture of low expectations.
“Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement-
particularly among ELs-it comes to no surprise that access to high quality
professional development (PD) for general education teachers and EL teachers alike
was (is) instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts” (Great City
Schools, Oct. 2009, p.22). All the administrators and EL leads interviewed
understood the importance of PD, however, they expressed that Rowland does not
have a coherent strategy for building EL staff capacity through targeted professional
development. In Rowland USD, professional development is largely voluntary. In
the absence of a centrally-defined, supported, and monitored professional
development, each school determines and provides for its own professional
development needs. Those interviewed reported that the focus and quality of
63
professional development varies from school to school. Most professional
development opportunities that are offered in Rowland USD do not integrate EL-
specific content into their offerings or address strategies for differentiated
instruction.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‘English Only’ students, the teacher responded, “I don’t
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when
they struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.” Several teachers felt that they
could not help “these” students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student
achievement were not connected to their professional effort. With this type of
external attribution, some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless, and
instead focus on other work goals. Further complicating the matter is the potential
difficulty in addressing such a sensitive issue. Many times teachers are not aware
that their attitudes or lack of effort impact student achievement.
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by
their environment. The environment that they come from includes home, culture,
language, and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators must
understand and value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that
information as a resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students
64
come to school with unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no
simple, one size fits all solution.
In conversations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community.
This lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of one’s self and group and the
perceptions and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and
teachers interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students
and the community. One staff member stated that, “Students do not feel it is
important to learn English because they do not use it at home or even at school when
they are with their friends.” There is also a general perception that the parents are
more concerned with the ethnic demographics of the schools, than the academic
standings of their child. One teacher stated that, “For the most part, the Hispanic
parents do not really value their children learning English as long as they are in a
school where the majority of the students look like them and there are no (social)
problems.”
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living among
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle
school teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is
difficult because the Hispanic kids that come in from all Hispanic elementary
schools do not like going to school with the Asian students. While these ideas can
also be attributed to other root cause such as motivational and organizational, they
stem from a basic lack of factual knowledge about the students culture.
65
Cautions and Limitations
It should be recognized that the patterns reported here are based on a limited
number of conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within
the district. In addition, the time period over which the information was collected
was relatively short. Finally, these patterns are based on self-report information, and
reflect respondents’ perceptions.
It is also important to keep in mind that for the most part the patterns reported
were widespread among those with whom we spoke. In addition, while perceptions
may or may not reflect objective reality, they do have an important influence on
behavior and the ultimate achievement of overall goals. Therefore, we hope to work
with the district in the next phase of the work as we begin to assess our findings and
formulate appropriate and helpful recommendations for next steps in addressing
gaps.
This section of this chapter provided a detailed definition of the GAP analysis
model. It then provided a detailed account of the process that was used by the
inquiry team. Additionally, this section included the inquiry team’s findings. These
findings consisted of the districts strengths a swell as emergent themes related to root
causes. The following chapter will address the literature that supports the inquiry
team’s findings and possible solutions, and will also will provide an in-depth
solution summary.
66
CHAPTER THREE
PART A: LITERATURE REVIEW: A FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS
Co-written by: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava,
Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
RUSD is generally regarded as a high-performing school district. The district
has worked diligently in the past decade to become a front runner in the areas of
educational excellence. For example, RUSD has earned a reputation of being one of
the premier staff development districts in the Southern California area. In its quest to
provide educational equity, the district has undergone significant district wide
reforms including staff development, which include the implementation of Thinking
Maps, a graphic organizing strategy to improve literacy performance in students.
This district wide adoption of the use of a teaching strategy that uses visual graphic
organizers called Thinking Maps seemed promising to more effectively target
student learning. In addition, RUSD has attempted to adequately address its
persistent achievement gap, that seems to be negatively affecting the majority of EL
students. Most significantly, however, the persistence of the achievement gap seems
to affect Hispanic ELs most negatively as compared to Asian ELs according to state
and federal assessment indicators. In addition to Thinking Maps, RUSD has taken
significant strides in trying quest to exit PI status, by actively taking partnership with
the Ball Foundation grant. The focus of the grant is to improve student performance
in literacy as measured by state and federal indicators. Finally, RUSD is currently
67
phasing in a district wide push for teacher and professional development aimed
specifically at providing teachers preparation and workshops in efforts to address the
needs of ELs. RUSD’s aim is to build teacher capacity in the usage and delivery of
effective instructional strategies that address specific ELs needs.
Holistically, RUSD’s attempt to address their EL students’ educational needs
seem to be missing their intended target. As a result, the current implementation of
instructional strategies, (Thinking Maps, and Pictorial Math) has yielded modest
gains within the district’s performance goals. Specifically, as a result of RUSD’s
instructional focus, Asian ELs have made greater gains than gains made by Hispanic
ELs as measured by current CSTs, and other district benchmarks and indicators. As
a result, the achievement gap between ELs and non-El students in RUSD seems to
continue to widen. Of high concern, and most disturbingly, the gap between Asian
ELs and Hispanic ELs seems to be increasingly widening, rendering RUSD at high
risk of remaining in PI status.
The purpose of this inquiry project was to look at potential root causes that
may be mitigating the current achievement gap that negatively impacts RUSD’s EL
student population. By using Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model, this
inquiry project team attempted to identify knowledge/skill, motivational, and/or
organizational barriers which may be actively preventing the academic advancement
for the EL subgroup district wide.
As a result of the project team’s inquiry, three critical factors were identified
as areas of concern within RUSD’s instructional framework and vision. The first
68
factor contributing to the persistence of RUSD’s gap is that of inconsistent
implementation and the district’s fidelity to the district wide EL strategies, namely
Thinking Maps, and Pictorial Maps. The second factor affecting RUSD’s
progressive attempts at meeting the widening achievement gap is two-fold: since the
inception of the inquiry project, federal and state indicators and the federal and state
policies that have been mandated has caused RUSD to amend their English Learner
Master Plan. This event has caused RUSD to file a state required ELMP
Amendment which clearly outlines the district’s systemic approach to address its
current efforts at eliminating the EL achievement gap. The third factor that actively
impedes successfully addressing the Hispanic EL progress is the absence of
culturally proficient pedagogy that effectively addresses the minority students’
academic needs. As a result, the majority of teachers who teach ELs perceive those
who do not teach ELs as self-detaching from the responsibility to teach ELs.
This chapter presents some possible areas which the district might consider in
its effort to provide an optimal learning experience for all students. The areas
considered here include work related to cultural proficiency in instructional
practices, and work related to bringing about change in educational organizations.
Each is discussed below.
Process of Change
Turnaround Change
Based on current research, deep and sustainable change needs to occur at
RUSD and its stakeholders. The type of change that may benefit RUSD is called
69
turnaround change. According to Reeves, (2009), Marzano, (2004) and others,
turnaround change is effective in addressing the performance gaps that have plagued
educational organizations similar to RUSD. However, Turnaround change is costly,
and its takes time. Research shows that meaningful effective instructional and
organizational change must be nurtured, monitored, and supported consistently.
Reeves, (2009) contends that change initiatives that are initiated by school
level leaders must be reinforced throughout the change process. The new research
contrasts faculties that implemented the same change initiatives and claimed the
same initiative labels but had vastly different levels of implementation. The results
are striking: when 90 percent or more of a faculty was actively engaged in the
change initiative, student achievement results in reading, science, and math were
dramatically higher than when the same initiative was introduced with only 10
percent of the faculty actively engaged. Therefore the variable is not simply the
program, the label, the guru, or the conference. The variable is implementation (p.
16).
Further, Reeves cites that effective leaders gain buy-in from constituents
through getting results that demonstrate that the effects of the change is in the best
interest of all stakeholders. While proposing practical strategies aimed at improving
grading, teaching, and leadership practices, Reeves, (2009) warns that leaders will
likely be met with opposition and resistance. “You will not close the implementation
gap with another set of three ring binders or announcements about the latest
initiatives to close the gap with immediate wins, visible recognition of what works, a
70
focus on effectiveness rather than popularity and a direct appeal to the values that
brought us all into this profession in the first place” (Reeves, 2009, p. 93).
Pappano, (2010) contends that school turnaround is about rapid and dramatic
improvement, not just in test scores, but also in culture, and student aspirations.
Appropriately, Pappano, (2010) implies a much more direct, no-nonsense, holistic
approach at readily and effectively addressing a schools’ culture. However, the
writer of this dissertation cautions that the reader must be aware that the term
‘culture’ can take on several different meanings in a school setting. For example,
school sites develop their own educational culture; there are also cultures that hold
students to certain levels of expectations hence breeding a culture of excellence or
mediocrity, and various levels in between. Schools also host cultures of teacher
collaboration; school staffs host cultures of behavior expectations from different
groups of students. Pappano, (2010) urges turnaround leaders to commit and lobby
to establish and maintain a consistent culture of no excuses and high expectations.
She further calls for turnaround leaders to establish a culture of building capacity
throughout their teaching staff.
Transformational Theory
Rickey, (2008) presents a potentially useful model of elementary school
reform. In her dissertation, Rickey used qualitative action research and she looked at
ways which adult learning and transformational learning theory can empower school
leaders to guide teachers to improve the quality of their practice. Strategies also
included as part of Rickey’s model were, “the challenging of assumptions, use of
71
questions to support reflection and personal growth, exercising patience with the
process, and the realization that individuals needed supportive pressure over time to
help the change process work” (Rickey, 2008, p. 5). Rickey suggests that any
successful approach at school reform should include: “examination of how school
leaders prepare for and facilitate change as they work with individual teachers”
(Rickey, 2008, p. 16).
At the conclusion of her study, Rickey found “that professional development
had not been as effective in helping teachers make lasting change” (p. 186). Gordon
(2004) agrees that “it is time to take the principles of adult learning seriously” (p. 1).
He also acknowledges that school personnel have not used any of the principles of
adult learning theories in their full capacity to better prepare teachers. Rickey,
(2008) proposed a model which captures adult leaning theory processes to help
school leaders deal with better preparing teachers. The process begins with a
dilemma that affects student learning or performance. Flow then proceeds to
pinpointing an individual’s concerns, what is not working, and what is different from
the current course of action. Flowing through the process helps individuals identify
specific needs to address the dilemma, to identify which members of their
department, if any, have been consulted about the dilemma, and if there is any
evidence that any literature addressing the dilemma has been read. Answers to these
probing questions funnel into the action phase, and probe if the individual is ready to
try the change process. If answered yes, the action phase begins and flows into
examining results. At this stage, three general questions are posed: do you need help
72
thinking about the results, what evidence do you have, and what should we be
looking for? Once results are secured, the model asks individuals if they are
prepared to share out results. A yes answer guides the individual through the third
phase: sharing results. A no answer at this stage provides two possible courses: try
again, or try something else. A yes response to willing to try again leads individuals
back to the action phase and the process begins all over again. A no response to
wanting to try something else leads to the individual receiving encouragement and
support from the leader.
The flow chart proposed by Rickey’s research, provides a non linear process
to help individual teachers make change. Rickey suggests that leaders working with
their teachers through this change process should use a supportive and collaborative
approach. One key factor that Rickey’s model poses is the reflective opportunities
for leaders and teachers. As leaders and teachers work through the model, taking
opportunities to reflect on progress made and objectives met, are encouraged.
Finally, the model gives flexibility to participants to enter at any point in the model
and to progress through at the rate of speed that is most comfortable and/or most
appropriate for specific dilemmas.
Educational Equity
At the Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education
(CREATE), Guthrie, (2010) is currently analyzing data results from an intensive
program instituted in the Garden Grove Unified School District. The program
focused on middle school Hispanic ELs specifically. CREATE’s aim was to increase
73
long term ELs’ success rate at the high school level. The program is structured in a
linear and sequential fashion, and thus far has encouraging results for researchers as
its preliminary results seem promising in helping to effectively close the educational
equity gap.
The pilot program addressed Hispanic ELs specifically. CREATE’s (2010)
program is designed to engage long-term EL students with school, provide them with
the academic language and skills they need to succeed in middle school, high school,
and beyond. The program’s strategies targeted improvement of ELs’ skills primarily
in building an academic vocabulary, while nurturing students’ skills in note-taking,
time management, and study and social skill development. Throughout the
coursework, ELs received targeted rigorous instruction in the development of
academic English literacy, reading, writing, and vocabulary as well.
Through the course of two calendar years, the schools involved in the pilot
program identified strong EL candidates from the program. It involved 115 seventh
grade students in multiple school sites. Fidelity of the implementation was ensured
by implementing standardized recruiting techniques and procedures, and by
consistent and continuous regular school visits.
The program included a prescribed seventh grade curriculum in addition to
the state mandated seventh grade curriculum, a college readiness path composed of
middle school English language development courses for intermediate ELs. The
goal was to accelerate academic language acquisition and entrance to college
preparatory high school coursework. ELs in the program registered for Spanish for
74
Spanish Speakers courses that were made available starting in middle school as
pathway to AP Spanish in high school.
During summer bridge sessions in sixth and seventh grades, language
development courses overlay college preparatory coursework getting students ready
for the rigors of ninth grade college preparatory coursework. Content area teachers
and the pilot program instructors received support in release time to collaborate and
to plan instruction and activities for the pilot program students. These supportive
sessions proved critical for teachers’ needs to help them meet their students’
academic needs. An additional key support that benefited students was the use of
academic tutors in their pilot courses. The tutors met regularly with students to help
academic skills, and build social capital. In addition, teachers involved in the pilot
received instructional support and curriculum coaching throughout the program.
Perhaps most importantly, teachers received continuous training and staff
development support. Teachers were actively involved in yearly curriculum training,
specific periodic curriculum articulation sessions with regular content teachers,
regular visits from program coaches, and other training, articulation, collaboration as
necessary. Content area specific training sessions were refined to ensure that
students received instruction that allowed student access to academic rigorous
coursework.
As discussed above, the preliminary data show promising results for the
college readiness program. Under this instructional model, the Hispanic ELs
consistently outperformed their white counterparts, based on grade point averages,
75
district benchmarks in math, English, science and social science, and CST test scores
in math, English, science, and social science. Following the pedagogical model as
proposed by Guthrie (2010), should empower RUSD to replicate similar results in
their Hispanic EL student population. Increasing academic rigor, while
simultaneously scaffolding academic instruction in ways that minority students are
provided access to the curriculum, will yield increased student performance. The
lessons to be learned from the college readiness model are that EL students need
scaffolds and support to gain access to rigorous content classes in order to actively
participate in American education. Hispanic ELs, like all other students, will
perform to the level of their teachers’ expectations.
District Office Support
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be accomplished without the consistent support of the district office. This
section presents supporting literature for the role of the district office in guiding
schools sites in being able to close the achievement gap. “A district’s ability to
support ambitious instructional reform is viewed primarily as a capacity to learn the
substantive ideas at the heart of the new reform and to help teachers and others
within the district to learn these ideas” (Spillane & Thompson, 1998, p. 5). In an era
of high stakes accountability RUSD must find a way to stand by their belief in
decentralization while facilitating the necessary support needed to close the Hispanic
achievement gap.

76
The Role of the District Office
The topics of improving education usually involves deep conversation about
what teachers are or are not doing or what the school provides or doesn’t provide.
What is usually not part of a discussion on improving education, is the role that the
district office plays in supporting the teachers and school sites with closing the
achievement gap. Traditionally the district office is looked at as a management
machine. It is thought of as bureaucratic and not at all connected to the daily
academic practices of the school sites. The district office is seen as big brother
ensuring compliance and procedures but not necessarily as being the champion of
professional growth and student centered decision-making. The irony of overlooking
the district office is that the district office is one of the fundamental components to
what makes schools successful and student achievement possible.
Elmore wrote an extensive research paper in 2000 titled ‘Building a New
Structure for School Leadership’ looking at how standards based reform had
impacted policy and practice. In this work Elmore addresses the role of the central
district office. He states that, “Organizations that improve do so because they create
and nurture agreement on what is worth achieving, and they set in motion the
internal processes by which people progressively learn how to do what they need to
do in order to achieve what is worthwhile” (p. 25). Elmore (2000) also defines the
term ‘loose coupling’ when describing the lack of attention to daily curricular issues
by the district office. Elmore describes the idea of ‘loose coupling’ as being the idea
that the power of educational decision-making “…resides in individual classrooms,
77
not in the organizations that surround them” (2000, p. 6). Elmore suggest that loose
coupling is the reason why the role of the district office is often overlooked.
In ‘Bringing the District Back In: The Role of the Central Office in
Improving Instruction and Student Achievement’ MacIver and Farley, (2003)
reported that, “More recent studies of districts identified as high performing, relative
to the poverty level of their students, have been conducted in Texas (Ragland, Asera,
& Johnson, 1999; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000) and North Carolina (Public
Schools of North Carolina, 2000). The common themes emerging from these studies
in relatively high-performing or improving districts largely echoed those of Murphy
and Hallinger (2003). They included: 1) a climate of urgency regarding improved
achievement for all students; 2) a sense that achievement was the primary
responsibility of every staff member in the district; 3) a shared sense of the central
office as a support and service organization for the schools; 4) a primary focus on
improving instruction, accompanied by a high level of resources devoted to coherent
professional development linked to research-based practices; 5) focused attention on
analysis and alignment of curriculum, instructional practice and assessment; 6)
professional development for principals in interpreting data to make good
instructional decisions” (2003, p. 6). These findings are critical in stressing how
important the district office is in the supporting schools in the efforts that are
necessary for student achievement and the closing of the achievement gap.
Massell, (2000) provides a policy brief reviewing the research that the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) conducted and examines the
78
role of districts in building capacity. Over a two year time period CPRE conducted
observations in twenty-two school districts within eight states including California.
Massell’s article outlines the four major strategies for capacity building that came
from the CPRE researchers. These strategies include:
• Interpreting and using data;
• Building teacher knowledge and skills;
• Aligning curriculum and instruction;
• Targeting interventions on low-performing students and/or schools.
(Massell, 2000 p. 1)
Massell provides a solid argument for why the district office should not be
overlooked. Massell points out that although the schools are the focal point of
accountability measures, districts should not be dismissed as they “...are the major
source of capacity-building for schools-structuring, providing, and controlling access
to professional development, curriculum and instructional ideas, more and more
qualified staff, relationships with external agents and so on. What districts do
influences how schools as organizations address the performance goals set by states,
whether or not they have the necessary capacity to do so” (Massell 2000, p. 6).
Foley (2001) published a report titled Contradictions and Control in Systemic
Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools. Foley
provides a detailed report of a five-year evaluation by The Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE) of a comprehensive reform effort that Philadelphia
had put in place. This report examines the role of the district office and the capacity
79
of the district to support such reform. As part of this report Foley provides a section
offering lessons for reforming; Foley’s report points out how the role of the district
office is vital in building a school sites capacity and could highly influence the
choices that individual school sites make to improve academic achievement. Foley
states that the direction a central office decides to go is “…influenced by the
central’s office capacity to support the reforms and their perceptions of school
capacities” (Foley 2001, p. 25).
Additional research by Anderson (2003) reviews the role of the district office
over the years in educational change. The role of the district office has become more
and more important as “…the realization that district influence is unavoidable if not
desirable” (Anderson 2003, pg. 4). Anderson sums up his historical overview by
stating that “… the evidence that districts do matter, and that at least some districts
‘matter’ in powerfully positives ways for student performance in large numbers of
schools and for students of all sorts of backgrounds” (Anderson 2003, p.5).
The potential power to influence student achievement by a district office is
critical to acknowledge. Once the importance of the district office is recognized and
embraced, the district office will be better able to serve and support. The district
office has an immense responsibility to improve education and close all and any
achievement gaps, including those of Hispanic EL learners.
Cultural Proficiency
Rowland Unified has offered its teachers training in English Language
Development and English Learner strategies. It has established EL Leads at every
80
school site, serving as the key person to assist classrooms with addressing EL student
needs. The Bilingual Department at the district level has made a consistent effort to
implement a Master Plan that complies with state law and also addresses EL
instructional needs at school sites. Despite these efforts, Hispanic ELs continue to
lag behind their non-Hispanic EL counterparts. According to the responses received
from some of the interviewees, some of the teachers attributed this achievement gap
to a lack of interest on the part of the Hispanic students’ families. “It’s obvious, the
parents don’t care; they don’t come to parent meetings or take interest in their kids’
learning. Yet you do see the parents of our other EL group participating and
interested.” The inquiry team found both a cultural knowledge gap and negative
teacher attributions towards Hispanic EL students as identified in the previous quote
which impacts Hispanic EL academic achievement at RUSD. Cultural proficiency is
defined as, “a way of being that enables both individuals and organizations to
respond effectively to people who differ from them” (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrel,
2003, p. 5).
Current literature identifies the importance of educators understanding
sociocultural theories of learning in order to adequately address diverse learning
needs, in this particular instance, Hispanic EL student needs. RUSD is implementing
research based, effective teaching practices to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery.
However, the inquiry team is recommending not only aligning these instructional
efforts with increasing educators’ sociocultural competence so that strategies and
pedagogy are increased, but also addressing teachers’ negative attributions about
81
Hispanic EL students. In essence, it is essential that instructional and pedagogical
factors are considered in light of cultural practices in the homes and community.
There are interesting examples in the literature of how some schools have been able
to integrate cultural considerations into meaningful pedagogy, and these will be
briefly described in the following section as possible models for the district to
examine. These include work on attribution theory, funds of knowledge approaches,
cultural modeling and notions of “third space” which all involve understanding the
Hispanic EL cultural perspective to enhance the students’ educational experience at
school with the ultimate goal of increasing academic achievement.
Attribution Theory
Teacher attribution knowledge suggests that teachers attempt to explain low
or unexpected academic achievement outcomes of their students by looking at
potential causes such as students’ prior achievement, difficulty of current task, or
effort placed towards the completion of a task (Weiner, 1986). Additionally,
according to Weiner (2000), success and failure in achievement occurs within a
social context comprised of teachers, peers and family. Motivation to do well or not
is attributed to the perceptions these individuals hold of the student: their beliefs
about the student’s ability to succeed or fail. Moreover, “teachers’ emotional and
behavioral reactions to their students’ academic outcomes have a direct impact on
the behavior of their students, influencing children’s future actions and self
perceptions” (Clark & Artiles, 2000, pg. 77). Thus, it is key teachers understand the
impact their perceptions of students have on motivation and in turn, student
82
achievement. Once this concept is addressed and understood, then educators may
move towards increasing their cultural knowledge and more effectively address the
Hispanic EL student needs within RUSD. Therefore, it is important that the district
provide professional development for increasing teachers’ cultural knowledge of
their students within the context of the deep impact their personal perceptions has on
student achievement.
Funds of Knowledge
Work on “funds of knowledge” began as a response to deficit views of
students from diverse language and cultural backgrounds. Simply stated, this
perspective considers the everyday knowledge of families and communities as
resources which can be used in instruction rather than as deficits to be overcome.
Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd-Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzales, and Amanti (1993), have
argued that some schools generally view working-class minority households as not
providing students with socially and intellectually rich resources. Thus, educators
have blamed this disadvantage as a means to justify lowered learning expectations.
These researchers also suggest that overall, educators have negated to utilize as a
foundation, the knowledge these students bring to school from their homes by
emphasizing instead what these students lack in terms of language and knowledge.
By understanding the accumulated knowledge base from each home, teachers have
formed curriculum units that tap into their students’ funds of knowledge (Gonzalez
et al., 1993).
83
Technically, Funds of Knowledge Theory considers the vital knowledge and
skills households need to function (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). It is a
developed and accumulated skill set of abilities, ideas or practices that enable a
family to function. Thus, the goal of funds of knowledge is to connect classroom
instruction with communities with the end of providing “classroom instruction that
far exceeds in quality to the rote-like instruction that children commonly encounter
in schools” (Hattam et. al., 2007, p. 2). Hattam et. al., (2007) suggest accomplishing
this task by educators conducting an analysis of students’ households, providing
educators with the time to think about their findings, determine how to utilize the
knowledge pedagogically and incorporate opportunities within the classroom setting
that connect student home life with school life. The ultimate goal of the funds of
knowledge research is to maximize student learning, particularly that of minority low
SES students by ensuring they can engage and identify with the curriculum content
which will lead to increased student interest and motivation for learning (Hattam et.
al., 2007).
In the original work, one avenue to comprehend students’ funds of
knowledge was conducting home visits with an emphasis on understanding the
sociopolitical and economic context of the households and analyzing their social
history (Gonzalez et al., 1993). This served as one important way to gain insight into
the household history as it provided information regarding origins, development, and
labor history; all of which reveal some of the home’s funds of knowledge.
Additionally, another purpose of these home visits by teachers was to determine how
84
families developed social networks, connected them with other households, built
trust and thus exchanged resources, including funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al.,
1993). An important factor of these social exchanges was found to be their
reciprocity. “Reciprocity presents an attempt to establish a social relationship on an
enduring basis. Whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, the exchange expresses and
symbolizes human social interdependence” (Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 1992, p.
142). In essence, these interactions are based on the foundation of mutual trust
(confianza).
Gonzalez et al. (1993) state that a transformative effect of the funds of
knowledge is to supplant the idea that working-class minority students lack
worthwhile knowledge and experiences, with the idea that these households can
foster a child’s cognitive development with a wide range of diverse skills. “Any of
the numerous funds of knowledge found within the households could form the basis
for curriculum units in science, math, language arts, and other subjects” (Gonzalez et
al., 1993, p. 8). It is vital that educators not simply learn about their students’ funds
of knowledge, but use it within the classroom pedagogy (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992). This is not an easy task, which is why Gonzalez et al. (1993)
suggest providing teachers with time and support to collaborate so that theory
becomes practice. These sessions of teacher collaboration can maximize student
learning by conceptualizing the pedagogical connection between classroom
standards students must master and the foundational knowledge base of students’
households.
85
While the original work focused on teacher visits to homes, and then
collaborative meetings where the information was integrated into instruction, there
may be a variety of ways to accomplish the same goals. The overall idea, however,
is first of all to focus on actual cultural practices of students and families rather than
on assumptions about generalized traits, and second, to use the cultural resources of
students and families as vehicles to promote instructional goals. Familiarity with this
work may be of help to the district in thinking about one way to develop targeted
professional development to effectively address the cultural issues in the schools.
Cultural Modeling
Another potentially useful way for thinking about cultural issues is based on
the work that has been done on cultural modeling. Cultural modeling attempts to
increase students’ comprehension of subject matter by connecting new concepts to
the knowledge they have formed in their homes and communities. The aim of
Cultural Modeling is to facilitate students’ learning generative concepts in academic
subject matters by helping them to make connections between the target knowledge
and forms of knowledge they have constructed from their home and community
(Lee, Rosenfeld, Mendenhall, Rivers, & Tynes, 2003, p. 42). Thus, instructional
design should involve a combination of the academic curricular task and daily
practices familiar to students. Similar to the funds of knowledge approach, the
ultimate goal of Cultural Modeling is to make recognizable connections for students
between the home and school content. Orellana and Eksner (2005), define Cultural
Modeling as a framework for curriculum design that builds explicitly on non-
86
dominant students’ resources by making connections between disciplinary constructs
and students’ cultural funds of knowledge. In effectively doing so, it is essential that
educators understand the academic discipline well enough to determine how to
incorporate cultural perspectives effectively so that students’ social, conceptual and
linguistic backgrounds are addressed within the curriculum.
It is noteworthy to mention that Cultural Modeling is not cultural matching in
that the latter attempts to align discourse, norms, values of the home with school
(Orellana & Eksner, 2005). This approach is not only difficult, but often done
superficially. True Cultural Modeling, according to Orellana and Eksner, (2005)
involves modeling highlights of the generative role of the cultural funds of
knowledge and the targeted ways in which a particular skill set can be utilized in
another setting. It is key to incorporate students’ everyday experiences into the
curriculum. This is referred to as cultural data sets. Examples of such data sets
include dialogues or rap lyrics. By using these familiar data sets, students can draw
upon their habits of mind into an academic setting and make explicit connections to
the instruction. “They identify strategies for meaning-making as they move from
analyzing personally meaningful texts to canonical works of literature” (Orellana &
Eksner, 2005, p. 55).
Cultural Modeling, as funds of knowledge research, draws upon the rich
resources non-dominant students bring to the classroom, which is often undermined
or diminished. Lee, et al. (2003) stress the importance of challenging deficit
framings of immigrant, minority students. Additionally, Cultural Modeling looks at
87
the positives of bilingualism, considering code switching as a fundamental language
and literacy skill for English Learners, a skill often discouraged within classroom
settings (Orellana & Eksner, 2005). When Cultural Modeling is done effectively,
then classrooms become learning environments where students can make an explicit
connection to the content being taught; they use personal knowledge gained from
their home to develop disciplinary knowledge and problem solving skills (Lee et al.,
2003). Cultural modeling approaches may represent another fruitful way that the
district might consider with respect to cultural factors in the classroom by providing
teachers time to understand the community, collaborate findings in grade
level/subject teams, and develop lesson plans that align cultural modeling practices
into the standards based curriculum across content areas.
Third Space
The third approach the inquiry team suggests the district may consider to
address the Hispanic EL cultural factors in the classroom is Gutierrez’ (2008), social
construct of “Third Space.” According to the author, Third Space challenges
traditional conceptions of academic literacy and instruction for minority students and
replaces these with forms of literacy that involve students’ sociohistorical lives
(Gutierrez, 2008). The Third Space construct attempts to transform the current
educational system into a more equitable system for all students. The key idea of
third space is that learning environments are socially constructed in interaction
between all participants: teachers and students. An “in- between” social space for
learning that bridges everyday knowledge and academic knowledge can be socially
88
constructed when teachers and students do not share cultural understandings and
practices (Gutierrez, 2008). Thus, there is a building on students’ existing
knowledge and cultural practices while attaining key academic goals.
Gutierrez, (1995) defines sociocultural knowledge as an understanding of the
contexts in which students learn, that is, what students learn, how that knowledge is
transmitted, who is present in the learning activity, and which goals and motives
drive the learning; the acquisition of academic discourse is a socially mediated
process” (Gutierrez,1995, p. 22). To maximize learning, Gutierrez (1995) argues
that a degree of reciprocity must exist between the teacher and students in terms of
roles held in the classroom context, social roles, and classroom activities. In doing
so, planned lessons and activities should consider the following factors: who, what,
goals/values, how and purpose or motives (Gutierrez, 1995). Additionally, these oral
interactions should take the form of varied structures such as tutorials,
comprehension circles, writing conferences, theater, mini-lessons and whole group
discussions (Gutierrez, 2008).
A second factor influencing learning is classroom discourse. Gutierrez
(1995) defines classroom discourse as an “instantiation of culture, where the
classroom discourse is considered constitutive of classroom culture, an instantiation
of the culture of the classroom” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 26). Thus, classroom activities
become examples of the type of discourse within a classroom setting, revealing the
connection between the student and classroom culture. Therefore, in order for
students to effectively participate in classroom discourse, they must understand how
89
to participate in the classroom community’s activities. Gutierrez (1995) suggests
that Latino children require knowledge of the nature of the classroom discourse.
Thus, children need to be taught the social and physical arrangement of classroom
activities and be socialized through instruction as to the forms and uses of language
and behaviors associated with successful participation in these activities. “Variance
in competence might be understood to be the result of students’ access to and
participation in varying activities, classroom participation structures, and forms of
classroom discourse. Of importance then, is the degree to which students have
access to both linguistic and social knowledge embedded in and transmitted by the
discourse of the classroom” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 27). Therefore, Gutierrez (1995)
states that student learning is dependent upon students’ understanding of how they
can participate within the classroom setting, including the role they hold, their
membership within the classroom environment, types of interactions held and their
use of oral and written language. This understanding is developed through
participation in meaningful classroom discourse where “competence is bidirectional,
involving both students and teacher” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 29).
Conclusion
Educators have an important role in impacting student achievement. At the
same time, educators face obstacles in education, including understanding the
various cultural backgrounds of their students well enough so that all students have
access to the curriculum. Additionally, it is vital educators understand their impact
on student learning, including how their perceptions of students, attribution, can
90
affect student motivation for learning. Teachers thus require support to face these
challenges and effectively educate the diverse students in their classrooms.
Addressing the cultural knowledge gap of educators within RUSD by initially
addressing teachers’ negative attribution of students is essential to close the Hispanic
EL achievement gap in the district.
91
CHAPTER THREE
PART B: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be achieved without the targeted effort and consistent support of the district
office. Decentralized and centralized districts alike are being called upon to find
ways to provide guidance and on-going sustainable support to their schools and site
staffs. RUSD is a decentralized district that prides itself in the achievements gained
by the independent, free-thinking freedom that decentralization fosters.
As an inquiry team there are three distinct areas where we offer possible
solutions that will be compliant with Rowland USD’s decentralized structure. The
first area we offer as a solution is a focus on the research that explains the
importance of the time that is takes to see a district reform through from a strategic
start to a successful finish. A second area with possible solutions is to understand
what the most current literature and case study’s say about the positive contributions
that happen at a school site when the district office is the common source of support.
The third area that we offer as a possible solution is the importance of cultural
proficiency in a district with a larger population of Hispanic English Learners.
Change Processes
Districts throughout the country are trying to find the one size fits all, quick
fix to the achievement gap that with every passing year becomes a more
insurmountable task. As the clock ticks to 2014 the desperation to find solutions
increases. What many districts do not understand is what seems to be a logical
92
choice of trying something new, is actually detrimental and counterproductive to the
goal of closing the achievement gap. Any district taking on a reform effort must do
their due diligence in not only researching the reform effort that has been selected
but also researching and understanding the amount of time they must commit to give
to that particular reform in order to see the fruit of their labor.
Turnaround Change is a highly effective systemic approach at creating
disruptions in failing educational processes. By introducing disruptive events in
everyday practices and decision making processes, turnaround change aims to alter
an organization’s direction. It brings about dramatic, notable change within
struggling school districts. By purposefully altering the course of underperforming
school districts, Turnaround Change alters existing procedures causing dramatic
shifts in organizational structures and pedagogy to increase student performance.
Reeves, (2009) cites that turnaround change is costly, takes time, commitment, and is
not always immediately visible. “Significant returns in turnaround were most
notable in schools that committed to changes, invested with fidelity aiming at long
term results and made change possible at the district level” (Reeves, 2009). In
addition, Boyne states it best when he proposes that, “a firm in a turnaround situation
faces a stark choice between strategic change that may lead to recovery and strategic
persistence that is likely to result in outright failure” (Boyne, 2006, p. 6).
In addition, Pappano, (2010) has stated that school turnaround is about rapid
and dramatic improvement, and that these are not just improvements in test scores,
but also in culture, and student aspirations. Rueda, Monzo, and Arzubiaga, (2003)
93
cite that the real issues affecting various schools can best be described as a problem
of fit. Rueda, Monzo and Arzubiaga, (2003) explain that to generate any type of
reaction from the students, parents, or other stakeholders, the pressing issues must be
perceived as immediate and concretely impacting their community. Rueda, Monzo
and Arzubiaga (2003), argue that all families posses cultural and social capital,
however, it does not always line up to that set of values that schools value (2009).
Rueda, Monzo and Arzubiaga propose that parental perceptions of home literacy
practices and schools’ literacy demands must be negotiated between the families and
educators to maximize buy in. This research clearly supports our team’s findings
that RUSD’s work must focus on improving the connections between the home
culture and the school culture. Enriching the relationships between the district and
the RUSD community will foster a more positive learning environment. Enabling
students, parents, and staff, to share the responsibility of improving student
outcomes, will enable stakeholders to take ownership of student performance
progress.
Rickey (2010) proposes a process for structural change. Rickey presents a
practical model for systemic change grounded in supportive coaching and reflective
practice focusing on the promotion, development, and nurturing of teacher
leadership. One key characteristic is the minimal costs to operate and sustain the
model. A key factor while considering Rickey’s model, is the model’s potential to
enhance the current Communities of Practice Model that is currently in place in
RUSD. Additionally, Rickey’s (2010) model of a reflective, inquiry based coaching
94
model process, seems like a perfect fit in RUSD for two major reasons. First,
Rickey’s (2010) model seems to fit as an extension of RUSD’s current reflective
work with the Ball Foundation’s grant. One major benefit is that Ball has already
established the philosophical foundation for Rickey’s model and subsequent work in
RUSD. Staff resistance to Rickey’s approach will be minimal. Secondly, fiscal
impacts to RUSD will also be minimal because RUSD’s organizational structure will
not be altered in any way. RUSD’s employment of EL LEADS should facilitate a
smooth adoption and transition into the implementation phase of Rickey’s model.
The additional coaching responsibilities placed on EL Leads will produce rich
professional experiences and will foster a professional learning community (PLC).
Existing research on PLCs points to positive results for districts which commit to the
process and do it with fidelity.
An EL college readiness pilot is in numerous local districts. Currently,
Garden Grove, Montebello, and Whittier districts are implementing versions of a
well thought out curriculum which has produced significant results with long term
ELs. Although successful, it is costly in the areas of teacher training and
professional development. However, this inherent requirement in the turnaround and
change processes supports the calls for effective leadership, constant teacher
collaboration, and continuous data analyses of student outcomes, (Reeves, 2009,
Marzano 2003, CDE, 2010, Boyne, 2006, Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga, 2003,
DuFour, 2004). The successful approaches described by these researchers highlight
the level of commitment and fidelity that turnaround change takes. An additional
95
consideration that must be taken with this model is its need to sustain effective,
consistent implementation. Fidelity is a significant requirement in this approach.
The results, however, seem promising. This EL model is grounded in the
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) approach. AVID models have
been significantly successful in closing achievement gaps within minority student
subgroups.
The key to AVID’s success in promoting student academic success may lie in
the uniform approach to making a rigorous academic curriculum, with extensive
student scaffolds and supports accessible to all students. Essentially, student
expectations are consistently held at rigorous levels. In the AVID model, all students
are held accountable for their academic preparation in all content areas. Students
receive consistent and continuous academic support from their teachers, tutors, and
their peers. Classroom instruction is delivered using researched based strategies
which promote student critical thinking in a collaborative classroom setting where
students are consistently challenged, yet supported. Students are consistently
encouraged and enabled to exceed above expected levels of performance. The AVID
model empowers students, teachers, and schools to alter the underperformance
cultures that exist in many failing American schools.
District Support
More recent reform necessitates a pedagogy that focuses on teaching,
learning and content. These reforms lead by NCLB are based off the premise that
teaching requires deep content knowledge. Because of these underlined assumptions
96
these reforms are heavily dependent on the local capacity of districts to create and
implement policies that will not only support, but more importantly sustain
instructional improvements towards closing the achievement gap. This shift in the
level of instruction has created the need for school districts to self-reflect on their
contributions to their ability to increase and sustain high quality instruction.
Traditionally district offices have not been looked at as the point of origin for
change and academic growth. Elmore attributes this lack of recognizing the role of
the district office to the concept coined “loose coupling” The idea of loose coupling
states that the core of educational decision making “…resides in individual
classrooms, not in the organizations that surround them” (Elmore, 2000, p. 5). This
perception is what has hindered district offices from stepping up to the key
leadership role that is needed.
With the deadline for NCLB looming and the current sense of urgency to
raise student achievement, districts have been placed in a unique situation to have to
evaluate the one area that is usually looked over, themselves. District wide reform
has been the educational choice as the plan of action throughout the country. For
many districts looking at how they support and lead their schools towards academic
growth is a key reform effort in itself. MacIver and Farley, (2003) found that the
role of a district was critical in building a school’s capacity. This is why it is
important to look at the literature that describes how central offices go about creating
systemic change and building capacity. This becomes even more crucial to districts
like Rowland USD that are decentralized.
97
If, as history points out, school districts in general have not been the focus of
attention when looking at closing achievement gaps, then a decentralized district
would be an even less likely candidate for focused attention. We suggest as a
solution that the district office become the primary focal point for any district reform
irrespective of being decentralized. In looking at the powerful contributions of
district offices to individual site successes it will become evident that providing
coherent and sustainable support with district guidance will help the individual sites
be successful.
MacIver and Farley (2003) reviewed literature on the impact of district
support on school achievement. They found that in our current state educational
system, schools are in need of an effective intermediary between the schools and the
state. In addition there was a study that took place over two years, looking at seven
states and twenty-two districts by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(CPRE). Their research found that the district’s role was vital in building a school
sites capacity and could highly influence the choices that individual school sites
made to make to improve academic achievement (Massell, 2000).
Cultural Proficiency
As a third solution we suggest that the district office look at a way of being
that enable both individuals and organizations to respond effectively to people who
differ from them. RUSD is implementing research based, effective teaching practices
to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery. However, the inquiry team is
recommending aligning these instructional efforts with increasing educators’
98
sociocultural competence so that not only strategies, but also pedagogy is increased.
In essence, it is essential that instructional and pedagogical factors are considered in
light of cultural practices in the homes and community. Examples exist in the
literature of how some schools have been able to integrate cultural considerations
into meaningful pedagogy.
The literature presents examples of how some schools have been able to
integrate cultural considerations into meaningful pedagogy. These models, funds of
knowledge, cultural modeling, and third space are briefly described as possible
models for the district to examine.
Funds of Knowledge research considers the everyday knowledge of families
and communities as resources which can be used in instruction rather than as deficits
to be overcome. Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd-Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzales, and
Amanti (1993), have argued that some schools generally view working-class
minority households as not providing students with socially and intellectually rich
resources. In the original work, home visits were conducted to gain insight into the
household history, social networks, connections to other households, trust building
and exchanging resources, including funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 1993).
Cultural Modeling presents another potentially useful way for thinking about
cultural issues. The aim of Cultural Modeling is to facilitate students’ learning about
academic concepts by helping them make connections between the knowledge they
have constructed from their home and community with the knowledge presented at
the school site (Lee, Rosenfeld, Mendenhall, Rivers, & Tynes, 2003). Instructional
99
design should involve a combination of the academic curricular task and daily
practices familiar to students.
Lastly, Third Space, as presented by Gutierrez, (1995) involves a classroom
setting that explicitly reveals the connection between the student and classroom
culture. Gutierrez (1995) states that student learning is dependent upon students’
understanding of how they can participate within the classroom setting, including the
role they hold, their membership within the classroom environment, types of
interactions held and their use of oral and written language. This understanding is
developed through participation in meaningful classroom discourse where
“competence is bidirectional, involving both students and teacher” (Gutierrez, 1995,
p. 29).
Conclusion
This section of the current literature focused on empirically based educational
strategies that may assist in narrowing the Hispanic achievement gap. The purpose
of this literature was to present solutions of effective, sound educational practices to
address the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. Additionally, this literature
presented pertinent information educators should understand as the basis for the
Hispanic EL gap and utilize this information to adequately differentiate Hispanic EL
instruction.
100
GLOSSARY
Academic Language: The language and vocabulary associated with education and
requires use of higher-order thinking skills. It is the language of texts and
formal language. It mostly consists of the language functions needed for
academic content.
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same
type and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in
terms of students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible
for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for
their success or lack of success in doing so. In education, accountability is
currently thought to require measurable proof that teachers, schools, districts,
and states are teaching students efficiently and well, usually in the form of
student success rates on various tests. In recent years, most accountability
programs have involved adoption of state curriculum standards and required
state tests based on the standards. Many political leaders and educators
support this approach, believing that it brings clarity of focus and is
improving achievement. Others argue that, because standardized tests cannot
possibly measure all the important goals of schooling, accountability systems
101
should be more flexible and use other types of information, such as dropout
rates and samples of student work.
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of
academic success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is
not unique to any ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among
African Americans and Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are
multifaceted. They do to some degree stem from factors the children bring
with them to school; however, other factors contribute to the gap stem from
students’ school experiences.
Achievement Test: Tests used to measure how much a student has learned in various
school subjects. Most students take several standardized achievement tests,
such as the California Achievement Tests and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills.
These norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests are intended to measure
students' achievement in the basic subjects found in most school districts'
curriculum and textbooks. Results are used to compare the scores of
individual students and schools with others—those in the area, across the
state, and throughout the United States.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives
102
funding under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional
development, and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the
educational program’s objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing
and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping
out or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-
income, and homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs
students with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile
crime, unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to
increase a youth's risk factor.
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement
expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
Bilingual Education: The use of two or more languages for instruction. In the United
States, students in most bilingual classes or programs are those who have not
acquired full use of the English language, so they are taught academic content
in their native language (usually Spanish) while continuing to learn English.
103
Brown v. Board of Education: The case heard by the United States Supreme Court in
1954 in which racial segregation in public schools was held to be
unconstitutional.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content
standards.
Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a
cohort might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary
curriculum by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want
to track their progress into high school to identify differences in success of
students in the cohort compared with students who had attended conventional
classes in the same school.
Collaboration: A relationship between individuals or organizations that enables the
participants to accomplish goals more successfully than they could have
separately. Educators are finding that they must collaborate with others to
deal with increasingly complex issues. For example, schools and school
systems often form partnerships with local businesses or social service
agencies. Many schools teach students how to work with others on group
projects. Some educators call this collaborative learning, although it is more
commonly known as cooperative learning.
Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
104
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization
that promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different
designs, each featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional
development programs, meaningful parental and community involvement,
and a supportive school environment.
Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated
students are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they
show they have the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that
unmotivated students often progress more slowly than they would in regular
classes.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Core Curriculum: The body of knowledge that all students are expected to learn.
High schools often require a core curriculum that may include, for example,
four years of English, three years of science and mathematics, two or three
years of history, one or two years of a foreign language, and one year of
health studies. Courses that are not required are called electives.
105
Critical Thinking: Logical thinking based on sound evidence; the opposite of biased,
sloppy thinking. Some people take the word critical to mean negative and
faultfinding, but philosophers consider it to mean thinking that is skillful and
responsible. A critical thinker can accurately and fairly explain a point of
view that he does not agree with.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district. Curriculum
documents often also include detailed directions or suggestions for teaching
the content. Curriculum may refer to all the courses offered at a given school,
or all the courses offered at a school in a particular area of study. For
example, the English curriculum might include English literature, literature,
world literature, essay styles, creative writing, business writing, Shakespeare,
modern poetry, and the novel. The curriculum of an elementary school
usually includes language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other
subjects.
Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum
and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and
standardized test data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function,
quality, and quantity of inputs and how students learn suggest educational
solutions.
Decentralization: The deliberate reassignment of decision-making authority from
states or districts to local schools based on the beliefs that people who are
closest to a situation make better decisions and that people work hardest
106
when implementing their own decisions. The primary vehicle for school
decentralization in recent decades has been site-based management, under
which decision-making authority has been delegated to local schools, often
accompanied by a requirement that schools establish representative school
councils.
Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can
be compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire
student population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine
how minority students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores
of girls compare with those for boys.
Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through
its focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In
contemporary practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate
within the field relates to this tension.
Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a
common misconception that this means it is organizing an educational
system; rather, it deals with the theory of organization as it applies to
education of the human mind.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): U.S. legislation passed in 1965
that provided large amounts of federal aid to states and local districts as part
of the larger War on Poverty. ESEA must be reauthorized periodically by the
107
Congress. The most well-known provision of ESEA is Title I, which targets
funding to schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged
children in order to improve their educational opportunities. The 2002
version requires that states administer annual tests in math and reading for all
students in grades 3 through 8; schools failing to produce sufficient
improvements in student test scores will be subject to sanctions. Advocates of
these testing provisions argue that they are necessary to ensure that all
children receive a quality education; others argue, however, that such tests
are not an accurate measure of educational quality and that the accountability
provisions will compel teachers to teach to the test, narrowing the curriculum
and focusing on rote learning.
English as a Second Language (ESL): Teaching English to non-English-speaking or
limited-English-proficient (LEP) students to help them learn and succeed in
schools. ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) has generally the
same meaning as ESL.
English Language Learner (ELL): A student whose first language is other than
English and who is in a special program for learning English (which may be
bilingual education or English as a second language).
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student
achievement in that area.
108
Generalizable knowledge: information where the intended use of the research
findings can be applied to populations or situations beyond that studied.
Hispanic: The term Hispanic was first adopted by the United States government in
the early 1970s, during the administration of Richard Nixon, and has since
been used in local and federal employment, mass media, academia, and
business market research. It has been used in the U.S. Census since 1980.
Hispanic defines a region of origin, not a person’s race. It’s a term referring
to a person of Latin American descent living in the United States.
Historically, areas conquered by the Spaniards were considered part of a
region originally called Hispania. Modern countries which can trace their
history to Spain are now considered to be Hispanic, and include Mexico,
Central America, and most of South America where Spanish is the primary
language. The only exception to this Hispanic designation is Brazil, which
was settled by Portugal, not Spain. Any citizen of those countries originally
colonized by Spain can be considered Hispanic. People from Mexico, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and other areas south of the American border
would all be considered Hispanic. Often the term "Hispanic" is used
synonymously with the word "Latino", and frequently with "Latin" as well.
Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are not
completely synonymous. (Also see Latino)
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
109
Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group in
the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the
area of curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources
so that the school’s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-
one, small-group and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear
and articulated vision for the educational institution.
Latino: Latinos are speakers of romance languages (Spanish) and by definition are
Latins. Because of the popularity of "Latino" in the western portion of the
United States, the government adopted this term in 1997, and used it in the
2000 census. "Latino" is very close in meaning to Hispanic, but it also
includes other countries such as Brazil. The regional description "Latin
America" now refers to the countries where Romance languages (Spanish,
Portuguese) are spoken. (Also see Hispanic)
Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Students: Students who are reasonably fluent in
another language but who have not yet achieved comparable mastery in
reading, writing, listening, or speaking English. LEP students are often
assigned to bilingual education or English-as-a-second-language (ESL)
classes.
Low-Performing Schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income
rural areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet
established standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools.
Some observers believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they
110
say, the real failure is society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper
student learning. Others point out that some schools, called effective schools,
succeed in teaching low-income children, so others could do it too. Because
policies increasingly focus on such schools, and because test scores usually
vary from year to year rather than going steadily up or down, state and
national officials have devoted considerable attention to procedures for
deciding which schools should be declared low-performing.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA
programs provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. (Also see
“Elementary and Secondary Education Act”)
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a
less experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.
Pedagogy: The art of teaching—especially the conscious use of particular
instructional methods. If a teacher uses a discovery approach rather than
direct instruction, for example, she is using a different pedagogy.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it
from a set of possible answers provided for them. A form of assessment that
111
is designed to assess what students know through their ability to perform
certain tasks.
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire
the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully. Also
known as staff development, this term refers to experiences, such as attending
conferences and workshops that help teachers and administrators build
knowledge and skills.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a
row they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of
having all students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are
worthy of study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human
resource system and human capital management, finance and budget,
communications, governance/board relations, labor relations/contract
negotiations, family and community engagement, and strategic plan.
Rigor: Academically challenging.
112
Sampling: In education research, administering a test to and analyzing the test
results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the
entire student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the
representative sample, 22 researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer
important trends in the academic progress of an individual or group of
students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members,
who set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The
governing board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the
district superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee
unions.
School Climate: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular
ways. Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes
children and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of
authoritarian structures where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical
control is strong. Teaching practices, diversity, and the relationships among
administrators, teachers, parents, and students contribute to school climate.
Although the two terms are somewhat interchangeable, school climate refers
mostly to the school's effects on students, whereas school culture refers more
to the way teachers and other staff members work together.
113
School Culture: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular
ways. Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes
children and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of
authoritarian structures where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical
control is strong. Teaching practices, diversity, and the relationships among
administrators, teachers, parents, and students contribute to school climate.
Although the two terms are somewhat interchangeable, school climate refers
mostly to the school's effects on students, whereas school culture refers more
to the way teachers and other staff members work together.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.
Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the
power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the
belief (however accurate or inaccurate) that one has the power to produce that
effect.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English
Learner status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically
114
Disadvantaged: Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or
who participate in the free/reduced price meal program because of low family
income.
Site-Based Decision-making: A system of school governance by which most
decisions, including staffing and spending decisions, are made at the level of
the individual school, rather than at district or other agency level. Also
known as school-based or site-based management. (Schools or sites are not
necessarily whole buildings. In some cases, a building may house several
schools.) Site-based decision-making is frequently confused with
participatory or shared decision-making. Some schools have teams composed
of administrators, teachers, and parents; some include student representatives,
community members, and one or more business partners. Team members
share responsibility for educational, leadership, and administrative functions.
In fact, site-based decision-making does not depend on any particular
arrangements for governance at the school level. Some highly successful
programs assign authority to school principals, who are responsible for
deciding how best to involve others. And shared decision-making tends to be
more successful when local administrators use it voluntarily.
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions. Tests that are administered and
scored under uniform (standardized) conditions.
115
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum. In
current usage, the term usually refers to specific criteria for what students are
expected to learn and be able to do. These standards usually take two forms
in the curriculum:
• Content standards (similar to what were formerly called goals and
objectives), which tell what students are expected to know and be able to
do in various subject areas, such as mathematics and science.
• Performance standards, which specify what levels of learning are
expected. Performance standards assess the degree to which content
standards have been met. The term "world-class standards" refers to the
content and performances that are expected of students in other
industrialized countries. In recent years, standards have also been
developed specifying what teachers should know and be able to do.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school
district’s operations and management.
The Belmont Report: a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice,
and autonomy) for human subjects research by the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged
students based on the number of low-income students in a school. Refers to
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965,
116
which is intended to improve education in high-poverty communities by
targeting extra resources to schools and school districts with the highest
concentrations of poverty. These are areas in which academic performance
tends to be low and the obstacles to raising performance are the greatest.
First enacted as part of the War on Poverty, Title I was known for a while as
Chapter I. ESEA must be periodically reauthorized. The most recent
reauthorized version of the law, named No Child Left Behind, requires states
to administer annual assessments in reading and math for all students in
grades 3–8. Schools will be expected to demonstrate that all students are
making adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency on state standards,
as measured by test scores. Schools not making adequate yearly progress will
be targeted for improvement and they will receive additional assistance from
the state. Schools continuing to not achieve adequate yearly progress will be
subject to sanctions, including reconstitution of staff or conversion to a
charter school.
117
REFERENCES
American Education Act (1974)

Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Anderson, S. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature (ICEC No. 2). Ontario, Canada: International Center for
Educational Change, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.

ASCD. (2010). Educational Terms Defined in ASCD, A lexicon of learning, what
educators mean when they say... Retrieved on December 1, 2010, from
http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Lexicon-of-Learning.aspx.

Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Ball, D.L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers
bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English
language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved June 10, 2010,
from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCa
pacityVol1.

Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2008). Windows on achievement and inequality. Retrieved
from http://www.ets.org on 4/20/2010.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2).

Bensimon, S. (2004). The report card. Phi Delta Kappan. University of Southern
California.

118
Bosniak, L. S. (1996). Opposing prop. 187: undocumented immigrants and the
national imagination. Connecticut Law Review, 28(3), 555-571.

Boyne, G. A. (2006). Strategies for public service turnaround: Lessons from the
private sector? Administration and Society. v. 38, 3 pp. 365-388.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Office of Policy and Programs.
(1998). Proposition 227: A Fact Sheet that focuses on CLAD/BCLAD
Teacher Preparation. Sacramento: CTC

California Department of Education. Language Census 1997.

California Department of Education. (1999). Proposition 227, Survey. Interim
Report. Sacramento: CDE.

California Department of Education. (2008). Taking center stage. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.gov

California Department of Education. (2009). Testing and accountability. Retrieved
from http://www/ced.ca.gov/ta/ on: 4/20/2010.

California Department of Education. (2010). Retrieved on August 14, 2010, from
www.cq.cde.dataquest.gov

California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English
learners: Research-based approaches.

Capps. R., Fix, M., Murray, Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left
Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Carroll, T., Fulton, K., Abercrombie, K., & Yoon, I. (2004). Fifty years after Brown
v. Board of Education: A two-tiered system. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw Hill:
New York, New York.

Clark, M.D., and Artiles, A.J. (Feb. 2000). A cross-national study of teachers’
attributional patterns. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 77-89.
119
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Collier, V.V. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority
student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2),
187-212.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating “no child left behind.” Retrieved from
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond on: 4/27/2010.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

Elmore, R.F. (1993). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Foley, E. (2001, August). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The
ascendancy of the central office in Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy and Research in Education.

Francis, D.J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical
guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based
recommendations fro instruction and academic interventions. The Center on
Instruction: Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the
University of Houston. Retrieved from: www.centeroninstruction.org

Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap:
How to reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fullan, Michael. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
Levittown, PA: Falmer Press.

Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English
learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36).

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T., &
Curry, J. (2000). The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of
English learners. California University, Santa Barbara.
120
Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B., and Scribner, K. (2009). The demographic imperative:
English language learners represent a growing proportion of U S students.
To meet these students’ needs, we must understand who they are. Educational
Leadership Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (v. 66,
7).

Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge. (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Garcia, E. E., Rodriguez, J. E., Curry, E., Stritkus, T. (2000). The Education of
Limited English Proficient Students in California Schools: An Assessment of
the Influence of Proposition 227 in Selected Districts and Schools.
University of California, Berkeley.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English
language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal
of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 10(4), 363-385.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., & Scarcella, R.
(2007). Effective Literacy and English language instruction for English
learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide. (NCEE 2007-4011).
Washington DC: National Center for education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

Giuliani, R. (2002). Leadership, Chapter 4. New York: Hyperion.

Gold, N. (2006). Successful Bilingual Schools: Six Effective Programs in
California. San Diego: San Diego County Office of Education.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: With a million
English learners in schools across the county, it’s important to know what the
research does and does not say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.

Goldenberg, C, Rueda, R.S., & August, D. (2006). Synthesis: Sociocultural contexts
and literacy development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing
literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Children and Youth. (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

121
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzalez, R., &
Amanti, C. (1993). Teacher research on funds of knowledge: Learning from
households. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5tm6x7cm.

Gordon, S. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston: Pearson Education; Allyn and Bacon.

Guthrie, L., F. (2010). Research on AVID’s college success path (csp) project for
English learners. In progress. Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training
in Education. (CREATE).

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N., M. (2006). Influences of stimulating
tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Education
Research, 99(4), 232-246.

Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocultural literacy in the third space.
Reading Research Quarterly, 43 (2). Pp. 148-164.

Gutierrez, K. (1995, June). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the urban
classroom: Constructing a third space. Paper presented at the Fourth
International Literacy and education Research Network Conference on
Learning. Townsville, QLD, Australia.

Hanushek, E. A., and Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public
schools. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Hattam, R., Lucas, B., Prosser, B., & Sellar, S. (2007). Researching the funds of
knowledge approach in middle years. The world of Educational Equality,
AERA Annual Meeting and Presentation, Chicago, April 2007.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6),
6-11.

Hochschild, J. and Scovronic, N. (2004). The American dream and the public
schools. Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY.

Hord, S. M. (1990). Realizing school improvement through understanding the
change process. Issues…about Change. Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory (SEDL). V 1(1).

122
Horwitz, A. R., Uro, G., Price-Baugh, R. et al., (2009). Succeeding with English
Language Learners: Lessons learned from the great city schools. The
Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, DC.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd, V., & Coll, C.G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in
contemporary research. Child Development. 65, 275-282.

Interview with Ms. Okiishi, Bilingual Education Services, Program Director. January
15, 2009.

Johnson, Ruth S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: how to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press, Inc.

Karoly, L. A. and Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21
st
Century at Work: Forces
Shaping the Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., & Provasnick, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Koehler, P. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, more
improvement needed. Retrieved from www/wested.org

Lee, C. D., Rosenfeld, E., Mendenhall, R., Rivers, A., & Tynes, B. (2003). Cultural
modeling as a frame for narrative analysis. Literary Readings Ch. 1.3, pp.
30-61.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress
toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.

Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrel, R. D. (2003). Cultural proficiency: A
manual for school leaders. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

MacIver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (CRESPAR
No. 65). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July
10, 2010, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action.
Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
123
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies.
Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy research in Education. Retrieved
September 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov

Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational
segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions.
University of Cincinnati.

May 11, 2010 http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03_fourth03.asp

McGraner, K. L., & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing Teachers of English Language
Learners. Washington, D.C., National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (Spring 1992). Funds of
knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and
classrooms. Theory into Practice, (31)2, 132-141.

Monzo, L., & Rueda, R. (2009). Passing as English fluent: Latino immigrant
children masking language proficiency. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 40(1), 20-40.

Mora, J. K. (April, 2009). From the ballot box to the classroom: Using state ballot
initiatives to regulate the education of language minority students is like
using a sledgehammer to repair a wristwatch. Educational Leadership.

Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from
organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of
Educational Administration. v 46, 1. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition of education 2005.
Washington, DC: U.S.; Department of Education.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Education Programs (NCELA). (2006). Frequently asked questions.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.

National Education Association. (2008). English language learners face unique
challenges. Center for Great Public Schools: Washington, DC.

National Head Start Association. (2009). About the national Head Start
Association. Retrieved from www.NHSA.org/about_nhsa on: 5/1/2010.
124
Newsweek Magazine. (2009). One of top high schools in the nation. Retrieved from
http://rhs.rowlandschools.org/index.jsp on August 9, 2010.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational
opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Californians
Together.

Orellana, M. F., & Eksner, H. J. (2005). Power in cultural modeling: Building on
the bilingual language practices of immigrant youth in Germany and the
united states. Retrieved from: http://er.aera.net

Padilla, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-
born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and
bilingual/ESL instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3),
727-742.

Pappano, L. (2010). Scenes from the school turnaround movement: Passion,
frustration, mid-course corrections make rapid reforms. Harvard Education
Letter.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative designs and data collection (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage

Pearson, P., & Raphael, T. (1999). Toward a more complex view of balance in the
literacy curriculum. In W.D. Hammond & T.E. Raphael (Ed.), Early literacy
instruction for the new millennium (pp. 1-21). Grand Rapids: Michigan
Reading Association.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Reed, D. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact and what is left undone.
Retrieved from www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF23A.pdf on:
4/20/2010.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Rickey, D. L. (2008). An action research study of the use of adult and
transformational learning theory to guide professional development for
teachers. Dissertation: Capella University.
125
Rowland Unified School District. (2010). retrieved from
www.rowlandschools.org/apps/pages on July 5, 2010.

Rueda, R. (2006). Motivational and cognitive aspects of culturally accommodated
instruction: The case of reading comprehension. In D.M. McInerney, M.
Dowson, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Effective schools: Vol. 6: Research on
sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. (pp. 135-158).
Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Rueda, R., & Yaden, D. (2006). The literacy education of linguistically and
culturally diverse young children: An overview of outcomes, assessment, and
large-scale interventions. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on the Education of Young Children, 2
nd
Ed., (pp. 167-186).
Mahwah, NF: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.

Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P.
Pedraza & M. Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda. (pp. 185-
204). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental knowledge:
Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic intervention approaches.
Current Issues in Education, 6(14).

Rumberger, R.W., & Gandara, P. (2005). How well are California’s English
learners mastering English? UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute
Newsletter, 15(2), 1-2.

Rumberger, R. and Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In G.
Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.) Conditions of Education 2000. Berkeley CA:
University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective perspective. Fourth
Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman Publishing.

Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions
to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English
language learners- a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between black
and white students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 9-18.

126
Spillane, J.P. & Thompson, C.L. (1998). Looking at local school districts’ capacity
for ambitious reform. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.

Tienda, M. (2007). Hispanic demographics and implications for schools [Keynote
speech]. Washington DC: Office of English Language Acquisition Summit.

Velez-Ibanez, C. I., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of
funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 23, 313-335.

Verdun, V. (2005). Big disconnect between segregation and integration. Negro
Educational Review, 56(1), 67.

Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L. et. al. (2010, May). What are we doing to
middle school English Learners? Findings and recommendations for change
from a study of California EL programs. (Narrative Summary). San
Francisco: WestEd.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs,
expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
adolescence. Development of Achievement Motivation. (pp. 91-120).
Academic Press.

Wikipedia. (2010). Hispanic Latino In Wikipedia. Retrieved on December 19, 2010,
from http://en.wikipedia.org

Williams, B. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs
and Practices. 2
nd
edition. ASCD.

Williams, T., Kirst, M. W., Haertel, E., et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle
grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Williams, T., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., et al. (2007). Similar English Learner
Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A follow-up
analysis, based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income and EL students. Mounatin View, CA: Ed Source.
127
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., and Hoy W. K. (1989). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education.
6(2), 137-148.
128
APPENDIX A
WORK DONE IN ROWLAND USD OUTLINED BY SEMESTER
Semester Steps taken in Inquiry Process
Fall 2009 • Inquiry Team Formation
• Context of District Need
• Understanding District Priorities
• Narrowing inquiry focus
Spring 2010 • Exploring the Roots
• Data Collection
Summer 2010 • Data Analysis
• Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root Causes
• Development of Findings & Recommendations/Considerations
Fall 2010 • Presentation of Findings & Recommendations/considerations
to District Groups
129
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT ASSISTANCE PROJECT
SCANNING INTERVIEW
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’d like to focus on (topic). You
comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.

1. Please give me an overview of (topic)?
• What is the current situation?
o What is being done about it?
o Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?
2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
• Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
• Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways? Please
describe.

• Was there any success with these efforts?
• Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?
3. Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or
the district are trying to accomplish?

• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
130
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get
details)

• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire
to be?

4. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the
district from achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to
many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of
motivation, of culture, of politics or what?

• Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational
culture/structure

• Probe by role group
5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to
better understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?
131
APPENDIX C
ONE MONTH INTERVIEW
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic Students, and your thoughts on
this topic would be helpful. We’d like to know what things you have done in your
class the past month to help your ELL Hispanic students learn.

1. What were your goals for your Latino ELL students?

2. What were your strategies to help your students achieve these goals?
What/When/How? What kinds of things did you do in the classroom to help
your ELL Hispanic students learn?

3. To what extent were you successful?
132
APPENDIX D
ROUND 2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Themes
1. Expectations for ELL students
2. Decentralization
3. Goals
4. Perceptions
Stages of Concern
1. What are some things you are doing in your classroom to address the needs of EL
learners? (Behavior/Experiences)

2. How is it going? (Feelings/Emotions)
3. What does it take to make this intervention a successful one? (Knowledge/Skills)
4. What do you see as the pros and cons for your own involvement in the
instruction of EL learners? (Perceptions) (Opinion/Value)

5. What are the measures of success? (Goals) (Knowledge/Skills)
6. What is your opinion on having an ELL Lead Teacher? (Decentralization)
(Opinion/Value)

7. What is you role in working with the ELL Lead Teacher?
(Beahvior/Experiences)
133
APPENDIX E
TRIANGULATION
Title of dissertation: GAP Analysis of Hispanic Student Achievement in Rowland
Unified School District

Chairs: Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda
Methods Data Sources
RQs Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
(1) What do key role groups in the
RUSD perceive to be the root causes
of the Hispanic ELL achievement gap?
X X
(2) What do key role groups in the
RUSD perceive s possible solutions to
closing the Hispanic ELL achievement
gap?
X X
(3) What does the project team
identify as root causes of the Hispanic
achievement gap?
X X X
(4) What does the project team
identify as possible solutions to
closing the Hispanic ELL achievement
gap?
X X X
(5) How will the district respond to the
project team’s suggestions?
X X
134
APPENDIX F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH GAP ANALYSIS: HISPANIC EL ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, and Lesette Molina-Solis
University of Southern California
August 23, 2010
Background
In its quest to adequately perform its role as an effective and responsible
school district, the Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) tries to deliver sound,
quality educational programs for all of its students. Following the vision of
educational equity for all, RUSD consistently searches for best-current educational
practices and strategies that promote academic excellence throughout its student
body. For example, RUSD has gained local respect in its efforts to provide
educational excellence. Currently, RUSD boasts of numerous accolades in education
including numerous Blue Ribbon schools, several Title 1 Academic Achievement
Performance recognitions, and it’s partnership with the Ball Foundation, and one
high school has been deemed as one of the nation’s top high schools by Newsweek
Magazine (RowlandSchools.org, 2010).
On a national level, NCLB mandates that all students attending public
schools must meet the same academic standards in reading and math (National
Education Association, 2008). As a result, the NCLB accountability demands placed
on districts and schools have increased the scrutiny given to various subgroups
135
including, among others, English Learners (ELs). In order for schools to meet their
adequate yearly progress (AYP) growth targets, each one of four specifically
designated subgroups, (economically-disadvantaged, students of color, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency) must meet their expected
growth targets, as established by the federal guidelines in NCLB (NEA, 2008).
NCLB, (2001) has brought educational issues affecting previously
unexamined student populations to the forefront. One consequence of the current
increase in accountability efforts is that, an academic achievement gap has surfaced
within the RUSD. Specifically, despite its consistent and continual efforts at
educational reform to maximize levels of student academic performance, RUSD has
entered Program Improvement (PI) status (CDE, 2010).
The Hispanic and the EL subgroups’ academic performance indicators
persistently show a gap when results are compared to academic levels of other
subgroups in the district. In 2008, all subgroups within RUSD met NCLB growth
targets, with the exception of two subgroups, Hispanic students and ELs. The
Hispanic subgroup and the EL subgroups scored lowest in academic attainment in
English Language Arts and Math. Achievement and attainment gaps between these
subgroups are evident at the elementary and middle school levels.
The current Hispanic achievement gap is of concern to RUSD students,
educators, and administrators. Increasingly severe sanctions will continue to
accumulate and negatively impact RUSD if the current patterns of student
performance gaps persist. Federal and state sanctions, including mandates to
136
reorganize and/or eventual takeover of school and/or district operations loom in the
realm of possible future sanctions. In order to avoid negative consequences such as
the ones outlined above, all national public school districts, including RUSD must
prepare all their student subgroups to meet the mandatory academic growth targets.
The Current Project
The current project is an inquiry project which is based at the University of
Southern California (USC). It is part of an alternative dissertation project which
involves teams of students working with two school districts, one being RUSD. The
faculty leaders of the project approached the district with a request to identify areas
that the district would like to receive feedback on. The present inquiry team has
focused on the achievement gaps for Hispanic students at the elementary and middle
school levels. The overall intent is to help, in a consultant role, uncover the root
causes of the achievement gaps in RUSD and pose possible solutions and next steps.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to identify root causes of the academic
achievement gaps in RUSD, specifically for Hispanic EL students at the elementary
and secondary levels. Specifically, the goal was to implement the Clark and Estes
‘GAP Analysis’ mode to help RUSD close the existing and widening achievement
gap between Hispanic EL students and their elementary and middle school peers.
The GAP Analysis framework became the lens by which the inquiry project team
examined potential roots to student performance problems and root causes of the
Hispanic students and EL students’ achievement gaps within RUSD.
137
The GAP Analysis process helped identify root causes of current problems
around existing issues in knowledge, motivation, and organizational structure within
the district. This inquiry project’s focus was to determine positives and negatives of
the numerous reform efforts instilled in RUSD to address the achievement gaps as
noted by API and AYP amongst Hispanic and ELL student populations and to
provide RUSD with suggestions for closing the persistent gap. The research-based
literature review helped the USC inquiry project team to consider potential solutions
to current performance inequities issues as mentioned above, which will help close
the persistent achievement gaps in RUSD.
The inquiry team opted to implement the Clark and Estes, (2002) gap
analysis model as a framework to inquire into potential root causes for the gaps in
academic performance. An explanation of the gap analysis and its process is
described below.
The Gap Analysis Model
According to Clark and Estes, (2002), a gap analysis is a systematic problem-
solving approach to help improve a team’s performance and achieve its goals (Clark
& Estes, 2002). According to the authors, the gap analysis process can be
instrumental in helping organizational teams, such as school districts, measure
existing gaps resulting from the discrepancies between the organization’s desired
performance targets and actual levels of current performance. Clark and Estes’
(2002) systemic observational process can help organizations identify potentially
successful strategies to help bridge gaps between desired and actual disparities in
138
performance thus helping RUSD meet their growth goals and objectives. The gap
analysis process can also help teams identify potential root causes for performance
problems, and potential solutions to effectively address their performance gaps. By
measuring gaps between their desired and actual goals and objectives, teams
strategize to effectively address and close the gaps. The gap analysis process
involves a five-step approach (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the model.
The first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how the performance goals
should be written and how to create a plan to achieve the goals. In this step the goals
will be examined at three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day to day
goals. Goals are reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are
measurable, and that goals fit in within each other. The goals that are set need to be
‘concrete’ goals that are clear, measurable and supported by all the stakeholders
because they are ‘C3 Goals’ (Clark & Estes 2002). “The best work goals are C3
Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 26). A concrete
goal is one that is easy to understand and can be measured. A challenging goal is one
that would be a feasible next step. A current goal is one that can be attained in a
shorter amount of time (weeks or months vs. years).
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This
comparison would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that
139
are currently meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the
organization's current performance in comparison to the achievement of the other
organization who has achieved the desired goal. The difference between the current
performance and desired performance becomes the gap.
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal
analysis consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less
than desired performance. This analysis is specifically done by looking at the areas
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational/cultural for the potential causes of the
gap. The organization using the gap model will look at all of the stakeholders in the
organization and examine them in each area. Knowledge refers to things such as
education, information, and professional development. Motivation refers to such
things as willingness to participate and effort. Organizational gaps refer to things
such as: climate of the organization, its practices and its norms. Each potential cause
in these three areas is assessed or ruled out. By using this process of elimination, a
clearer picture can be obtained of what is likely causing the performance gap(s).
Once all the plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated,
eliminated or accepted, solutions can be identified leading to the fourth step: Propose
Solutions. An emphasis is placed on providing solutions that target the areas of
learning, motivation, and organization. Solutions are research-based and address
problems that are directly tied to the root causes from the previous step.
The fifth and final step is to Evaluate Outcomes. Outcomes and results of the
implemented solutions are evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation process
140
itself has four levels according to the gap model. The four levels are; reactions,
impact during the program, transfer, and the bottom. This is an ongoing process and
the solutions can be modified and re-implemented until the desired goals are
achieved.
The Inquiry Process
USC professors and students formed inquiry teams and developed a plan to
interview key district office level administrators who could offer critical background
information to begin the inquiry process. Almost simultaneously, district personnel
prepared informational presentations for the USC teams. USC professors helped
students develop an interview protocol and assigned teams to perform inquiry at
three levels: elementary, high school, and district levels.
The three doctoral students made contact with RUSD’s Director of Bilingual
Education for an initial interview. This individual provided guidance in suggesting
nine people with whom the team could conduct "next interviews" with the purpose of
getting a further understanding of the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. The
inquiry group at that time established the most convenient way to communicate with
the Director of Bilingual Education and confirmed the best way to get in contact with
the nine suggested interviewees.
The inquiry team sent the Director of Bilingual Education a letter indicating
the intent of the project. Once the approval was received, it was sent to the nine
principals at the school sites recommended by the district level contact. The inquiry
group proceeded to make contact and actually interviewed 2, district level
141
administrators and 8 school administrators. Contact was also made via telephone and
email. At the conclusion of these interviews, follow-up interview and observation
dates were set with 17 classroom teachers recommended by the school
administrators.
Interviews were held in three phases: phase 1 included district level
interviews, phase 2 included school site level interviews, and phase 3 included
interviews after one month of the initial contact with teacher/administration. During
the interviews, the data collected was coded and later examined by USC teams,
looking for root causes for the existing gaps.
Findings
RUSD has made their Hispanic EL subgroup a district priority in efforts to
meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance. RUSD cited NCLB as
an important factor in understanding the context of what has put a spotlight on this
particular subgroup. There is a determination in RUSD to capitalize on the
opportunity to further advance the districts reform efforts. Among the different
schools that were visited, it became clear that in RUSD certain steps have served to
create the foundation necessary to advance EL reform district wide.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through the review of
documents and the interview process. First, is a summary of RUSD’s strengths
currently operating at the district and school levels towards meeting the
organizational goal of closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. This is followed by
142
a summary of the emergent themes as to what the team found to be hindering RUSD
from closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a highly successful district as evidenced by countless honors and
national respect it has received. RUSD earned four National Blue Ribbon, sixteen
California Distinguished Schools, and several Golden Bell Awards. There are
numerous exceptional practices that RUSD already has in place that are an excellent
launching pad for propelling their efforts to close the EL Hispanic achievement gap.
Rowland has a culture of professionalism and high expectations among the
staff that contribute to the academic success of students. Every person that the
inquiry team encountered expressed personal pride they had in working for Rowland
and for the children they serve. Many of those interviewed were also proud to share
that they are alumni of RUSD and that they have placed their own children in the
Rowland school district.
Clear Vision for Reform
In RUSD, there seems to be a great support for the advancement of a clear
and unified vision of the district reform efforts. The process of establishing this
vision and rallying support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make
the reform implementation successful. RUSD’s shared vision for reform has
signaled a district commitment to system-wide change.
From the very first interaction with the district is was clear that through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation their had been substantial work on creating a
143
clear vision. All the district leadership was able to articulate how their particular
department contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped guide and advance the
district’s EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in specific is the Director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education. Everyone interviewed spoke about the positive
support for the changes in the EL reform from the school board, the superintendent,
and the bilingual education director. The superintendent and the director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education not only have the expertise needed but also the
commitment required for improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The
Curriculum and Bilingual Education Director has taken proactive steps to build a
culture of collaboration. The bilingual education director understands the importance
of setting high standards for EL achievement. The bilingual education director also
makes every effort to provide the tools and curriculum support that schools may need
to meet these high standards. The director believes in the importance of research
based strategies and supporting the use of data to improve instruction and services
for ELs.
Bilingual Education Office
When Rowland USD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the
office of Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district,
there was consistent feedback about how important the role of the Curriculum and
144
Bilingual Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a district-wide
focus area. The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other
districts office departments to support instructional improvement for ELs in making
the EL focus an integrated part of all support offered from all the departments. It
was also mentioned repeatedly how the department of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education is included in the highest levels of decision-making, which helps to keep
the needs of Hispanic EL students on the table.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD has created a district wide Master Plan for English Learners. This
plan includes specific efforts to systematically build schools’ capacity to instruct and
support ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the
community were essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively
engaged teachers, principals, and other school administrators in the adoption of
organizational and instructional strategies.
RUSD identified a deliberate policy and specific practices for the English
Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices signal an
implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs: to acquire both
proficiency in English and the literacy skills to comprehend content. RUSD supports
ELs by providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education
throughout the district.
145
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD has taken the initiative
to implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the
ongoing needs of ELLs, RUSD has created the EL lead position at each school site
with the intent to improve the quality of the EL program. RUSD has also taken major
steps to better coordinate district resources in order to meet its organizational goals.
For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead teacher who provides
information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative model of instruction,
conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works with school
personnel to facilitate professional development activities. These lead teachers
essentially act as liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools
had the support they needed in meeting the needs of EL students. Also, depending
on if a school has a Structured English Immersion program or a Bilingual Education
Program, the Office of Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site.
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged.
One or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held. These themes first surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and
continued to come up during the follow-up interviews and school visits with site
administrators and teachers. The four emergent themes that were identified were: 1)
the academic impact of a decentralized district on the Hispanic EL subgroup, 2) an
absence of a clearly identified plan and support for the progress of ELs, 3) the
146
perception of professional accountability for the progress of Hispanic ELs, and, 4) a
gap of cultural knowledge of students’ backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that for the specific topic of Hispanic EL
achievement the advantages of decentralization seem to have created some
unintended disadvantages for Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student
progress seems to be the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic
EL achievement gap in a decentralized setting. For example, among the interviews
that were conducted there was a widely expressed feeling that no two schools
addressed the needs of ELs in the same way. Furthermore, within each site, every
classroom was an island unto its own. Many site administrators and teachers believe
there are no explicit goals or targets for student progress in place. There was also a
belief that no system was in place to support or monitor the implementation of
adopted programs because "everyone is doing something different". This perceived
lack of support and oversight leads to inconsistency in the implementation of the
curriculum, and programs for ELs. Any and all decisions regarding curriculum and
levels of implementation is left at the discretion of the leadership of the individual
schools sites. The byproduct of all these decentralized decisions is the delivery of an
ELD academic program that potentially can vary not only from school to school, but
from classroom to classroom.
Although many teachers like the ability to make independent decisions, some
teachers specified that they would prefer the district to impose more structure when it
147
came to issues surrounding ELs. Teachers and administrators that stated this felt that
not enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL reform
at the schools. They added that they did not feel they had the curricular knowledge
or the content expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this lens, the
teachers do not see the district valuing certain reform activities nor providing enough
follow-up support.
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the Progress of ELs
Through interviews with administrators and teachers, it became clear that
some people interviewed believe that the district has not effectively articulated or
communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants for their ELs.
Many administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the district had not clearly
communicated their goals. Some teachers expressed their awareness of the district’s
general expectations for ELs, but shared their frustration over the absence of clear
performance goals. In absence of clear performance goals, people tend to focus on
tasks they deem important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The perceived lack of a comprehensive and concrete plan to meet
the needs of ELs is an example of how some respondents feel that the district
seemingly has no clear performance goals or expectations for schools.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed feeling
that they are working as hard as they can for the best of their students but they really
do not know what the district preferences are. During one interview, a lead ELD
teacher at a site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL students, the
148
teacher responded, “I didn’t know there were any. If there are, I would love to know
what they are.” There was also a voiced frustration that not all lead teachers are
allowed the time or forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message
that they were entrusted in “taking back” to their respective sites. One veteran lead
teacher stated, “Well it all depends if your site principal values what you are bringing
back. Some principals make room for you on the agenda, while others just put you
off by saying that the staff knows where to find you if they have EL questions.”
The degree of the gap ranged between teachers that were extremely
knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district provided to teachers that
did not know they existed. The knowledgeable teachers were able to articulate the
best instructional practices for ELs and how to access support. At the other extreme,
some teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their site or that the
position even existed. Many teachers expressed that EL trainings were only for EL
teachers and not accessible to all.
The topic of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews.
Many teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district
or site administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that
was repeatedly given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial
implementation of an organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of
strong verbal commitment but a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions
include that EL instruction is a separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an
integrated part of the core curriculum nor is it monitored to ensure consistency.
149
Although the district does mandate specialized language support for ELs, there is no
system in place for guidance and oversight of the EL program component.
Individual schools end up adopting different approaches for implementation. Sites
vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They vary in how ELD groups are formed,
the size of the groups, how many levels are in a group, and how teachers are
assigned to teach these groups. The most common variation of the ELD program
consisted of having EL students lave the homeroom during core instruction to
receive a pull-out ELD intervention. This is not very effective as students are
missing core instruction to provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials, nor have they been trained on how the
program components should be integrated with the core curriculum. Many general
education teachers have not received any specialized training in English language
development strategies or differentiated instruction.
Another layer of frustration by some teachers was the perception that
resources were not equal between school sites or even within departments. These
perceived inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers
were ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that there
are no conversations or collaboration around how to meet the needs of EL students
throughout the day and across the curriculum. There was little evidence of
150
collaboration between teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration
between amongst school sites. Working in isolation can be considered as an
organizational problem. It can also negatively impact motivation because teachers
feel that everyone is not held accountable. Teachers who serve EL students voiced
feeling that they carry a heavy burden of responsibility and moral obligation for the
student population. They also believe that the teachers who don’t service EL
students wash their hands of that “problem” because those are “not their kids”.
Some of the teachers and administrators that were interviewed felt that there
is little professional development for teaching literacy to ELs. There are even fewer
professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to address the
needs of ELs during core curriculum. Teachers need PD to show them how to
effectively teach their student the core content while helping them acquire the
academic English necessary to be successful in the content area. Those interviewed
explained that teachers who have not been selected or have self-selected to work
with EL students' feel that they are not adequately prepared to work with EL
students. This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates the unspoken practice of not taking
ownership of EL students by teachers who feel they are not qualified to support
them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of
responsibility that is placed on them to have ‘success with those students’. There is
also a belief that the majority of the staff who are not “responsible” for ELs are
“allowed” to put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the
151
Hispanic achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy, or
teachers’ perceptions that their efforts as a group will not positively impact student
achievement. This is important, since a low collective efficacy affects persistence
and can create a culture of low expectations.
“Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement-
particularly among ELs-it comes to no surprise that access to high quality
professional development (PD) for general education teachers and EL teachers alike
was (is) instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts” (Great City
Schools, Oct. 2009, p.22). All the administrators and EL leads interviewed
understood the importance of PD, however, they expressed that Rowland does not
have a coherent strategy for building EL staff capacity through targeted professional
development. In Rowland USD, professional development is largely voluntary. In
the absence of centrally-defined, supported, and monitored professional
development, each school determines and provides for its own professional
development needs. Those interviewed reported that the focus and quality of
professional development varies from school to school. Most professional
development opportunities that are offered in Rowland USD do not integrate EL-
specific content into their offerings or address strategies for differentiated
instruction.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‘English Only’ students, the teacher responded, “I don’t
152
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when
they struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.” Several teachers felt that they
could not help “these” students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student
achievement were not connected to their professional effort. With this type of
external attribution, some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless, and
instead focus on other work goals. Further complicating the matter is the potential
difficulty in addressing such a sensitive issue. Many times teachers are not aware
that their attitudes or lack of effort impact student achievement.
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by
their environment. The environment that they come from includes home, culture,
language, and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators must
understand and value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that
information as a resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students
come to school with unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no
simple, one size fits all solution.
In conversations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community.
This lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of one’s self and group and the
perceptions and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and
teachers interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students
and the community. One staff member stated that, “Students do not feel it is
153
important to learn English because they do not use it at home or even at school when
they are with their friends.” There is also a general perception that the parents are
more concerned with the ethnic demographics of the schools, than the academic
standings of their child. One teacher stated that, “For the most part, the Hispanic
parents do not really value their children learning English as long as they are in a
school where the majority of the students look like them and there are no (social)
problems.”
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living amongst
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle
school teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is
difficult because the Hispanic kids that come in from all Hispanic elementary
schools do not like going to school with the Asian students. While these ideas can
also be attributed to other root cause such as motivational and organizational, they
stem from a basic lack of factual knowledge about the students culture.
Cautions and Limitations
It should be recognized that the patterns reported here are based on a limited
number of conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within
the district. In addition, the time period over which the information was collected
was relatively short. Finally, these patterns are based on self-report information, and
reflect respondents’ perceptions.
It is important to keep in mind however, for the most part the patterns
reported were widespread among those with whom we spoke. In addition, while
154
perceptions may or may not reflect objective reality, they do have an important
influence on behavior and the ultimate achievement of overall goals. Therefore, we
hope to work with the district in the next phase of the work as we begin to assess our
findings and formulate appropriate and helpful recommendations for next steps in
addressing gaps.
155
APPENDIX G
PROPOSED SOLUTION POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173
APPENDIX H
HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER TABLE
TEAM: Hispanic English Learners
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
Turnaround
Change:
The description of a
school’s or LEA’s
efforts and resources
to direct their student
performance
outcomes.
Implementation:
Costly, and takes
time/possible, effective
turnaround change must
be nurtured, monitored,
and supported
consistently.
Reeves
(2004)
Pappano
(2010)
Rickey
(2010)
Transformational
Theory:
Focusing on adult
learning.
Proposes a linear,
inquiry-based frame for
leaders to practice
reflective coaching as a
guide in promoting
instructional and
organizational change
via a reflective skill gap
analysis process to alter
adult pedagogical
beliefs.
Rickey
(2008)
The
implementation
of a relatively
new district plan
for supporting
the progress of
ELs
Educational Equity:
Change the current
practice and
organizational
structure to prepare
ALL teachers to
effectively address
ALL students’ needs.
Focus of district should
include a rigorous,
college-ready,
curriculum for all
RUSD students.
CREATE (2009) model
provides a framework
for emulation.
Guthrie,
L.F. (2009)
174

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
In our current state educational
system, schools are in need of an
effective intermediary between
the schools and the state.
MacIver
and Farley
(2003)
Massell describes 4 approaches to
school improvement:
1. Interpreting and using data
2. Building teacher knowledge
& skills
3. Improving curriculum and
instruction
4. Targeting interventions for
low performing students
Massell
(2000)
Consortium for Policy Research
in Education (CPRE) study found
that the district’s role was vital in
building a school sites capacity
and could highly influence the
choices that individual school
sites made to make to improve
academic achievement.
Foley
(2001)
Model implementation is directly
related to the leadership provided
by administrators.
McDougall,
Saunders, &
Goldberg
(2002) as
cited in
Gordon, S.
(2004)
The academic
impact of a
decentralized
district on the
Hispanic EL
subgroup
District Role
• Establish
instructional &
curricular
focus
• Consistent &
coordinated
instructional
activities
• Strong
leadership
from
Superintendent
• Emphasis on
monitoring
instruction &
curriculum
There is a need for professional
development for principals to
help them also become
instructional leaders.
Anderson
(2003)
175

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
A perception of
professional
accountability by
teachers for the
progress of
Hispanic ELs
AT THIS TIME SAME AS
CULTURAL
PROFICIENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
By providing direct
guidance to teachers,
districts play a role in
bridging the gap
between existing
practice and a more
challenging pedagogy.
Large scale reform
now necessitates
focused attention on
how to motivate
teachers to change
practices.
Elmore
(1996)
MacIver &
Farley
(2003)
176

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
A gap of
cultural
knowledge of
students’
backgrounds
and
experiences
Cultural Proficiency:
a way of being that
enable both
individuals and
organizations to
respond effectively to
people who differ
from them
By increasing sociocultural
competence, instructional and
pedagogical factors can be considered
in light of cultural practices in the
homes and community.
Lindsey,
Robins, &
Terrel (2003)
Funds of Knowledge:
considers the
everyday knowledge
of families &
communities as
resources to be used in
instruction
By responding to deficit views of
students from diverse language and
cultural backgrounds, educators
consider the everyday knowledge of
families and communities as resources
which can be used in instruction.

By connecting classroom instruction
with communities, student interest will
increase as will student motivation.
Gonzalez,
Moll, Floyd-
Tenery,
Rivera,
Rendon,
Gonzalez, &
Amanti
(1993)
Cultural Modeling:
goal is to connect
students’ knowledge
from the home with
knowledge presented
at school
By making recognizable connections
between the home and school content
for students, students better understand
the content presented at school.

By incorporating students’ everyday
experiences into the curriculum,
students are better able to identify
strategies for meaning-making as they
move from analyzing personally
meaningful texts to canonical works of
literature.
Lee,
Rosenfeld,
Mendenhall,
Rivers, &
Tynes (2003)
Third Space:
establish a connection
between the student
and classroom culture
so that students
understand how to
participate in the class
To transform the current educational
system into a more equitable system
for all students by establishing a
connection between the student and
classroom culture so that students
understand how to participate in the
class.

By developing a rich curriculum with
various methods of interaction,
students begin to understand who they
are what they may accomplish
academically and beyond.
Gutierrez
(1995)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this inquiry project was to identify root causes for the persistent Hispanic English Learner (EL) achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District (RUSD). A consultative model approach was utilized during the inquiry in attempts to help RUSD. Using a gap analysis model, the inquiry team looked at knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors to uncover causes that manifest in student underperformance. This qualitative inquiry focused on elementary and middle grades. The objective was to find research based practices to maximize RUSD’s resources and efforts in supplementing practical strategies to enhance RUSD’s work in closing its Hispanic EL achievement gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

Asset Metadata

Creator Alvarez, Alberto (author)

Core Title An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2011

Defense Date 01/19/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement gap,cultural proficiency,gap analysis,Hispanic English learner,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Rowland Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email albertoa@usc.edu,betoalva16@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3764

Unique identifier UC1286170

Identifier etd-Alvarez-4300 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-455975 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3764 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Alvarez-4300-0.pdf

Dmrecord 455975

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alvarez, Alberto

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu