University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:

EVALUATING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR LATINO ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN A HIGH ACHIEVING SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Eric Medrano

________________________________________________________________________

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 Eric Medrano

ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving family especially my mother, Martha,
who has given everything to ensure that I am successful and happy. Making you proud
has been my driving force and motivation throughout this process and I hope to continue
to make you happy. You have done an exceptional job in raising your three children as
we all reflect your hard work in our own lives. I thank my older sister, Trisha, who has
always believed in me and supported my dreams. I hope to one day reveal the love that
you have for your family, on my own. My best friend and kid brother, Boomer, I thank
you for your support and truly admire your dedication and hard work toward your goals.
Most importantly I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my Savior, Messiah,
Redeemer, and Friend, who will reign Forever – Jesus Christ. Thank you for watching
over me and guiding me through this journey.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my family, friends, classmates, teachers,
and professors for supporting and believing in me. Specifically, I acknowledge my
colleagues who collaborated with me on this project, Ashley Benjamin and Shannon
Powers. Furthermore, a special thanks to my dissertation committee: Chair, Dr. David
Marsh, Dr. Robert Rueda, and Dr. Robert Arias. I am thankful for my mentors Amelia
Medrano, Dr. Nilsa Thorsos, and Dr. James Noftle, along with the Azusa Pacific
University staff who have always believed in my abilities and encouraged me throughout
my time at USC. I am truly blessed to have your support in my life. Fight On!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………. .. 1
Background of the Problem ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 5
Importance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 2. ANALYZING ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM ..................................... 11
Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 11
Methodology................................................................................................................ 30
Findings……………………………………………………………………………… 53

CHAPTER 3. PROPOSED LITERATURE BASED SOLUTIONS........................... 71
Solutions Literature Review ........................................................................................ 71
Proposed Solutions Executive Summary..................................................................... 103

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 112
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 127
A. Scanning Interview ......................................................................................... 127
B. One Month Interview ....................................................................................... 128
C. Innovation Configuration Chart ....................................................................... 129
D. Stages of Concern Interview............................................................................. 133
E. Executive Summary of Findings ...................................................................... 134
F. Solutions PowerPoint Presentation................................................................... 143

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Timeline .......................................................................................... 41

Table 2: English Language Development Publishers ................................................. 90

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners....................... 90

vi

ABSTRACT

An Alternative Capstone Project: Evaluating the Academic Achievement Gap for
Latino English Language Learners in a High Achieving School District is a project
between three USC dissertation students and a local school district. In this dissertation,
students will use research-based literature and the gap analysis model to help the local
school district identify the possible knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots
of the Latino English Language Learner achievement gap.

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Latinos in Education
Today in the United States, Latinos comprise 15.8% of the total population
accounting for 48.4 million people. This is the second largest ethnic group in the country
trailing only the non-Hispanic White population. In the western region of the United
States, the city of Los Angeles has become the second largest population of Latin-
American citizens in the world (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). From 2000 to 2006, the
Latino population of the United States grew from 35.6% to 44.3% (U.S. Census Bureau,
2009).
The poverty level for Latinos in the United States is a concern related to academic
success. Latino Americans living below the poverty level is at a rate of over 22% and
those living in extremely poor conditions are 10.5% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). This
affects Latino children as they struggle with issues such as homelessness, educational
deprivation, and single-parent households. Reid (2006) finds that “since 2000 more than
600,000 Latino children have fallen into poverty”, leaving an uphill battle for this
population in the academic setting. Poverty amongst Latino children has a combination
of affects for success in education such as limited job opportunities, lack of health
insurance, poor nutrition, and little income (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002).

2

These findings are alarming and a precursor for academic success of Latino
children. A 2000 survey found that 21% of Latino’s between the ages of 16 and 24,
dropped out of school, compared to 7% of White students (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
Latino students are faced with barriers such as English-language difficulties, racism, and
limited educational capital (Villalba, Akos, Keeter, & Ames, 2007).
English Language Learners
The English Language Learner (ELL) subgroup is the fastest growing school-aged
population in the United States (Flynn & Hill, 2005). By the year 2030, ELL’s will
represent 40% of elementary and secondary students in public schools (Thomas &
Collier, 2002). ELL students are spreading throughout the United States and are most
populated in the states of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Florida. This rapid
growth in population poses issues for teacher instruction as well as the academic success
of all students.
In a 10-year span from 1998 to 2008, there has been a 53% growth of ELL
enrollment in education. This growth equates to nearly 2 million ELL students in the
educational setting in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In the
2003 – 2004 academic school year, 5.5 million students in the United States were ELL’s
(Batt, 2008). The federal government’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001,
brings great attention to the ELL population and how schools must accommodate this
sub-group in order to be seen as affective. This act establishes guidelines for improving
fluency in English for ELL’s with goals of progress toward proficiency levels. In

3

California students are measured for growth and performance through standardized
testing. This creates an Academic Performance Index (API) report that shows growth of
school populations. Students are tested from the 2
nd
to 12
th
grade in the Standardized
Testing and Reporting tests, which include the California Standards Test (CST).
Assessment practices to increase English proficiency for ELL’s in California have
been implemented through the California English Language Development Test, which
examines listening and speaking, reading, and writing. The listening and speaking
portion of the exam are administered individually while the reading and writing sections
are done through a multiple choice of questions. Results are categorized into five levels
of proficiency; Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and
Advanced (California Department of Education, 2009). It is important for students to
reach the proficient level of English as academic achievement tests are given in English
through standardized tests. It would be difficult for students to master tests mandated by
NCLB with limited English proficiency (Jepsen & de Alth, 2005).
Latino and White Achievement Gap
In order to determine academic achievement gaps, educational measurements of
groups of students based on ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) are
compared. Standardized test scores are widely used to determine if an achievement gap
exists. The Latino and White achievement gap has widened since the 1990’s, resulting in
the lack of high paying jobs toward those with poor language skills (Jepsen & de Alth,
2005). Research finds that there is a large and persistence gap in reading between White

4

and Latino children based on national assessments in the United States (Carlo, August,
McLaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lipman, Lively, & White, 2004).
The achievement gap carries many variables that influence the outcomes of
Latino students. The amount of unqualified teachers, accessing resources, class sizes,
and school funding are some aspects of the achievement gap. A 2001 study of Latino
students in California found that they are five times more likely to have an unqualified
teacher when compared to predominately White schools (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Demographics and SES are also factors in Latino academic success. These students are
less likely to be exposed to academic material before entering Kindergarten attributing to
the achievement gap (Lee & Burkham, 2002).
The achievement gap has become problematic with the demands of higher levels
of education in the United States workforce. In 2000, 60% of high school graduates
continue their education into college and half of them earn a college degree. Just 11% of
Latino students, ages 25 to 29 had earned a college degree as of 2005. This is highlighted
when compared to the 34% college graduation rate of the White population of the same
age (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a federal legislature that enacts
standards-based educational reform where setting goals and holding schools and teachers
accountable will improve educational results. Each school must pass annual standardized
tests that prove that students are successful. NCLB measures adequate yearly progress

5

(AYP), which is to be increased annually from all subgroups of students. This will
eventually lead to all students performing at proficient levels or above by the 2013 –
2014 school year.
The hopes of NCLB are to bring focus to close the academic gap for minority
populations by having common expectations for all. Reading, writing, math, and science
are the focus subject matters that all students strive to master. Unfortunately, schools can
fail to reach AYP goals if just one subgroup does not reach the target goal in a subject
matter.
Arguments against NCLB state that the act does not provide financial and
academic resources for schools with high populations of Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) students and focuses on short-term results, while punishing schools for not
meeting impossible outcomes. NCLB stresses English language proficiency and does not
support bilingual education. This widens the achievement gap between Latino ELL’s and
White students (Hough, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
Academic success across the world and in our nation has become a measuring
point toward the success of new generations. Americans are bombarded with research
suggesting that students of foreign countries are advancing in academics more rapidly
than our population. The United States has recognized this discrepancy and implemented
federal and state standards for all schools to maintain in hopes of becoming a leading
power in education. There is pressure for schools in California to meet the demands of

6

NCLB and other state standards that measure efficiency. While schools focus on meeting
benchmarks, there continues to be achievement gaps between racial and socioeconomic
populations. It is important for all students to leave school educated, as it will determine
their input toward society.
Current economic strains have affected California schools, forcing districts to cut
certified and classified personnel. This has brought added pressure on administrators and
teachers to continue to meet academic demands while working with less. Glendale
Unified School District (GUSD) is faced with this adversity, yet continue to make strides
toward improved academic performance according to state accountability measures. In
2009, GUSD had an API score of 830, a growth of 13 points from the previous year.
GUSD scored exceptionally with 76% of all schools meeting their API targets (Glendale
Unified School District, 2009).
GUSD has maintained academic gains in all subgroups, however, there is still a
striking ethnic achievement gap between Hispanic and White populations. The API score
of the Hispanic population in GUSD is 752 while the White population is 833. Current
CST results show that 51% of Hispanic students are not at grade-level proficiency in
Language Arts and 56% are not at grade-level proficiency in Math (Glendale Unified
School District, 2009). While some students are receiving an adequate education, it is
clear that Hispanic students are lacking appropriate academic gains. GUSD must
implement high quality instruction for all students while initiating reforms that will
increase academic outcomes.

7

The achievement gap between Hispanic and White populations are significant
throughout California. In 2007, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack
O'Connell, identified this as a significant problem and campaigned to find ways to close
the achievement gap between successful students who are often White and affluent, and
struggling students that are often Hispanic and poor. His goal was to collaborate with
educators, researchers, business leaders, and other experts to discover appropriate skills
and strategies that close the achievement gap while leading, reinforcing, and guiding
schools toward success (California Department of Education, 2009).
The Importance of the Project
Although many high achieving school districts continue to flourish, it is critical
that they understand their weaknesses and how they can be improved. This Alternative
Capstone Project is relevant for GUSD in many ways. The focus of the project will
identify specific causes of the ELL achievement gap, help GUSD to continue its
academic growth, highlight skills and strategies that can be used when working with
ELL’s, and understand how to make appropriate uses of limited resources. Other districts
similar to GUSD can also use this project to close their achievement gaps while using
specific solutions toward the problem.
The state of California is in financial hardship and continues to decrease funding
toward local educational agencies (LEA) resulting in limited resources for administrators,
teachers, and students. This alone can decrease student achievement when educators are
struggling to complete daily duties with limited capital and funds. This project will

8

provide recommendations for teachers in how to make use of instruction in an era of
budget cuts and increased class size.
It is important for GUSD to view all barriers directed toward closing the Latino
achievement gap, as it will improve academic performance for this population. As of
2009, the Hispanic subgroup ranked lowest in English Language Arts and History/Social
Science in API test scores in GUSD. The ELL achievement gap is a common problem
throughout our country and research suggests specific interventions to be used to correct
the situation. When a district is aware of the causes of their achievement gap, they can
then take steps toward closing the gap. If the district does not know the reasons behind
gaps, there will be little if any improvement toward state and federal performance
standards, resulting in negative actions toward the district according to NCLB.
School districts have short- and long-term goals, which are to meet all
demographic groups and overall unique API score, along with increasing the percentage
of students who are proficient and above in English and Math according to AYP scores.
When API and AYP scores are successful, schools can take steps toward becoming
California Distinguished Schools and help their district be recognized as one that is
successful regardless of limited resources and finances. This project will allow GUSD to
increase API and AYP scores of the Latino population and meet the district goal of
increasing all students’ academic outcomes. Similar school districts can also use this
information to assist their areas of concern while striving toward meeting academic
accountability goals. Other districts can learn from this project by examining their

9

struggles and using approaches that are found. API and AYP benchmarks must be met
by all districts to avoid NCLB consequences such as becoming a Program Improvement
school, school transfer options, student supplemental services, corrective actions, and
restructure of schools. These consequences are serious and can cost school districts
money, decrease authority of school site administrators, replace school staff, implement
new curriculum, or restructure an entire school (Finn & Hess, 2004).
In order for school districts to close the achievement gap of ELL’s, administrators
and teachers must understand how effective instructional strategies are implemented
throughout the academic day of diverse populations. This project will provide a range of
effective strategies that are supported through research to close the achievement gap.
When school officials have a complete understanding of how ELL’s learn and improve
instructional approaches, school culture will increase while creating a community with a
common goal. This is relevant since ELL and minority populations do not always carry
similar background knowledge of the larger population and can become isolated. Self-
efficacy and value of administrators, teachers, students, and parents can increase when
they feel that they are a part of an organization resulting in improved performance.
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006).
Finally, this project will allow school officials to understand how the gap analysis
model operates and how it can be used in an academic setting. The importance of
diagnosing performance gaps as knowledge/skill, motivation, or organizational and

10

identifying the causes, can increase school performance while meeting the needs of all
students.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to examine ways to close the achievement gap
between White and Hispanic students in a local school district at the elementary school
level. The project focused on ELL Latino students in a local school district and the
approaches to increasing student achievement. The Gap Analysis model and literature
were used to examine the possible causes of the achievement gap, while the roots of the
problem were analyzed. The Gap Analysis model assists the diagnoses of possible
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organization roots of the problem.

11

CHAPTER 2
ANALYZING ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
Literature Review
Policy and Reforms
Since the founding of our nation there have been several languages spoken and
approaches to educating all. Throughout our history there have been uncontrolled
emotions directed at eliminating certain languages from our academic setting. The
attempt to eliminate German in public schools during World War I, and Japanese during
World War II, are examples of desires to use English as the only language in the United
States. This has put pressure on immigrants that have come to the United States with
intentions of attaining a better life.
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 viewed students who were not fluent in
English to be educationally disadvantaged and provided them with bilingual education. It
has been reauthorized six times along with several court cases. The U.S. Supreme Courts
Civil Rights Act of Lau v. Nichols (1974) saw it illegal to exclude students from
educational instruction on the basis of language.
In 1976, California passed the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual Bicultural Education
Act, requiring all schools to provide ELL’s with appropriate education. The Bill later
became law, enforcing California’s public schools to provide instruction for limited- and
non-English speaking children in their primary language. This law was the beginning of
federal support and the recognition of the need for academic instruction and equal

12

education opportunities for minority populations, especially Latino and African-
American subgroups (Gifford & Valdés, 2006).
In California, several state and federal measures such as Proposition 187,
Proposition 227, and the NCLB Act of 2001, have attempted quick fixes for bilingual
education. Proposition 187 was a passed immigration reform bill of California in 1994
that denied certain social and public services to children of anyone suspected of being an
undocumented worker. This would eliminate medical and public school services toward
immigrant children in the state. Any government or law enforcement agents who
suspected that illegal immigrants were violating the law or abusing benefits, were
required to report their suspicion to appropriate officials. The attorney general was to
keep all records of illegal immigrants and their children. If a child was found to be
undocumented, the public elementary or secondary school could not educate the student
after 90 days. Proposition 187 was later found to be unconstitutional by the federal court.
The proposition was Republican created and also known as the “Save Our State”
initiative. Proposition 187 passed with a 59% favor and 41% against vote. The state
statute has never been enforced.
Arguments that favor proposition 187 suggest that funding social services for
illegal immigrants was an economic hardship and cost the state $3 million annually.
Supporters also noted that they have and continue to suffer personal injury and damages
caused by criminal actions of illegal immigrants. According to Cooper (2003),

13

Proposition 187 would save the state $200 million each year as bilingual education has
cost the state millions of dollars with no proven success.
Groups that speak against Proposition 187 argued that it discriminated against
ethnic minorities, especially Latinos. The larger argument was that the proposition was
an economical debate rather than an attempt to improve the educational system.
Immigrants were scapegoats for the economic decline of California. The day after
Proposition 187 was approved, the Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund,
the League of Latin American Citizens, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed
federal lawsuits.
Proposition 227 was a much debated passed ballot proposition in 1998, that
eliminated bilingual education in public schools in the state of California. The
controversial propositions goal was to instruct LEP students in one rapid academic year.
Proposition 227 required all public school instruction in California to be conducted in
English. Its intensive immersion program is not designed to be used for periods longer
than a year for LEP students. However, parents do have the right to waive the English-
immersion program if they can show that their child is fluent in English, is a student with
a disability, or has the ability to learn English through a different method of instruction.
After the passing of the proposition, schools used structured English-immersion models
for all bilingual students. The proposition is controversial because it discriminates
against students who are usually immigrants that come from a low socioeconomic
background. The proposition favors education from an assimilation lens rather than a

14

multicultural approach. Proposition 227 passed with a 61% favor and 39% against vote
(Alvarez, 1999).
Arguments that favor proposition 227 suggest that bilingual education in
California has failed to teach LEP students to read and write in English. They state that
the original model of bilingual education does not work and it needs to be redesigned.
California has a high amount of immigrants that speak over 140 different languages. It is
financially and educationally impossible to have dual language programs that teach each
language for all LEP students. LEP students will learn a new language better if they are
immersed in that language especially at a young age (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, &
Herwantoro, 2005). This view observes academics in California as an individual right
where our state would be committing a crime if LEP students were not taught how to
read, write, and speak English in public schools.
Groups that spoke against proposition 227, argued that English-immersion models
are not proven to be successful for LEP students. California teachers would be forced to
use one instructional approach that is not relevant or prosperous for LEP students.
Regardless of the English level that students are capable of understanding, they will be
mixed with all students of different levels and languages. Teachers would not have the
right to use academic instruction designed to assist the bilingual student through a
systematic approach.

15

Bilingual Education
Bilingual education is another controversial topic in American schools. Some
argue that instruction should be English-only, while others debate that bilingual education
can benefit students (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). A 2006 study by the Educational Testing
Services, found that the state of California carries the fastest growing ELL population in
the United States. ELL’s made up 25% of the student population with Spanish being the
largest language spoken. A staggering 85% of ELL’s were economically disadvantaged.
Currently, 61% of ELL’s were in elementary school, 20% in middle school, and 19% in
high school (Payan & Nettles, 2006).
LEP students are those whose primary language and fluency is not English.
These students require a systematic and explicit instructional program that is assessed
over a period of time and modified according to the student. Instruction must use several
instructional methods including Specifically Designed Academic Instruction in English
(SDAIE) strategies to ensure that students are properly educated. Continued debates on
how to educate LEP students continue, however, discriminating mandates such as
proposition 227 is not a solution to instructing students who are not fluent in English.
Latino and Hispanic Ethnic Groups
Ethnic and national identities can form the attitudes and characteristics of
minorities and how they adapt to a new community. The implications of ethnic identity
in the United States is relevant since immigrants bring part of their culture of origin into a
new society while hoping to adapt to their new environment. Immigrants can begin to

16

lose or downplay their ethnic identity when there is enmity toward their group. Positive
national identities arise when immigrants are welcomed and willing to adapt into their
new community (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). Latino and Hispanic
immigrants can be overwhelmed with their own identity while living in the United States
by being labeled one of many groups by the majority. Controversy arose in the 2000
Census where a Hispanic or Latino option was included in the “Some Other Race”
category. In the recent 2010 Census, the term Hispanic was identified as not being a race
and replaced with “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin”, allowing respondents to properly
identify themselves. Studies show that Latino’s choice in identifying themselves as
Latino, Hispanic, or White can have drastic effects on economic status and social context
(Tafoya, 2004).
The terms Hispanic and Latino have been widely debated in California and are
based on perceived stereotypes that can have significant differences amongst minorities.
The term “Spanish-American” was used to identify this minority group. The United
States government continued this until the 1970 Census where the term “Hispanic” was
first used, under the administration of Richard Nixon. This term comes from the Latin
word “Spain”, emphasizing that a particular group have the use of Spanish as their
common language. The term “Latino” was first used by the United States in the 2000
Census as a way of identifying the population in the western part of the country. Latino
is an abbreviation of the word “latinoamericano” and the Spanish word for “Latin”, used
primarily to identify individuals from Latin America. The two terms are often

17

corresponded but have distinct meanings and can represent one of 28 different groups
(Childs, Terry, Jurgenson, Clifton, & Higbie, 2010).
Arguments against both Hispanic and Latino terms, state that neither represents a
nationality, leaving individuals without national identity. This can become confusing for
minority children in American schools, as they can be labeled as different from the
majority. Students that come from a household where English is not the primary
language are further discriminated against, face isolation, and more removed from fitting
in traditional American society (Stone & McQuillan, 2007).
English Learners (EL) in California make up nearly one-third of elementary
students and one-fourth of K-12 students. Of the 1.4 million EL students in California,
85% have Spanish as their primary language (Jepsen & de Alth, 2005). California
schools must give the Spanish speaking EL’s great attention, as they are the largest
population at risk of forming negative identities based on communities with a limited
understanding of minority backgrounds. When minorities from Spanish speaking
backgrounds form identities in American schools, it is based on their experiences of
belonging. Educational levels, citizenship, and economic status are factors of national
identities (Tafoya, 2004).
Instructional Issues of Achievement Gap
There are several factors in the educational setting that lead to the ELL
achievement gap. Teacher efficacy is a large cause of the academic achievement gap for
ELL students. Studies show that teachers’ personal efficacy are closely related to their

18

job satisfaction and the academic achievement of students (Caprara, et al., 2006).
Teacher efficacy can greatly influence and encourage students toward success of any
subject matter. This is especially true when adequate teaching methods are used while
encouraging students through specific instruction. ELL’s motivation, self-esteem,
attitude toward school, and participation in class activities are greatly affected by
personal beliefs of teachers (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001).
Research strongly suggests that teachers from different nations or ethnocentric
groups, exhibit different attribution responses to student outcomes, resulting in cultural
differences that may play a significant role in teacher-student interactions. One of the
greatest challenges in re-shaping teachers’ perceptions of who is responsible for the
education of ELL’s in their classrooms, is to reconstruct their pattern of attributions, with
particular consideration and awareness of potential cultural biases (Fives & Buehl, 2008).
School districts attempt to close the gap through systematic approaches but fail in
many areas. Districts can begin to close the gap through professional developments that
focus on improving instructional strategies toward all students. However, trainings and
professional developments do not always stress attributions that teachers bring into the
classroom. Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, (2003) stress that professional developments
must have teacher self-reflections in order to find their thoughts of students and academic
objectives. Having staff members recognize all attributions will increase awareness of
ELL instruction and how it can affect student engagement. When teachers gain
knowledge through professional development, they will be able to self-reflect, carry

19

ongoing assessment, and understand feedback from administrators when evaluated. This
will build on their prior knowledge and bring the necessary tools to instruct a wide range
of students regardless of their ability (Fishman, et al., 2003).
Currently, our schools lack adequate preparations for teachers that work with
ELL’s. The National Literacy Panel for Language-Minority Children and Youth find that
there are very few professional and staff developments geared toward the instruction of
ELL’s. Also, measurements on professional developments are based on teacher feedback
and rarely focus on student achievement. Unfortunately, professional developments for
ELL’s do not always close the achievement gap and can bring negative feelings for
teachers when working with this population (Calderón, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin,
1998). The understanding of instruction learned from professional developments, is not
always what teachers practice (Duke & Pearson, 2002). With our schools becoming
more diverse, it is relevant that our teachers be highly qualified to work with all
populations, especially minority students. Regardless of educational background of
students, teachers that carry the necessary tools of quality instruction have a positive
impact on their achievement and performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Teachers must receive appropriate trainings about education that are tailored
toward English instruction. When teachers implement evidence-based practices that are
direct and explicit, students will have a greater chance of understanding difficult concepts
that they have struggled with previously (Cook, L., Cook, B. G., Landrum, & Tankersley,
2008). Although teachers are encouraged to use research-based practices in all academic

20

settings, they struggle with understanding which practices are in fact research-based and
supported by student outcomes (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009). This is a large concern
especially when administrators are faced with identifying appropriate theories and have
little guidance or plans (Marzano, 2003). Students will perform at the standards that
teachers set, regardless if it is at a higher level (Klassen, 2004). Teachers who are
confident in their ability to instruct and facilitate learning with diverse populations while
holding high expectations for themselves and their students will be successful (Boardman
& Woodruff, 2004).
Another cause directed toward the achievement gap is lack of vocabulary
instruction. Systematic, explicit, direct, and indirect vocabulary instruction is vital for
ELL’s and will increase social interactions, reading comprehension, and academic
developments in all content areas (Fishman, et al., 2003). Teachers and Latino families
do not carry the knowledge and skill necessary for student success, widening the
achievement gap. Teachers may not have the appropriate instructional strategies to
ensure that ELL’s are receiving proper education. This lack of knowledge and skill can
reduce teacher’s level of performance when working with ELL’s (Batt, 2008). Accessing
prior knowledge and seeking a deeper understanding of individual differences, allow
teachers to interpret material in a meaningful manner that can be applied to all subjects in
school. ELL’s may enter a classroom without any knowledge of the subject matter. If
instructors are unaware of student levels, there is a high risk of lack of comprehension
resulting in failure. Echeverria, Short, and Powers (2006) stress that background

21

knowledge is the foundation for creating an academic model for ELL’s that draw
meaningful connections to material. Increased academic success and motivation are
results of proper instruction that connects ELL’s to material.
The diverse population in the United States require teachers to assess students to
gain an understanding of what unique characteristics they bring into the classroom.
Fisher, Blachowicz, and Watts-Taffe (2008) feel that teachers must become aware of the
vocabulary background and SES of each student in their classroom in order to properly
use high-quality instruction: “The problem of moving more vocabulary research into
practice is compounded by the fact that students in economically disadvantaged settings
often have less exposure to and experiences with print that parallel school-based literacy
practices and expectations” (p. 321). Ongoing assessment and discussion bring new
vocabulary in new language contexts for low-income students (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, &
Higareda, 2005).
The K-12 population of ELL’s in the United States is rapidly growing. Spellings
(2007) estimates that by the year 2025, one in every four students in the United States
will come from a home where the primary language is not English. Instruction in the
student’s primary language is not always implemented in the public school setting.
Hayes, Rueda, and Chilton (2009) believe that quality instruction is the main factor for
achievement regardless of the language of instruction: “controversy over bilingual
education has focused on the language of instruction. In contrast, much less attention has
focused on instructional quality and on understanding how specific classroom

22

instructional strategies affect student learning outcomes” (p. 138). Latino ELL’s will
benefit greatly when support is facilitated through learning across the curriculum,
developed through bilingual education, and inform immigrant families of education
(Abedi, 2004).
Instruction of student’s primary language can greatly benefit ELL’s path to
learning English (Goldenberg, 2008). This approach needs to be specialized and use
interventions that teachers can build upon, while becoming more knowledgeable of
effective instruction for ELL’s (Shin, Rueda, Simpkins, & Lin, 2009). Similar research
points to the success of Dual Proficiency programs where content-based instruction that
focuses on students’ primary language is explicitly scaffolded to academic understanding
of English (Hayes, et al., 2009).
English oral language must be taught through a systematic, explicit, and direct
approach of instruction. Explicit instruction in vocabulary, reading, and social
conversation using clear goals and objectives, structured tasks, adequate practice, and
several opportunities to practice, will allow the ELL to make gains in English (Coleman
& Goldenberg, 2009). When instruction for ELL’s is properly executed, students will
make a connection with the material while developing meaningful insight toward the
lesson.
Teachers must understand the levels of oral language proficiency and
systematically group students during English Language Development (ELD) instruction.
The five types of language proficiency are beginning, early intermediate, intermediate,

23

early advanced, and advanced. Differentiated instruction during this time can lead to
gains in English knowledge as well as increasing student-teacher relationships. Grouping
students according to level of proficiency can have negative outcomes if teachers are not
using research-based practices. Teachers must assess throughout lessons, provide
comprehensible material, use visual representations, and adjust material according to
each student’s proficiency level (Slavin, 1990; Shin et al., 2009).
Effective instructional skills, strategies, and accommodations must be
implemented for ELL’s to affect the achievement gap. Teachers must understand how
SDAIE strategies are used in the classroom and which populations they target. SDAIE
strategies are those such as modifying the lesson, using visual aids, graphic organizers,
and accessing prior knowledge. When SDAIE strategies are used, ELL’s will make
connections and gain greater efficacy and motivation toward academic goals. Teachers
must understand how scaffolding and making connections on student’s background
knowledge can greatly increase developments.
Finally, the achievement gap for ELL’s can be based on immigrant families not
being familiar with educational goals that schools carry. Parental involvement in their
child’s education is linked with academic success and an increase in grades, test scores,
and attendance (Fan & Chen, 2001). Communication between school and home is
essential for all parties, while bringing a common understanding of the expected
academic outcomes.

24

Motivational Causes of Achievement Gap
The lack of teacher self-efficacy in the classroom can have devastating outcomes
toward student success. Self-efficacy is the belief that teachers have about themselves in
instructing their class successfully (Bandura, 2006). This belief plays a large role in
student outcome where instructors believe that they have the ability to directly influence
ELL’s in the academic setting. Teacher’s personal beliefs can have a positive
contribution that significantly correlate to student achievement as well as job satisfaction
(Caprara et al., 2006).
Teacher beliefs about their ability to reach their students have a combining effect
on student motivation and value toward a task. When ELL’s have a sense that
instructional material will benefit them, their engagement will increase since they now
hold worth toward presented information. Teachers can motivate students by focusing on
intrinsic over extrinsic motivational approaches (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006).
Intrinsic motivation is created when a student has a true interest in the topic and strives
toward success based on internal rewards. Students who carry extrinsic motivation
participate in an activity based on gaining an outside reward other than the instructional
material (Pajares, 2003). Extrinsic goals result in students having lower self-efficacy,
high depression, and anxiety in an academic setting (Bruning & Horn, 2000). Teachers
must properly assess and access background knowledge of each ELL student in order to
differentiate between both motivational approaches (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

25

When students carry high self-efficacy along with intrinsic motivation, they are
inclined to set mastery-goals that result in higher levels of thinking. Mastery-oriented
students are suited to learn new information while improving their overall abilities.
Students can also become performance-oriented where their motivation is geared toward
displaying their individual abilities toward others. This will lead to limited gains in
learning where students will easily quit on a task. Teachers who understand the
difference between the two achievement-goal orientations can gear the classroom toward
mastery-goals, while developing intrinsic motivation for ELL’s. When properly created,
this type of environment will allow students to feel a high sense of significance and
increase self-efficacy, while lowering misconduct and increasing academic gains (Eccles
& Roesser, 2005).
Another issue relating to the achievement gap is a teacher’s ability to create an
environment where students are motivated toward academic excellence. According to the
social cognitive theory, individuals learn and are influenced by watching the behavior of
others within their environment (Bandura, 1997). Teachers can create a rich environment
and community where students are motivated to complete difficult tasks based on
behavior, feedback, and self-efficacy (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Hattie and
Timperley (2007) found that positive reinforcement when given at the right level,
improves self-efficacy and student motivation: “To be effective, feedback needs to be
clear, purposeful, meaningful, and compatible with students’ prior knowledge and to
provide logical connections” (p. 104). Furthermore, positive feedback can build on

26

instruction and create powerful influences on learning in the classroom. Teachers must
understand the power of their statements and the difference between positive and
negative feedback (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998).
ELL’s may have little motivation to succeed in American schools. This can be
due to a disconnect of cultures where they feel like an outsider trying to conform to a
foreign organization. Educators can create value toward tasks, greatly influencing the
motivation of minority students whose first language is other than English. These values
can then set the stage for individualized academic goals of ELL students. Instructors can
predict the expectancy-value theories in motivation, student choices, behavior,
engagement, persistence, and actual achievement in an academic setting (Schunk, et al.,
2008). Elementary teachers can gather attributes of ELL’s by understanding their
expectancies and values of a task or activity at a very early age. Wigfield and Eccles
(2000) review the change of children and adolescents’ ability beliefs, expectancies, and
values toward a task. They found that “during the very early elementary grades, children
appear to have distinct beliefs about what they are good at and what they value in
different achievement domains” (p. 75). Therefore, ELL’s can be motivated in
academics at the primary grade level and beyond.
ELL students can take steps in academic learning by becoming affective self-
regulators. Motivation can result through different dimensions of behavior of self-
regulation. According to Eaton and Dembo (1997), teachers can influence learning by
developing motivation, methods of learning, use of time, control of one’s physical and

27

social environment, and performance. When students are able to self-regulate, they can
set goals and create value toward academic subjects. Regardless of pushes toward
effective teachers, there will always be some that ignore certain students, forcing these
students to learn how to overcome adversity through self-regulation.
Finally, teachers who have a high population of ELL’s must access background
and prior knowledge for all students. When instructional approaches have a rich
understanding of background knowledge of the student, they result in gains of mastery-
goals and intrinsic motivation, increasing value toward the lesson (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2006). ELL students will hold a genuine interest in the subject matter and carry tools
such as persistence and deeper conceptual knowledge.
Teachers’ behavioral and affective reactions to their students’ scholastic outcomes
directly influence self-perceptions and future actions (Graham & Golan, 1991). This is a
critical point in the consideration of how teachers make attributions for the failures of
ELL’s and its effects on future progress and self-esteem of students. If teachers are
making differential attributions for the success and failures of students, then there will be
a difference in the interactions, feedback, and expectations that teachers maintain within
their class.
Organizational Culture Causes of Achievement Gap
Social relations between teachers and the community where they work are
relevant due to the types of students who are in their classroom. If teachers attribute lack
of performance to internal factors, they are less likely to make modifications or meet

28

student needs (Brady & Woolfson, 2008). Low expectations are set if teachers perceive
student ability as stable and not adaptable to change (Schmid, 2001). Knowledge of
institutional relations between ELL’s and other students will, however, provide more help
if they feel that the students do not have control over their learning.
The lack of instructional resources also widens the achievement gap for ELL’s.
ELL’s who come from a low socioeconomic area are not given the same resources as
those from affluent areas. Research suggests that state funding should be equally
provided for all students and adjusted for specific student need such as EL support. If
this occurs, all districts can provide quality education by hiring adequate teachers,
purchase current resources, and carry appropriate class sizes (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Murnane and Steele (2007) find that the economy in the United States is at a
pivotal point where it is essential that students leave school with the necessary tools to
succeed. Effective instructors are the foundation for success of students during this time.
However, schools are limited with providing effective instruction to all students,
especially poor children and children of color, due to the lack of high-quality teachers
hired. The attrition rate of teachers is especially high in schools in low socioeconomic
and non-white areas. Policy makers hope to limit the turnover rate for teachers in these
areas in hopes of equipping students with the necessary skills needed in a changing
economy (Murnane & Steele, 2007).
The supply and demand of effective teachers in low socioeconomic areas vary
depending on student enrollment and teacher salary (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005).

29

Significant findings support the need for district and administrator support for retaining
novice and experienced teachers. When stressors such as dealing with behavior issues of
students, lack of teacher support, and overwhelming of mandated credentialing programs,
teachers can feel lost with little encouragement. A school wide plan in place by school
administration to support the classroom will effectively communicate to all involved.
Additionally, administrators must be familiar with school culture while building a strong
climate on school campus (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).

30

Methodology
Authors: Ashley Benjamin, Shannon Powers, and Eric Medrano
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis model to help a local
school district close their ELL Latino/White student achievement gap in their elementary
schools. The Gap Analysis framework was used to examine the roots of the problem and
the causes of why ELL Latino students in a local school district’s elementary schools
were struggling. The Gap Analysis process helped to identify the potential
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap
Analysis, when used in conjunction with relevant literature, helped to identify possible
solutions to close the achievement gap in a local school district.
The Latino and ELL Achievement Gap
There is an achievement gap between Latino students and their White peers,
especially in urban school districts. Generally, Latino students are about two to three
years of learning behind White students of the same age in both test score achievement
and graduation attainment. On state assessments, almost half of Latinos score Below
Basic compared to only 17% of White students (McKinsey & Company, 2009). On the
2006 CST, over 50% of White students scored proficient or above in Language Arts and
Mathematics compared to only 28% of Latinos (California Department of Education,
2007). Johnson (2002) reaffirms this when he states, “at second and third grades, Latinos
are scoring much lower than their white counterparts” (p.4). This gap is continuing to

31

widen, and has particularly increased between the years 1997 and 2004 (Spellings, 2007).
Also, over the past three decades there has been little increase in Latino student’s college
graduation rates (Gandara, 2010). While there have been achievement gains since the
implementation of NCLB for Latinos, the data still indicates the need for drastic
improvement by schools in order to close the gap.
Similarly the ELL subgroups, like the Latino subgroup, consistently underperform
in comparison to their English-speaking peers on state and national tests (Goldenberg,
2006). On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress report, fourth-grade
ELL’s scored 36 points below non-ELL’s in reading and 25 points below non-ELL’s in
math. The gaps among eighth-graders were even larger, 42 points in reading and 37
points in math. These gaps are so large that the gaps between ELL’s and non-ELL’s are
3 to 18 points larger than the gaps between students who are and are not eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch (Goldenberg, 2008).
The Gap Analysis Process
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to helping improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). A gap analysis
helps organizations to identify and clarify goals, as well as analyze gaps between desired
level of achievement and actual levels of achievement. A gap analysis also helps
organizational leaders to identify the root causes of the gap so that effective resources and
solutions can be identified and implemented. Similar to a consultant model, a gap
analysis focuses on identifying, analyzing, and solving specific problems.

32

There are 5 steps in the gap analysis process. First, an organization must define
and set goals. Goals are tiered in a 3 level structure: day-to-day goals, intermediate goals,
and long-term goals. In order to ensure the acceptance and impact of the goals by an
organization, they must be concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable),
challenging (doable but very difficult), and current (short-term daily or weekly goals are
more motivating than longer-term monthly or annual goals) (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 26).
All goals should be aligned, cascading, and relevant. Therefore, an important part of the
gap analysis is determining whether goals are clear, measurable, understood, and
supported by everyone in the organization.
The second step involves determining gaps. Current goals and performance levels
are compared to the desired standard of performance. In determining the gap in
performance, benchmark data must be collected from a similar but ideal organization that
with higher performance. One would compute the gap between these two organizations
by subtracting one’s own organizational achievement from the industry leader’s
achievement. The space between the current and desired level of achievement is
identified as the gap.
The third step is to investigate the causes of the gap. The roots of the gap may be
knowledge/skill, motivational, or organizational related, and all three areas should be
examined closely. Organization participants’ knowledge should be examined in regards
to information, job aids, training, and education. Some areas of motivation that should be
examined involve active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Organizational gaps that

33

should be considered involve alignment, culture, and change. Focus groups, interviews,
surveys, and observations are some ways to examine these causes.
As possible causes of the gap are proposed, eliminated, and refined, solutions to
the problem can be identified. The fourth step is defining and implementing research-
based solutions that directly target the learning, motivational, or organizational roots to
the problem. Solutions can be retrieved through scholarly literature of research-based
practices or from solutions being implemented at similar and successful organizations.
The final and crucial step is to evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions.
There are four levels of evaluation: reactions, impact during the program, transfer, and
the bottom line. Surveys, interviews, and discussion groups are some ways of receiving
participant feedback. If needed, solutions will be modified until the goals are met.
Theoretical Frameworks
There are several potential theories and theoretical frameworks that were used to
provide a lens and ground the analysis of the problem. All theories stemmed from the
structure of the gap analysis process. Specifically, they were situated within the themes
of knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture.
First, considering the theme of knowledge and skill, cognitive theory impacted the
analysis. Cognitive theory is concerned with the development of a person's thought
processes. It also looks at how thought processes influence one’s understanding and
interaction with the world (Mayer, 2008). In this project, cognitive theory impacted the

34

analysis of teacher’s knowledge of instructional strategies as well as their perceptions of
the problem
Next, motivational theory was used to guide the analysis of motivational roots and
solutions to the problem. Motivation is defined as an internal drive that activates
behavior and gives it direction (Schunk, et al., 2008). Motivation theory is concerned
with the processes that describe why and how human behavior is activated and directed
(Bong, 2004). A specific motivational theory that guided the analysis of the problem is
the incentive theory of motivation. The incentive theory of motivation examines how
rewards given after a behavior, with the intent to cause that behavior again, impact the
occurrence of the behavior (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). This theory guided the analysis of
the intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivations in place at a local school
district (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Some motivational constructs that guided the analysis were
self-efficacy, task value, interest, attributions, and goal orientation.
Finally, the organizational culture of a local school district was examined through
a lens of conflict theory and critical race theory. Conflict theory is a social theory, which
emphasizes a person or group's ability to exercise influence and control over others.
Conflict theory states that the society or organization functions so that each individual
and its group struggles to maximize their benefits, which, inevitably contributes to social
change such as changes in politics and revolutions (Thomas, 1992). With conflict theory
there is a continual struggle between all different aspects of a particular society, and the
struggle that occurs does not always have to involve physical violence; it can pertain to

35

an underlying struggle for each group or individual within a society to maximize its own
benefits (Maynard, 1985). Similarly, critical race theory is concerned with racism, racial
subordination, and discrimination. Maxwell and Shammas (2007) define this theory as “a
method for understanding the organizational structure that leads to covert discrimination”
(p. 347). Summarily, these two theories allowed the team to determine whether racism
and inequality were factors in this district’s Latino/White achievement gap.
Conceptual Framework
The following are concepts, situated within the gap analysis framework that
guided the team throughout every aspect of this project. Various components of
organizational culture, knowledge/skill, and motivation are defined in this section.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is comprised of the assumptions, values, norms and
tangible signs of organization members and their behaviors. Charles and Gareth (2001)
define it as, “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and
groups in an organization that control the way they interact with each other and with
stakeholders outside the organization.” Generally, one can determine the culture of an
organization through the mood and tone present within the environment.
Three elements make up an organizations culture: environment, individuals, and
groups of individuals. First, the context in which individuals are a part of is the
environment. In this project, the environment is the district and school sites. Individuals
are the members who make up the environment, such as teachers, secretaries, and

36

administrators. Individuals have their own thoughts, beliefs, feelings, experiences,
perceptions and behaviors. Groups of Individuals are people who are united by a
common focus, belief, or effort. These groups can influence decision-making and
processes within an organization. (Clark & Estes, 2002).
There are also several characteristics that can be examined when looking at an
organization’s culture. The first aspect of organizational culture involves work process.
Work processes “specify how people, equipment, and materials must link and interact
over time to produce some desired result” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 104). Specifically, the
aspects of an organizations process, such as who, how, and what is happening are
relevant. Materials and resources are another aspect of an organizations culture and refer
to tangible supplies and equipment being used in an organization, typically to achieve
their goal(s). Some examples of materials and resources in schools could be textbooks,
curriculum, resource specialists, and Teacher Assistant’s (TA). Value chains and value
streams, which look at the process and steps used in order to create a product, are also
part of organizational culture. “Value streams are a form of analysis that describes how
an organization’s departments and divisions interact and what processes they
implement…while value chains use the information from streams to identify the way that
divisional or team processes achieve goals for internal and external customers” (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. 105).

37

Knowledge/Skill
There are four types of knowledge: Factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive (Pickard, 2007). Factual knowledge is the basic elements that individuals
must know in order to be acquainted or solve problems within a discipline. Procedural
knowledge, also known as imperative knowledge, is the knowledge exercised in the
performance of some task. Procedural knowledge refers to the process, or how one does
something and completes a task. Procedural knowledge is often thought about as certain
skills we possess, tasks we can complete, or processes we are able to follow. Conceptual
knowledge refers to a person’s representation of the major concepts in a system.
Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of relationships and complex concepts and
cannot be learned by rote memorization, but through thoughtful, reflective thinking.
Conceptual knowledge is the kind of knowledge that may be transferred between
situations.
Metacognitive knowledge involves knowledge about cognition in general, as well
as awareness of and knowledge about one's own cognition. Metacognitive knowledge
includes knowledge of general strategies that might be used for different tasks, the
conditions under which these strategies might be used, the extent to which the strategies
are effective, and knowledge of self (Flavell, 1979; Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000;
Schneider & Pressley, 1997). Specifically, these three types of metacognitive knowledge
are known as strategic knowledge, contextual/conditional knowledge, and self-
knowledge. Strategic knowledge is understanding of general strategies for learning,

38

thinking, and problem solving. Contextual/conditional knowledge involves an individuals
understanding about specific cognitive tasks, as well as when and why to use different
strategies in unique situations and settings. Finally, self-knowledge includes
understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses (Pintrich, 2002).
Motivation
Various aspects of motivation are relevant in this study: self-efficacy, task-value,
interest, attributions, goal-orientation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, mental effort,
and persistence. Self-efficacy refers to how individuals feel about their ability to
complete a task (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman, 2000). In this project teacher and student
levels of self-efficacy were examined. Task-value describes the level of importance
someone attributes to a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Interest is how attentive an
individual is involved in toward a task (Renninger, Bachrach, & Posey, 2008). In this
project, the group examined student levels of interest and how meaningful they found
instruction and curriculum. Attributions are how individuals ascribe causes to events
such as location, stability, and controllability (Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen,
2009). In this project, interviewees were asked what they believed attributed to the
problem and achievement gap. Goal orientation refers to how individuals define their
success in relation to goals. Specifically, one can either have mastery goals, which focus
on mastering a task, or performance goals, which focus on external indicators of success
such as grades (Gonida, Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009). Another aspect of motivation is
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the internal factors that affect

39

one’s motivation to accomplish a task. For example, doing something because it makes
one feel happy is intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to external factors of
motivation (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005). Grades and monetary rewards are
examples of extrinsic motivators. Finally, mental effort refers to how hard one tries in
order to accomplish a task, while persistence refers to how long a person continues to try
to accomplish a task despite challenges or difficulty.
Timeline
An initial orientation was held in November 2009, during which the study team
met the superintendent and assistant superintendents of the school district to be
examined. The superintendents elaborated on concerns and problems they faced in their
school district and proposed certain topics to be evaluated. In December 2009, the ELL
Latino achievement gap in elementary schools was the final topic selected for the
research teams focus. An initial Round I collection of background literature on the
educational context of the problem, district data, and background information began. The
group was also assigned a district level administrator as a contact, who would address
any concerns and questions the team had throughout the project process and arrange
initial meetings with district level administrators.
In February 2010 with the assistance of the district contact, the group arranged to
interview seven district level administrators. The team then conducted general “scanning
interviews” with these key informants in order to gain a basic understanding of the school
district’s goals and perceptions of the problem. There was also discussion as to who the

40

group’s next contact should be and the group received approval of their “purpose of the
project” statement. Contact information for the research team was also given. During
this time the group selected the three school sites the project would focus on and with
help from the district contact, arranged and conducted scanning interviews with the
school site principals.
On February 23
rd
the research team participated in and passed the qualifying exam
of the dissertation where the committee evaluated the group’s progress, purpose, and
project. Following passage of the qualifying exam, the group conducted Round II of their
data collection. They conducted “One Month Interviews” of about 10 teachers at the
selected school sites. The school site principals helped to coordinate the interviewee
selection, days, and times. These interviews were used to gain a better understanding of
the types of instructional strategies being used in the classroom. An Innovation
Configuration Chart was used during each of these interviews to rank how successful
teachers were in implementing various instructional strategies. All interview data was
transcribed, charted, coded, and discussed following each interview. Initial patterns and
themes were also discussed at this time.
In the summer of 2010, a final analysis and write up of the roots of the problem
occurred. The collected data was analyzed in order to ensure that all possible roots of the
problem were identified, eliminated, and refined. Chapter I – the background of the
problem, Chapter II – the methodology, literature review, report of the findings, and the
executive summary, were completed during the summer.

41

In the fall of 2010, the group examined literature in order to determine solutions
to the problem in the district. The group then completed Chapter III – the solutions and
the executive summary of the solutions. The group prepared and presented the
recommendations of the project to the school district. A comprehensive report of the
findings and recommendations were made available to the district and also to the public.
Following the presentation to the district, the group reflected on the dissertation process
and the presentation experience thus completing Chapter IV.
Table 1: Project Timeline
Fall 2009
• Topic defined as ELL Latino
achievement gap
• Data Collection on context of
problem
• Background and information on
district

Spring 2010
• Interviews of key district personnel
• Qualifying Exams
• Draft of Chapter 1 and defined
possible causes of the gap
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer 2010
• More in-depth data collection at
school sites
• Chapter II completed
• Explored reforms for district to
close the achievement gap

Fall 2010
• District presentation of
comprehensive report of findings
and recommendations
• Finished Capstone Project
Spring 2011
• Defended Capstone Project and
Graduation

This alternative capstone project was unique in several ways. Unlike a typical
dissertation, a team of three individuals with various areas of expertise, experience, and
backgrounds, worked together collaboratively. The team collected data, interacted with

42

the district, identified findings and solutions, and defended their dissertations together.
Similarly, sections IIB: The Methodology, IIC: The Findings, IIIA: The Solutions Based
Literature Review, and IIIB: the Solutions Summary, are all common text across the
team. This has been noted in the heading of these sections. Chapter I: Introduction and
section IIA: Literature Review, were individual completed.
Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods included informal interviews. The purpose of the
interviews was to “gather descriptive data in the subjects’ own words so that the
researcher can develop insights on how participants interpret some piece of the world”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 96). Following a phenomenological perspective, the
interviews were intended to gain an understanding of the insider’s viewpoint and
experience. An interview protocol was used that had questions based on the research
questions, the problem, and the literature. This semi-structured interview format with
such an interview-guide approach, allowed for the research team to decide the sequence
and wording of the questions during the interview with the interview remaining relatively
conversational and situational (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Participants were
allowed to respond to the questions freely, and probing questions were asked as needed to
gain a more in-depth understanding of certain topics.
Specifically, a Scanning Interview (See Appendix A) was done of all district and
administrative personnel. This general broad based format had five open-ended questions
that allowed the interviewee to share their perspective on the problem, the history of the

43

problem, the solutions being used, and the roots of the problem. The team selected five
broad questions because the group felt that number would allow them to gain a deep
enough understanding of the perceptions within a reasonable time frame of thirty-minutes
to one-hour.
A One Month Interview (See Appendix B) was used with teachers to determine
what goals and instructional practices were being used in the classroom with ELL Latino
students over a specified time frame. Three questions were selected to better understand
what the teacher had been doing in his/her class over one month. The group felt the three
questions, in correspondence with an Innovation Configuration Chart, would sufficiently
allow the researchers to gain an understanding of typical teacher instructional practices
within a thirty-minutes to one-hour interview time frame. Overall, the questions focused
on experience, behavior, opinion, value, feeling, knowledge, and background.
An Innovation Configuration Chart (See Appendix C) was used during this
interview process to help the interviewers determine how successful the teachers were in
implementing effective instructional strategies over one month. The categories of the
Innovation Configuration Chart were selected based on effective ELL instructional
strategies identified in the literature. Based on teacher interview responses, the team was
able to categorize teachers into either being successful, moderately successful, or just
getting started in regards to their level of strategy implementation.
Similarly, a brief 1-2 minutes Stages of Concern (See Appendix D) informal
interview occurred throughout the site visits to determine what stage of instructional

44

strategy implementation the teachers were in and what concerns they may have about the
problem. The possible stages of concern are based on the Hall and Loucks (1979)
Concerns-Based Adoption Model: awareness, informational, personal, management,
consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. Individuals at the refocusing level are
concerned with advanced use of the innovation, and have ideas for how to improve the
implementation. Teachers with collaboration concerns are concerned with relations with
others. Teachers at the consequence level are concerned with how the innovation is
affecting their students. Management concerns are time related issues, personal concerns
are related to the individual personally, and people with informational concerns need
more information about the innovation. People with awareness concerns are typically not
concerned with the innovation. (Hall & Loucks, 1979).
Sampling Strategies
Various sampling strategies were utilized during this project: intensity sampling,
homogeneous sampling, and typical case sampling. Intensity sampling is defined as
“information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon intensely but not extremely”
(Patton, 2002, p. 243). Therefore, intensity sampling was used to select the focus schools
in this study. The three elementary schools were strategically chosen because they
provided information-rich data on the ELL White achievement gap in the district.
Homogeneous sampling is defined as sampling that has focus, reduces variation,
and simplifies analysis (Patton, 2002). This method of sampling was used when the
initial scanning interviews of district personnel was done. These interviews helped the

45

research team gain a focused understanding of the problem, determine district personal
perceptions, and determine which schools and school-based individuals needed to be
interviewed.
Typical case sampling was done at schools with teachers. Typical case sampling
is used to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal or average” (Patton, 2002, p.
243). By randomly selecting five teachers at each school site, the team hoped to gain a
better understanding of the typical instructional strategies being used at that site. This
information helped the team to later determine potential root causes of the problem and
possible solutions.
The Sample
Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were
composed of a high number of Latino ELL’s and demonstrated an achievement gap
between this subgroup and their White peers. The first elementary school that had an
ELL Latino achievement gap identified was Horace Mann Elementary. This school had
229 Hispanic students out of 428 total students, therefore Hispanic students made up 54%
of the student population. 60% of the entire school was ELL’s and 33% were Spanish
speaking. The API for the school was 803, whereas the Hispanic API score was 771.
Therefore there was a gap of 32 points in API. 88% of the students were on Free and
Reduced price lunch and the school was a Title I school.
The next elementary school that was examined was Thomas Edison Elementary
School. This school had 211 Hispanic students out of 398 total students, making

46

Hispanic students 53% of the student population. The API for the school was 807
compared to the Hispanic subgroup API of 759, a gap of 48 points in student
achievement. ELL’s made up 52% of the population, with 32% of those being Spanish
Speaking. The school was a Title I school with 76% of the students on Free/Reduced
Price lunch.
The final elementary school examined in this study was John Muir Elementary
School. This school had 145 Latino students out of 475 total students. Latino students
made up 31% of the student population. Despite having a smaller number of Latino
students, the school had the largest achievement gap between subgroups. The Hispanic
population had an API of 755, whereas the rest of the student population had an API of
815. This was a gap of 60 points. The school had 42% ELL’s, 13% of whom speak
Spanish. The school was a Title I school with 75% on Free/Reduced Price lunch.
The district representatives that were interviewed for thirty-minutes to one-hour
were the Director Student Support Services, Director of Instructional Support Services,
Director of Special Projects and Intercultural Education and Professional Development,
Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Administrator of Assessment
and Evaluation, Director of Early Education & Extended Learning Programs, and district
Public Relations Officer. The team also interviewed the principals of each school.
The team interviewed three teachers from Edison Elementary, two 1
st
grade
teachers and one 4
th
/5
th
grade teacher. Five teachers were interviewed at Muir

47

Elementary, one 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
teacher, and two 5
th
grade teachers. Three teachers were
interviewed at Horace Mann, a 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
grade teacher.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis was Structure Focused, which is defined as a “comparison or
case study of analysis that focuses on a project, program, organization, or units in an
organization” (Patton, 2002, p. 223). Therefore, the unit of analysis for this project was
Structure Focused, since the team analyzed units (schools) within an organization
(Glendale Unified School District, 2009).
Similarly, this was an action-orientated, problem-solving project. An action-
orientated, problem-solving project is one whose purpose is to “solve problems in a
program, organization, or community” (Patton, 2002, p. 224). In this case, the
organization (the district) identified a problem (the gap within elementary schools) to be
investigated.
Data Analysis
Initial data analysis occurred following each interview. The audiotape of the
interview was transcribed using a word processor. Once all interview recordings were
transcribed, interviewee and questions were organized as data. Charting the interview
responses by questions allowed the researchers to graphically view patterns and themes.
Initial reflections of apparent themes and patterns were discussed and recorded at that
time as a narrative description or summary of preliminary impressions. Any responses
that appeared to respond to the gap analysis framework and overarching research

48

questions were noted.
Based on these preliminary reflections, as well as themes and concepts from the
literature and gap analysis, a list of codes was divulged using the “closed” coding
technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, some of the primary “closed” codes
used were: knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Segments of the data
were then labeled using these codes.
Then, using the “open” coding technique, additional codes were created (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). When relevant themes became apparent, they were labeled with words
or phrases that reflected and/or defined the concept or theme that related to the research
questions. For example, some of the “open” codes were: Perception of the problem,
goals, and self-efficacy.
All of the codes and their corresponding data segments were then grouped into
categories based on similar themes. Codes that were repeated multiple times were
determined to be patterns and those that responded to the research questions were noted
as significant. The researchers then collaborated to discuss and determine which codes
revealed patterns, and emerging roots of the problem were identified and agreed upon in
order to complete the findings section of the dissertation. The literature was then
analyzed in relation to the gap analysis framework and data collected in order to
determine which strategies and solutions would be most effective in this school district.

49

Limitations to the Project
There are several limitations to this project. First due to time constraints and
resource limitations, only three schools and 11 teachers were examined. Since the three
schools selected were representative of typical elementary schools in the district, and
because in-depth data was gathered at each of these schools, the team determined that the
collected data was sufficient enough to identify possible roots of the problem in the
district. Therefore, the data gathered at the three schools is representative of the district
as a whole, but cannot be completely generalized.
Another limitation of this project is that students and parents were not
interviewed. The intention of this project was to help a local school district with a
problem they identified, not to conduct a typical research study, thus the research team
did not go through typical Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures. Therefore, the
researchers were not permitted to interview children or parents, and information about
those groups was gained through teacher and district personnel perceptions. The team
understood that the educator’s second-hand perceptions of parent and student beliefs and
motivation could be biased and flawed, yet these perceptions in themselves revealed
various problems and issues relevant to this study.
An additional limitation was that the research team did not select the teachers to
be interviewed. While the research team did select the district administration to be
interviewed and the school sites to be examined, the teachers to be interviewed at the
school sites were selected by the school site principal. The principals seemed to be

50

uncomfortable with the presence of the research team, possibly as a result of the
perception that the team would judge their flaws, or worry that the team would report
negative findings to the district office, thus putting the principal and school at risk of
various administrative consequences. In order to maintain access to the school sites and
carry a positive relationship with the administrators, the research team decided that it
would be best to allow the principals to coordinate the teacher interviews so that they
could maintain a feeling of comfort and control. Therefore it is possible that the views of
the interviewed teachers are representative of the principal’s desired views, and are more
positive than what the typical teacher may say. However, the varying teacher responses,
general openness of the participating teachers, and extensive data collected revealed
consistent themes that were both positive and negative.
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 general 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 general knowledge.
The following sections from a University IRB publication clarify the status of the present
project:

51

“Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
general 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, 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 general knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:

1
"General 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.
 

52

“Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to general 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).

53

Findings

Authors: Ashley Benjamin, Shannon Powers, and Eric Medrano

Organizational Culture
Culture
Some of the positives about the district are its environmental, individual, and
group cultures. In regards to environment, school maintenance and safety appears to be a
priority in the district. For instance, the schools are clean, spacious, and have visually
appealing architecture. Student work is displayed throughout the school, and generally
the walls and classrooms are very colorful and cheerful. Student data, test results, and
goals are also posted with positive reinforcement throughout the hallways. Overall, the
atmosphere of the school sites feel and appear to be very friendly, safe, and positive.
The culture in regards to individual members of the staff is equally as positive.
Teachers seem happy, energetic, and motivated. Also, most of the staff seem fond of one
another and appear to get along with each other. Almost every district staff member has
the philosophy that all students can learn and achieve. Students also seem happy and
cheerful as they walk through the halls. Secretaries and staff are welcoming and friendly
to parents and visitors as they enter the school.
Individual group culture is also positive. This is particularly evident through the
high level of both mandatory and voluntary collaboration occurring throughout the
district. Teachers collaborate during monthly mandatory daylong meetings and many
teachers sited that they work with their grade level colleagues during lunch each day.

54

Therefore, teachers seem to be motivated to collaborate and learn from one another and
are more motivated to help their students learn and succeed.
Process: Policy and Procedures
In this school district, the reform Focus on Results (FOR) is being used. Focus on
Results has seven areas or phases. First in Phase 1, a school wide instructional focus
based on an assessment of students needs is created. In this district each school has
chosen its own instructional focus, such as writing or science. Each focus was chosen
because it was thought to be an area that would improve students overall achievement,
the subject/topic was shown to be a low scoring area in the school’s CST scores, or the
selected focus would support the growth of a low scoring area on the school’s CST
scores. In phase 2, the school wide instructional focus that meets students’ needs is
implemented. In phase 3, there is a unity of purpose across the district as a clear
instructional focus drives all decision-making. This district office selected an
overarching instructional focus of achievement and has specified areas of weakness in the
format of an urgency statement; one urgency statement is the Latino ELL achievement
gap. The next four phases are situated within building a targeted professional
development plan. The final four phases are: build expertise (help people know what to
do), change practice (hold individuals accountable), monitor student performance (chart
the impact of the instructional focus on importance), and communicate relentlessly
(always talk about what is going on) (Focus on Results, 2010).

55

Currently FOR is leading district staff to place a large emphasis on data and data
analysis. Charts and graphic organizers depicting student achievement scores, growth,
and goals are displayed throughout the district office, school hallways, and classrooms.
Every teacher is aware of their school’s API and AYP, and their goal score to reach by
the end of the year. Data is the main focus of both district level meetings and school staff
meetings as staff examines achievement scores and looks at patterns. According to
several principals, data is also used to indentify struggling teachers in order to be able to
provide them with more support, or to determine who needs to be put on an improvement
plan. In addition, principals described how displaying individual classroom API scores in
initial school year professional developments, motivated teachers by showing them that
high scores and success are possible. Also, by showing the lowest score without a name,
they feel that this identifies weaker teachers in a discreet way. Often teachers are already
aware of who scored lowest and these teachers are motivated to improve. Grade levels
also work in teams during this time to determine strength and weakness patterns revealed
by the data. Overall, it is clear that this is a data-driven district.
One of the issues with FOR and this data-driven mindset that may be perpetuating
the Latino achievement gap is the district’s intense emphasis on FOR seems to take away
from discussion about instructional practices. For example, during the interviews when
individuals were asked about FOR, they were quickly able to recite the district and school
instructional focus, the “Urgency Statement,” and scores and data points. However,
when asked what specific strategies were being used or what things were being done to

56

achieve the instructional focus, the response was often simply “good teaching.”
Therefore, it was evident that while data is being used to identify gaps and problem areas
in instruction, discussion is not being taken to the next level. A deeper reflection on what
needs to happen as a result of the data and specifically what effective ELD instructional
strategies should be used, were not a significant part of the discussion occurring within
the FOR process. Summarily, the emphasis was more on data and process and less about
direct classroom instructional strategies.
At the school sites, there are no independent reform processes being used in an
effort to close the gap. However, each school site has chosen an instructional focus such
as reading comprehension or writing to guide discussions during staff development and to
be the overarching theme of all instruction. While these themes are expected to be
situated within the FOR framework, there appears to be little connection between the
individual school focuses and the FOR reform and district goals/urgency statement. Thus
there is a separation and disconnect between the schools and district office. Another
issue with the schools instructional focuses is that the selected focuses do not necessarily
relate to the achievement gap. For example, a focus on writing in all subjects does not
appear to have been chosen with the intention of benefiting ELL’s or with closing the
gap. It appears to have been chosen because it would be useful learning for all students.
The role of the district strategy to close the achievement gap, within the FOR
Framework, is to first use data to identify gaps. The district’s director of assessment and
instruction whose job it is to analyze and prepare data for the district using Data Director,

57

explained that before NCLB, there was no data to reveal how students were progressing,
and now they can really see who is succeeding, and who is struggling while needing more
help. She and others felt that this basic identification of achievement levels is a crucial
and influential step. The district also stresses the importance of staff development and
collaboration opportunities to discuss data and goals. The district encourages school site
principals to provide relevant literature to staff to read and discuss. Another recent
strategy that the district hopes to use to close the gap is the hiring of Teacher Specialists
to be assigned to each school. The specialists would focus on the planning and
implementation of categorically funded, ELL’s, and/or compensatory education
programs. These specialists would be responsible for developing parent involvement,
staff development activities, and budgetary responsibilities.
Some strategies to close the achievement gap that are used at the school site are as
follows. First, within the format of FOR, principals facilitate Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILT) composed of teachers of various grade levels, school administrators, and
sometimes-visiting district administrators. The ILT meet after school monthly to discuss
data, review literature, and discuss intervention strategies. Another strategy school sites
use is that most of the classrooms had a TA, usually a college student, to work with
individual or small groups of ELL’s. An issue with this is that TA’s were not
credentialed or trained, and were giving basic support to ELL’s doing simplistic
academic tasks; they were not providing relevant individualized instruction using ELL
strategies. Also, at several school’s there were Intervention Teachers (IT) who pulled out

58

classes of ELD students to work with in small groups; however when asked, the teachers
were unaware of what the IT’s were doing with the students. Finally, one school pulled
out ELL students for “computer lab” during which the students practiced reading
comprehension skills using a computer software program. There was no mention of the
use of Coordinators, Coaches, or Resource Specialists by teachers.
Materials and Resources
A material and resource issue in the district is that there is no clear, consistent,
and organized ELD program. The district has not adopted any separate ELD program,
and has not mandated that a separate time block be reserved for ELD instruction.
Therefore, ELD students are not receiving any kind of individualized instruction to meet
their needs. Most of the school sites do use the program “Making Meaning,” which is a
supplementary Language Arts program that has a story, picture/word cards, and asks
students to make connections. While teachers believe it is developing student
vocabulary, it is a program used for all the students, and there is little data to show
positive or negative effects on ELL’s.
Perception that FLAG Program Closes the Gap
The district is very proud of its Foreign Language Academies of Glendale
Program (FLAG). The FLAG program exists at four of the elementary schools in the
district and is a dual language program. Spanish is offered at one school, Korean at the
second school, Italian, German, and Spanish at the third school, and Armenian at the
fourth school. The goal of the FLAG program is that all participating children will be

59

bilingual and biliterate in both the class language and in English by the end of elementary
school. The FLAG Spanish, German, and Italian classes are 90/10 dual immersion
programs, and the FLAG Korean is a 50/50 dual immersion program. Fully credentialed
bilingual teachers teach the classes. In the Spanish classes, children may speak or
respond in either language, but the teacher will speak only Spanish during 90% of the
day. Language is taught largely through the content studied, not as a separate subject. At
all times there is strict division of languages and teachers never mix or translate during
instruction. Starting in kindergarten, students receive 30 minutes of oral instruction in
English at a designated time. Each year a greater percentage of English is added, until,
the 5
th
grade where instruction is evenly divided between the two languages. Formal
literacy instruction in English generally begins in 3
rd
grade, although students are
exposed to oral and print English from Kindergarten (Glendale Unified School District,
2010).
Most members of the district have the perception that the FLAG program is very
successful in closing the Latino ELL achievement gap. For example, an Assistant
Superintendent stated, “we are able to provide those students with primary language
support…this has made a huge difference, and the Latino students who are in that
program are now outscoring their counterparts”. However, the perception that the FLAG
program is closing the achievement gap appears to be inaccurate for several reasons.
First, a very small percentage of ELL Latinos participate in this program, resulting in not
affecting enough students to be effective in closing the gap. For example, each grade

60

level at the two schools carrying the Spanish FLAG class offer one FLAG class. The
requirements for these classes are that half of the class must be English speaking,
resulting in no more than 10-15 ELL Latinos per class. This is a very small percentage of
the total number of Latinos in the school.
Another issue with the perception that the FLAG program is closing the
achievement gap is that the students who participate in the FLAG program may not be
students who would typically struggle; the students who participate often come from
families who have sociocultural knowledge and whose parents are able to access the
resources needed to enroll their child in this program before Kindergarten. Such families,
who have knowledge and resources, often have children who are more prepared to enter
school, and have the resources and support available should they struggle with learning.
These children also come from higher socioeconomic families as evidenced by data
revealing that the SES of FLAG schools has been growing along with the increasing
enrollment, and the FLAG schools are expecting to lose Title I funds in the upcoming
years. Therefore, FLAG students are likely to have been successful in school, whether or
not they had participated in the FLAG program and are not representative of the typical
gap students.
The district personnel stated in initial scanning interviews that the purpose of the
FLAG program was to bring in out-of-district students. The higher-level district
administrative team specifically and clearly stated this during the first meeting when they
described the problems in the district. The district administration described how

61

educated, upper-middle class parents would be interested in having their child become
bilingual, and therefore would apply for an out-of-district transfer waiver in order to
attend a FLAG school. This increased enrollment of new students has raised the Average
Daily Attendance (ADA) of the FLAG schools and of the district, thus bringing in more
per pupil funding. The district personnel described how in a time of economic crisis, it is
crucial to maintain funding to support the schools, especially when many students are
leaving the district. At a time, the main FLAG school was at risk of closing down
because of its rapidly declining enrollment, but the out-of-district transfers into the FLAG
classes at the school have greatly increased the schools numbers thus saving it from
closing down. Thus, the purpose of the FLAG program is not to close the achievement
gap, it is to raise enrollment and ADA to increase funding. District administration stated
that increasing ADA funding is the intention of the FLAG program but later along with
school site administration and teachers, referenced the FLAG program as being a factor
in closing the gap numerous times in interviews. This misconception and confusion over
the purpose and effect of the FLAG program was consistent throughout the district. This
is a problem because focus and effort could be better spent on effective interventions.
Knowledge/Skill
Factual Knowledge
The teachers in the district possess factual knowledge about research-based
instructional strategies that can help students learn. Some strategies that were referred to
most often in interviews were making connections across the curriculum, think-pair-

62

shares, and thinking maps. Most of the teachers also stated the importance of oral
language; many described how they often do read-alouds to model correct reading. In
addition, teachers use think-pair-shares often to develop vocabulary, check for
understanding, and engage students. This factual knowledge seems to come from
teachers’ educational background, teaching experience, and current research articles
being provided to teachers by administrators during professional development and ILT
meetings.
District employees also have ample factual knowledge about student achievement
data. Student achievement data is readily accessible and continuously referred to in the
district. Teachers were knowledgeable about their school and classroom CST scores,
API/AYP scores, and summative/formative assessment scores. They were easily able to
identify which students were lower level, middle, and high scoring. This was evident by
the grouping of student’s names on the board or on posters. The majority of interviewees
were also aware that a Latino ELL achievement gap existed, and had seen the API
subgroup data as evidence. Therefore, the factual information about students’
achievement scores and the Latino ELL achievement gap seem to be clearly understood
and accepted by the district staff. This factual data drives most of the decision making in
the district.
One area of factual knowledge that is lacking is that most teachers are unaware of
what strategies specifically help ELL’s. The teachers were able to site general
instructional strategies such as thinking maps, but when asked to describe specific

63

strategies they use for ELL’s, they often had no response. For example, the majority of
teachers did not use cooperative learning, they only pulled out “low” students to work in
small groups with the resource teacher.
Another area of factual knowledge that is lacking involves the educators’
perception of the problem. The educators often perceive that parent low SES, lack of
“value” of education, and low educational background are the roots of the problem. This
perception could be the result of a lack of knowledge about their Latino student’s lives,
culture, and what strategies best benefit these students. This could also be a lack of
knowledge of research and literature that focus on specific causes of the ELL Latino
achievement gap.
Conceptual Knowledge
Not only do the teachers lack the factual knowledge about what instructional
strategies apply specifically to ELL Latinos, they lack the conceptual knowledge that
Latino ELL’s need specific instructional strategies that apply to their needs. Most of the
people interviewed believed in the idea that “good teaching is good teaching” and that
one good instructional strategy applies to all. This issue was particularly evident when
teachers were asked if they used SDAIE, ELD, or learning strategies; most teachers
responded that they used them sparingly when teaching but if they did, the strategies
were being taught to all students and not used with the specific intention of supporting
ELL’s. This is opposite of the idea of differentiation and individualization. Only one
district personnel disagreed with the general consensus when he stated, “we need to be

64

more laser like in what we’re offering to fit the need of those students…it’s looking at
equity, trying to give every kid what they need not trying to give everyone the same
thing.” This conceptual knowledge that Latino ELL’s need specific individualized
strategies tailored to meet their needs is lacking.
Procedural Knowledge
Along with teachers lacking the factual and conceptual knowledge about what
strategies work for Latino ELL’s and why, they also lack the procedural knowledge
needed to know how to implement effective strategies. Teachers did not have any clear
plan or objective in how to implement instructional strategies for ELL’s. Without an
ELD program or set ELD time period, teachers had little idea of how to individualize and
differentiate instruction for ELL’s. Therefore, strategies teachers used applied to all
students.
Similarly, teachers knew that ELL’s lacked vocabulary but were unclear in how to
implement, a systematic, consistent, and thoughtful plan of vocabulary instruction.
While some teachers did use the new “Making Meaning” language arts program, it was
again applied to all students and not specifically considered for the use of ELL’s. The
teachers recognized the importance of developing the ELL’s oral language but lacked
knowledge about the process of how it is taught.
Metacognitive Knowledge
There appears to be an attempt at developing educators’ metacognitive knowledge
through the FOR process. School site instructional leadership teams composed of

65

administrators, district representatives, and teachers volunteering their time, met on a
weekly or monthly basis to discuss their urgency statement, goals, and the process of
achieving these goals. However, much of the knowledge developed through this process
is factual, procedural, and sometimes conceptual; it is rarely metacognitive despite the
possible intentions. Specifically, the participants were not reflecting on their own or
students’ cognition and thinking. Self-reflection is not an emphasis within the FOR
process and this could be limiting teachers’ personal growth as educators.
Similarly, there appears to be a lack of teaching students in a manner that would
help them develop their metacognitive knowledge. Research has shown that when
students are more knowledgeable about cognition, they act on this awareness and tend to
learn better (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). For example, teachers rarely
mentioned teaching students general strategies for learning and thinking. There was little
discussion of teaching students knowledge about strategies of how to read a textbook or
strategies for how to check comprehension while they read. Overall, it was assumed that
such teaching of strategic knowledge of general strategies for learning, thinking, and
problem solving was occurring sporadically, however, since teachers rarely mentioned it
demonstrates that it is not a completed on a consistently basis.
Likewise, there was little mention of teaching contextual and conditional
knowledge. Such knowledge would help learners activate relevant situational or
conditional knowledge for solving a problem in a certain context. For example, when
taking a exam, students may know that multiple-choice exams require only recognition of

66

the correct answers, not actual recall of the information as required in essay exams. This
type of metacognitive knowledge might influence how students subsequently prepare for
an examination. Finally, there was little discussion of the development of self-
knowledge. Self-knowledge includes knowledge of one's strengths and weaknesses. If
students were to better understand their own learning characteristics and traits, they could
be more successful in learning.
There also appears to be little critical or higher-level thinking skills being taught
to Latino ELL’s. An example is that the higher level thinking skills defined by Blooms
Taxonomy such as analyze, evaluate, and create, are being targeted towards the higher-
level successful students and not toward the struggling low-level ELL’s. At one school,
the 5
th
grade language arts classes were divided up by achievement level; the low level
classes received basic instruction whereas the higher level classes received challenging
thoughtful projects and assignments. Overall, the perception from teachers seems to be
that the struggling Latino ELL students need basic simplified instruction in learning
words, and that they would not be able to participate in higher level thinking activities
until they gain these skills. This perception is inaccurate, and these students are ignored
the opportunities to develop skills that would help them learn and succeed.
Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Overall, teachers in the district seem to have high self-efficacy in that they feel
capable and feel they can achieve their goals. Many teachers described their instructional

67

abilities as being strong, and were confident that they were effective teachers. They often
referenced the number of years they had been teaching, on average over five years, as
evidence of this fact. They proudly described instructional strategies they use in the
classroom such as thinking maps and small group instruction as evidence of there being
strong teachers.
However, the teachers often sited that their ELL Latino students lacked self-
esteem, motivation, and self-efficacy. Specifically, according to teachers these students
seemed not to try as hard, were not as confident in their abilities, and displayed a lack of
caring. The Latino ELL’s demonstrated these feelings to teachers through a lack of effort
on assignments with a sad demeanor.
This low level of student self-efficacy is possibly the result that most teachers use
ability grouping. This could cause students to feel identified singled out, low performing,
and not smart. For example, names of low, middle, and high performing student groups
are posted in rooms, while low performing groups of students are pulled out to work with
the teacher as needed, clearly indicating that this group needs more help. One school also
separates low, middle, and high performing students for language arts class in 5
th
grade,
making the separation of students increasingly apparent. This ability grouping could
cause Latino ELL’s to carry low self-efficacy and feel that they are unable to learn and
achieve at a high level.

68

Task Value
Task value is the level of importance or value assigned to a task. In regards to
this project, we presented the “task” as being “educating Latino ELL’s” and “closing the
achievement gap.” When questioning teachers, administrators, and district personal
about how important they felt this task was, the majority of responders felt that these
tasks were very important. Most interviewees agreed that these tasks were a priority for
the district and themselves as individuals.
Another value theme that became apparent during the interview process involved
the perceptions of the roots of the problem. The majority of interviewees believed that
one of the main causes of the achievement gap were students’ low value of education, as
a result of their parents’ lack of value on education. One principal described how the
priority of Latino families, who she stated were often low-income, was to raise money in
order to feed their family. Therefore, she felt that the parents simply wanted their
children to work and earn money, and she felt they did not understand the value of
education. In addition, the principals and other interviewees felt that Latino parents’ low
educational attainment impacted their value of education.
Attributions
As previously mentioned, educators and leaders throughout the district perceive
the achievement gap to be the result of parents low SES, lack of value of education, and
low educational attainment level. Thus, district educators are attributing the problem to
others and to factors outside themselves. This perception causes teachers to lack

69

motivation because they feel that the cause of ELL’s low achievement is the result of
things they can’t control. Therefore teachers feel helpless about the situation, and feel
that they are struggling against huge challenges. These perceptions and feelings seemed
to conflict with interviewees’ statement that they had high expectations for their Latino
ELL’s and believed all children could learn and succeed.
Interest
These perceptions of the problem could in turn be affecting the Latino ELL
students’ interest in learning. It is possible that the educators perceptions that the
students and their parents don’t value learning, their low SES, and lack of educational
attainment are not actually the cause of the problem; this inaccurate perception and lack
of teacher knowledge may be causing these students to feel less understood, thus
perpetuating the problem. Similarly, the students’ lack of self-esteem and seeming lack
of interest could also be the result of feelings that their culture is not valued. For
instance, most teachers sited that students speaking Spanish in class is generally not
encouraged or thought about.
Goal Orientation
District, school site administration, and teacher goals are not aligned. This is
highlighted by the district’s main goal that centers on FOR and the district urgency
statement. The school site principals however have goals specific to their school site
such as a focus on writing or reading comprehension. While these goals are situated
somewhat in the foundation of FOR it seems that principals, who are able to state the

70

district goals, don’t think about the district goal often and focus specifically on their
school goal.
Finally, teachers’ goals vary enormously from teacher-to-teacher; while teachers
are aware of their school’s “focus”, the teachers have various individual classroom and
student goals. Similarly, many teachers’ goals were unclear, not concrete, not current,
and lacked clarity and focus. For instance, a few teachers stated that their objective and
goal was for students to “grow.” This is not a Specific, Measurable, Attainable and
Challenging, Relevant, Timebound and Touching (SMART) goal that is specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. It also lacks a clear objective connected to
instructional standards, which can be easily assessed.

71

CHAPTER 3
PROPOSED LITERATURE BASED SOLUTIONS
Solutions Literature Review
Authors: Ashley Benjamin, Shannon Powers, and Eric Medrano
Problem Area 1
While the current Focus on Results reform has many strengths, its emphasis
on process and data often seemed to result in a lack of attention and discussion on
instructional strategies.
o District, school site administrator, and teacher goals lacked alignment.
o Interviewed teacher goals for their Latino ELL’s often varied enormously
and were unclear, not concrete, not current, and lacked clarity and focus.
o Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; some of them seem
disconnected from the district’s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap
and do not address effective instructional strategies for ELL’s.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 1
The district should continue its focus on data-driven decision making, while
emphasizing the importance of connecting goals and school instructional focuses to
the ELL Latino achievement gap.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Through the FOR Reform, the district currently emphasizes assessment,
instructional data use, and analysis. This appears to have impacted positive gains in

72

teacher instructional effectiveness and student achievement. Research supports this
growth and indicates that in the current high-stakes accountability environment, it is
important for educators to systematically collect and use data to inform instructional
decisions (Kerr, Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, & Barney, 2006; Coburn & Talbert, 2006).
Wayman and Stringfield (2006) describe how data-driven decision making is likely to
increase student academic achievement by targeting instruction to students’ needs
described “as educators at all levels gain experience with these new ways of examining
and using data, it is logical to posit gains in educational productivity” (p. 464). Archer
(2005) also describes the importance of data-driven decision making when he stated that
in a national survey of superintendents, the vast majority of superintendents indicated that
the use of data to guide decisions was the most important strategy for improving student
achievement.
The district can continue to support teacher’s use of assessment data to guide
instruction in various ways. First, district leaders should convey to teachers which data is
relevant, while stressing the expectation that they use data to guide instruction. However,
district leaders must be careful that the messages they send are not downplayed or altered
by school site administrators (Young, 2006). The district should also ensure that there is
a unified concept across all district staff, of what is research-based, high-quality
evidence; this can be done through productive dialogue and discourse led by central
office administrators (Kerr et al, 2006).

73

Also, the district should continue to support teachers and administrators analysis
and interpretation of instructional and test data. Research indicates that there are several
factors that impact effective data use. Some factors are accessibility to data, ability to
access data in a timely manner, user perceptions of data validity, user training, support
for teachers in regards to data analysis and interpretation, and the alignment of data
strategies with other instructional initiatives (Kerr et al, 2006). Current research shows
that teachers often find it difficult to analyze and interpret data, while lacking the
knowledge of how data should be used in connection with instruction (Feldman & Tung,
2001; Ingram, Louis, & Schroeder, 2004; Herman & Gribbons, 2001; Mason, 2002).
Thus, the district and school sites should facilitate professional development and training
to ensure teacher’s can effectively analyze, interpret, and use data (Ingram et al, 2004).
One area of data-driven decision-making that can be improved upon in GUSD is
at the school sites. Currently, Glendale elementary schools choose an Instructional Focus
situated within the FOR framework, to guide their instruction, discussion, and data-
analysis. This is shown where reading comprehension and writing were the instructional
focuses of two schools. Our interviews indicated that this was an issue because schools
were selecting instructional focuses without considering data related to the Latino ELL
achievement gap. Interestingly, this situation is common across the nation. Research
shows that despite most Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) models (such as FOR)
declare the need to respect diverse cultures, the majorities are not developed specifically
for minority students needs (Meneken, 2000). Hamann, Zuliani, & Hudak, (2002)

74

describe how LEP students are one such group whose needs are often ignored. Menken
(2000) emphasizes that because the number of ELL students is growing, "it is therefore
important that the needs of these students be addressed through comprehensive school
reform" (Menken, 2000, p. 1). Summarily, school sites need to recognize that FOR may
not be directly meeting the needs of ELL Latinos, and therefore need to consider data that
examines the ELL Latino achievement gap and students, when selecting an instructional
focus.
Goal Setting and Orientation
Goal setting of effectively formulated goals is also important in closing the
achievement gap. Goal setting refers to setting a standard or objective to serve as the aim
of one's actions (Schunk, 1984). Goals provide standards against which people compare
their present performance level (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). When an
individual or organization adopts a goal, they may experience a sense of efficacy from its
attainment, which then motivates them to engage in goal related activities, attend to
instruction, persist, and expend effort (Schunk, 1996).
There are several aspects that define an effective goal. First, it is important that
goals have specificity, high difficulty level, and proximity (Bandura, 1977; Latham &
Yukl, 1975; Locke, 1968; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Also, goals that
incorporate specific performance standards lead to higher performances than no goals or
general goals such as "Do your best" (Locke, 1968; Locke et al., 1981; Rosswork, 1977).
Goals should be tiered in a 3-level structure: day-to-day goals, intermediate goals, and

75

long-term goals. In order to ensure the acceptance and impact of the goals, they must be
concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable), challenging (doable but very
difficult), and current (short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating than longer-
term monthly or annual goals) (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 26).
It is also crucial that goals be aligned across all district levels. As Kelleher (2003)
describes, “teacher and departmental goals must be closely nested within the goals of the
building and the district” (p. 1). In this case, teacher goals specifically should be related
to the FOR urgency statement. As Clark and Estes (2002) describe, all goals should be
aligned, cascading, and relevant. Similarly, these goals should be understood and
supported by everyone in the organization.
Furthermore, teacher goals for students in the classroom should be mastery based,
not performance based. A mastery or learning goal refers to the knowledge and skills the
student is to acquire, while a performance goal relates to the task the student is to
complete such as grades or extrinsic rewards (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Schunk (1996)
reviewed various studies on motivation and found that teachers who used learning goals
led to students with higher motivation and achievement levels than did teachers who used
performance goals. Specifically, learning goals focus students' attention on processes and
strategies that help them acquire capabilities and improve their skills (Ames, 1992).
Also, teachers who set mastery goals typically focus more on learning as an active
process, have higher expectations for students, and encourage student interaction and
learning (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).

76

Summary and Group Recommendations
The group recommends that the district continue to collect, analyze, and discuss
assessment and instructional data regarding ELL Latino students and the achievement
gap. The FOR reform appears to successfully emphasize data-driven decision making,
and district and school leaders should continue to encourage teachers to use data to guide
their instruction. However, the district can improve in the area of data-driven decision
making by encouraging school site administrators to use data on the achievement gap and
Latino ELL’s to guide their selection of school instructional focuses.
Finally, the group recommends that the district make efforts to ensure that district,
school, and teacher goals are not only situated within the FOR framework, but are
aligned, cascading, and relevant. For instance, the district’s urgency statement regarding
closing the Latino ELL achievement gap should trickle down across all levels and be
evident in administrator and teachers goals. School site administrators can also
emphasize that teachers’ goals for Latino ELL’s be mastery based, clear, concrete,
current, and focused. Teachers should also have SMART goals for their students that are
specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely.
Problem Area 2
While most of the district personnel are aware of generally effective
instructional strategies for all students, there is a lack of knowledge about effective
instructional strategies that apply to ELL Latino students and their needs.

77

o Most of the individuals interviewed shared the philosophy that “good
teaching is good teaching” and lacked the conceptual knowledge that Latino
ELL’s need specific instructional strategies that apply to their needs.
o Teachers are unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, and
specifically how and when to implement them.
o There is currently no clear, consistent, or unified ELD program, or time
block for ELD instruction, in place in the district.
o Teachers do not know of or how to implement a systematic, thoughtful plan
for how to teach language and vocabulary to ELL’s. There is a
supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning” being used
at some schools, but it is applied to all students and does not utilize ELD
instructional strategies.
o Developing students metacognitive knowledge does not seem to be a priority
in the district; many interviewed teachers did not mention teaching thinking
strategies, contextual/conditional knowledge for solving a problem in a
certain context, or developing students self knowledge of their strengths and
weaknesses.
o Many of the interviewed teachers are not teaching higher level thinking skills
or critical thinking skills to the Latino ELL’s; they are focusing on basic
simplified instruction with those students.

78

Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 2
An increased use of and focus on ELD and effective instructional strategies
that meet the needs of Latino ELL’s will help to close the achievement gap.
Effective Instructional Strategies and Processes
In order to close the Latino ELL versus White achievement gap, Latino ELL’s
need individualized and differentiated instruction that targets their specific needs
(Santamaria, 2009). Differentiated Instruction (DI) is defined by Tomlinson, Brighton,
Hertberg, Callahan, Moon, Brimijoin, Conover, & Reynolds (2003) as “an approach to
teaching in which teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources,
learning activities, and students’ products to address the diverse needs of individual
students and small groups of students to maximize the learning opportunity for each
student in the classroom” (p. 121). The implementation of DI specifically helps ELL’s
by allowing them to move through the levels and stages of language development as
quickly as possible in order to reach grade level proficiency in English (California
Department of Education, 1999). Overall, DI promotes teachers use of effective
instructional strategies that benefit specific students and student subgroups such as Latino
ELL’s.
One effective form of instruction that helps ELL’s is SDAIE, also known as
Sheltered Instruction. SDAIE strategies address the issue of teaching academic content
to EL’s while they are still learning the English language (Echevarria et al., 2006). The
purpose of SDAIE is to make learning content areas such as social studies and science

79

understandable to English learners. During SDAIE, teachers will use the core curriculum
but provide English learners with scaffolds and strategies, making the understanding and
learning of the content assessable. Specifically, SDAIE strategies help student to build
their prior knowledge and background information, and helps them to make connections;
this allows students to become engaged and have a deeper understanding to what they are
learning (Gibbons, 2002). Also, SDAIE focuses on presenting concepts in a variety of
ways by incorporating plenty of clues for understanding, various checks for
comprehension, and providing feedback (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Some
SDAIE strategies that focus on comprehensibility are (1) contextualization or the use of
manipulatives and visuals to organize and communicate ideas, (2) modeling, hands-on
experiments, and show-and-tell explanations, (3) speech adjustment with a focus on
reducing the amount of unnecessary verbiage, and (4) comprehension checks to see how
well the lesson taught as well as judging the understanding of the students (Diaz-Rico &
Weed, 2002).
Another component for the success of Latino ELL’s is developing students’
metacognitive knowledge. With metacognitive knowledge, the emphasis is “on helping
students become more knowledgeable of and responsible for their own cognition and
thinking” (Pintrich, 2002). Once students understand and are aware of their learning,
thinking, planning, monitoring, and problem solving, they tend to learn better. Teachers
who incorporate metacognitive thinking in their classrooms believe in their EL’s and set
goals for their students that are cognitively demanding (Scarcella, 2003).

80

Similarly, students should receive rigorous, challenging instruction to develop
their higher level thinking skills. Bloom’s revised taxonomy states that skills such as the
ability to analyze, evaluate, and create are crucial critical thinking skills. The
development of such skills promotes the conceptual and metacognitive knowledge
development of students, and allows them to be more successful learners. Specifically, it
allows students to be able to transfer knowledge across subject matter, and to be able to
use knowledge situationally to solve unique thinking challenges. Martinez and Klopott
(2005) support this when they state that “the rigor of courses taken…is the most powerful
predictor of academic achievement, high school graduation, and enrollment in
postsecondary education” (p. 8).
In addition, giving ELL’s the opportunity to practice and develop their oral
language through interaction is crucial. Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) support this when
they describe how in order for students to acquire skills and concepts they must practice,
be able to communicate the task to others, participate in discussions, and listen to others.
One way of doing this is through cooperative learning. Slavin (1980) describes how
cooperative learning techniques, in which students work in small groups and receive
rewards or recognition based on their group performance has had positive effects on
students: “The pattern of research findings supports the utility of cooperative learning
methods in general for increasing student achievement, positive race relations in
desegregated schools, mutual concern among students, student self-esteem, and other
positive outcomes” (p. 315). Think-pair-shares are another oral language development

81

strategy in which students pair up with a partner to speak about a given topic in a
structured way.
Another strategy to improve Latino ELL student achievement is to provide clear,
concrete, relevant and immediate feedback to students. Diaz-Rico & Weed, (2002)
support this when they describe how students often make mistakes and errors while
learning, and that teaching ELL’s to analyze their mistakes is essential for their academic
growth. Feedback should be structured to meet the needs of the students and their levels,
yet teachers should not focus too much on every error at the risk of overwhelming the
student. Therefore, feedback should encourage and motivate students to learn, rather
than discouraging them. Overall, according to Scarcella (2003), instructional feedback
should have the following characteristics: clear, consistent, conveys the message
accurately, students attend to the feedback, useful and timely, supplemented with
instruction, instructional, provides students with their strengths and weaknesses, and
encourages, not discourages (p. 132).
Scaffolding is another best practice and effective strategy for EL’s. As Diaz-Rico
and Weed (2002) define, “a scaffold is a temporary support, provided by a more capable
person, for new concepts and skills that students are not able to perform unassisted” (p.
84). There are a variety of ways teachers can scaffold student learning and instruction:
they can naturally scaffold for the needs of their class, without consciously
acknowledging the scaffolds, or they can gradually release responsibility of the task from
teacher modeling to the class and/or groups practicing once students are ready. Another

82

scaffold is using visual aids and graphic organizers such as thinking maps to help
students construct knowledge; this assists EL’s with constructing a schema, from what is
known, to the unknown, or new learning that helps them to make various connections
(Gibbons, 2002). Another way for educators to scaffold is to provide hints for students
trying to carry out a task rather than just providing students with the answers; this makes
the students work cognitively for the answer (Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007).
English Language Development Strategies
Latino ELL’s can also greatly benefit from ELD instruction. For many years,
there has been an assumption that EL’s can learn English on their own without explicit or
systematic teaching (Scarcella, 2003). It was assumed that good teaching was good
teaching for all students. However in recent year, the research has indicated that in order
for EL’s to achieve that, “ELD must occur daily; is specifically identified within the
curriculum of the school district and the school; and is supported by high-quality
instructional materials, a sufficient amount of time, and professional development for
teachers” (California Department of Education, 1999, p.236).
In an ELD classroom, the focus is primarily on the acquisition of the language,
while content becomes secondary (California Department of Education, 2002). It should
no longer be assumed that EL’s will acquire both social and academic English through
casual instruction. In order for EL’s to acquire English, there must be instruction and
practice provided with new vocabulary and understanding of various language forms so
that they can comprehend and participate in language arts and content areas. While

83

focusing on ELD, EL’s will “benefit from instruction in discriminating and manipulating
the sounds of the language, decoding words, and instruction designed to enhance
vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension” (Goldenberg, 2006, p. 4). Depending
on the levels of the students, as well as the district, school and classroom, ELD can occur
as a whole class or in small groups.
One specific instructional strategy that is effective during ELD instruction is the
use of comprehensible input. Regardless of English levels, it is the responsibility of the
teacher to provide their instruction so that it is comprehendible to the students
(Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). There are four ways in which teachers can increase
student’s comprehensible input (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). The first is language
contextualization, where teachers embed language within a meaningful context. The
second is language modification, which can occur in the form of elaboration, precise
pronunciation, basic vocabulary, longer pauses, exaggerated intonation, or slower rate of
speech. The third mean of comprehensible input is repetition and paraphrase, providing
different ways or reiterating what was seen or read without repeating it verbatim.
Teachers can also preview an objective, teach the objective, and then review the objective
in various ways. The last mean, which is often used, is the use of media, manipulatives,
and other modalities (Gibbons, 2002).
Appropriate use of levels of questioning is another strategy that helps assist in
ELD. Teachers often use questioning to gain an idea of students’ level of understanding.
Some questions and answers indicate a surface level of understanding, while other

84

questions can prompt higher-level thinking discussions and responses. However,
educators are often uncomfortable asking higher-level questions to ELL’s out of fear that
the students will not understand. Therefore, ELL’s are often only asked basic factual
questions or not asked a question at all, not being held accountable to the content matter
(Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). The California ELD standards can help teachers with this
issue by providing them with information about students knowledge and abilities at
different ELD levels, so teachers can know which questions are appropriate for students
at different language development levels (California Department of Education, 2002).
Overall, when questioning ELL’s, educators need to consider the manner questions are
framed and ensure that they match the student’s language level (Diaz-Rico & Weed,
2002).
Another ELD strategy is clarification checks or checking for understanding. As
Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) state, “clarification checks at intervals give the teacher a
sense of the students’ ability to understand (p. 107). This can be done in a simplistic
manner, such as having students put their thumbs up if they agree and thumbs down if
they disagree. Another way to check for understanding is to have students work out the
answer on mini-white boards, or to have students write a mini-summary on what they
learned on a ticket as they leave the classroom (Gibbons, 2002). Such clarification
checks allow students to be accountable and engaged in their learning by showing their
understanding, while also allowing teachers to gauge students’ understanding (Harvey &
Goudvis, 2000).

85

Application and Implementation of Effective Instructional Strategies
In order for educators to incorporate best practices, instruction, and strategies for
their English learners, specific and effective professional development must be provided.
“The preparation of teachers and ongoing support for their continuing professional
development are critical to the quality of school and increases in student achievement”
(California Department of Education, 1999, p. 16). As Butler (2002) states, “sustained
improvements in schools will not occur without changes in the quality of learning
experiences on the part of those who run the schools” (p. 4). He describes how the
desired outcome of staff development is information transfer, skill acquisition, or
behavior change. Content of staff development should “reflect clear program goals and
operational objectives defining what participants will learn and how they will be able to
use the new learning” (p. 5). Elmore (2002) also describes how effective professional
development must be continuous, involve teacher practice with feedback, and should be
connected to the students learning goals. If such a professional development program
was implemented, teachers could gain procedural knowledge through a supportive
training program. Both prior to and after professional development, the administration
must make a commitment to provide support and follow up, ensure implementation, and
allocate time for educators to refine their practice (California Department of Education,
1999).
Similarly, teachers need to be provided with opportunities to reflect on their new
knowledge by collaborating with one another. “Collaboration is viewed as the critical

86

element to improving teachers’ instruction… instructional practice is not private, rather,
it is a shared enterprise with a specific goal: to improve student learning” (The Education
Trust, 2005, p. 32). One way of increasing teacher collaboration is through Professional
Learning Communities (PLC). Servage (2009), The National Association of Elementary
School Principals (2008), and DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) all agree that
professional learning communities are an effective way of helping teachers to become
more effective educators. DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) describe PLC’s as being
“collaborative teams who members work interdependently to achieve common goals
linked to the purpose of learning for all” (p. 3). PLC’s would allow teachers to work
together to improve student achievement.
Furthermore, the National College for School Leadership (2005) also suggests
that schools have mentors and coaches to help teachers become more effective teachers.
The “focus of coaching is the in-depth development of specific knowledge, skills, and
strategies…coaching is usually informed by evidence…and a mentor is usually a more
experienced colleague” (National College for School Leadership, 2005, p. 9). A culture
with coaching and mentors, would allow teachers to take on a greater leadership role
while struggling teachers would be provided with more effective support.
One program that uses such methods of professional development, collaboration,
and mentoring in order to prepare teachers to successfully use effective instructional
strategies like SDAIE in the classroom is called the Guided Language Acquisition Design
(GLAD). GLAD is a model of professional development in the area of language

87

acquisition and literacy (Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007). Tied to standards, the model trains
teachers to provide access to core curriculum using local district guidelines and
curriculum (Cawthon, 2005). Specifically, during the staff development, teachers are
provided with the instructional strategies, the theory and research that support the model,
and the curriculum model that brings these together in the context of district and state
frameworks and standards. The second part of the training is a session in the classroom
where the model is demonstrated with students. Overall, the goal of the GLAD model is
to promote English language acquisition, academic achievement, and cross-cultural skills
(Project GLAD, 2010).
GLAD training results in teachers’ renewed commitment to high expectations and
standards for all students because it values teacher’s time, viewpoints, and expertise of
the teachers, as well as promoting collaboration and peer coaching. The results for
students have been continued gains in standardized test scores as well as renewed
involvement in a classroom that is, not only student-centered, but fosters a sense of
identity and voice (Project GLAD, 2010).
GLAD was developed and field tested for nine years in the Fountain Valley
School District and is based on years of experience with integrated approaches for
teaching language. GLAD is a United States Department of Education, Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, Project of Academic Excellence,
California Department of Education Exemplary Program, model reform program for the
CSR Design, and training model for five Achieving Schools Award Winners. It was the

88

recommended K-8 project by the California State Superintendent of Schools for teachers
of EL’s. It is also highlighted as a California Department of Education “Best Practices”
program for Title III professional development funding (Project GLAD, 2010).
Another effective model for training teachers to apply instructional strategies in
the classroom is The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model.
Echevarria, Vogt, & Short (2004) state that, “SIOP allows for lesson planning and
implementation that provides English learners with access to grade-level content
standards” (p. xi). The model provides a framework for selecting and organizing
techniques and strategies and facilitates the integration of district or state level standards
for ESL and for specific content areas (Echevarria & Short, 1999). Also, the protocol
provides extensive criteria for effective planning and instruction, and emphasizes clear
content and language objectives, building background knowledge, promoting interaction,
practice, application, and assessment (Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007). SIOP is a model
designed for flexibility and has been tested in a wide range of classroom situations.
Results of studies conducted on SIOP indicate that students whose teachers
implemented the SIOP model improved significantly in all areas of writing (Echevarria,
et al., 2004). Batt (2008) also emphasized how a professional development model like
SIOP could help to solve some of the greatest challenges and problems facing ELL’s in
education.

89

Application and Implementation of ELD and ELD strategies
One way to ensure that ELL’s are receiving such instructional strategies and ELD
instruction is to mandate an ELD time block. A separate time block of ELD allows for
focused and organized instruction to increase the effectiveness of ELD (Goldenberg,
2008). A separate ELD block that targets language acquisition appears to be more
effective than relying on integrating ELD with other parts of the curriculum. Research
suggests that a separate ELD period or block, makes a distinct contribution to English
Language development. Daily oral English language instruction that targets language
acquisition is recommended for about 45 minutes each day (Coleman & Goldenberg,
2009). Also, “more districts and schools are providing students who need extra help to
learn English with additional instruction – before school, after school, during lunch, and
in an extended school year” (Scarcella, 2003, p. 2).
Many districts have adopted published ELD programs to assist teachers in using
these strategies and in teaching language arts skills to ELL’s during ELD time blocks. To
learn and achieve proficiency in English, students must be explicitly and systematically
taught with instruction that combines both language arts skills and concepts (California
Department of Education, 1999). In recent years, in order to be considered as a Language
Arts program within California, publishers incorporated instructional materials within
their teacher’s edition that provided differentiated instruction for English learners. The
first chart below lists current used programs/publishers of Reading Language Arts
programs that contain an ELD component adopted by the California Department of

90

Education (CDE). They provide leveled language instruction in the four domains:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The second chart indicates supplementary ELD
programs and materials by many districts and adopted by the CDE. The district should
be aware that these programs are often lacking, and that additional resources, along with
the effective instructional strategies, should be used to support the selected program.
Table 2: English Language Development Publishers

Publisher Program Grade Level
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
School Publishers
CA Excursions K-6
MacMillan/McGraw-Hill
School Division
California Treasures
English Language
Development
K-6
Pearson Scott Foresman and
Prentice Hall
Pearson CA Language
Central
K-8
SRA/McGraw-Hill Imagine It! English
Language Development
K-6

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners

Summary and Group Recommendations
In summary, the group recommends that the district focus their efforts on what we
believe to be the two most important effective instructional strategies: SDAIE and
differentiation. These two strategies will ensure that instruction is targeted to meet the
Publisher Program Grade Level
Alloy Interactive, Inc. ESL Reading Smart* 4-12
Ballart & Tighe Carousel of IDEAS* K-5
Digital Education
Productions
Easy English Academic
Success for You
4-12
Harcourt Achieve Imprints On Our Way to English K-5
Harcourt School Publishers Moving into English K-6
LitConn English Now K-6
Portico Books Hands-On English 3-12

91

needs of ELL Latino students and that content is made comprehensible. We suggest that
teachers learn about these strategies, and how to successfully apply them in their
classrooms via comprehensive professional development programs such as GLAD or
SIOP.
In addition, while the district does currently use an ELA reading program with an
ELD component, our interviews indicated that ELD was typically not occurring in the
classroom. Therefore, we recommend that the district mandate an ELD time block to
ensure that teachers are providing ELD instruction. Similarly, we suggest that the district
select a published ELD program, or supplementary instructional material for ELL’s, so
that teachers can more easily begin to incorporate effective ELD instructional strategies
into the ELD content and curriculum. Four research based ELD program publishers
recommended by the CDE are: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill
School Division, Pearson Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, and SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Over time, as teachers become more comfortable with the leveled content of the ELD
curriculum, schools can move away from the structured program and provide more
flexible in-depth ELD with the guidance and support of the school’s ELL Specialists.
Problem Area 3
According to the interviewed teachers, the Latino ELL students are lacking
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation.
o Students’ low self-efficacy may be the result of teachers’ consistent use of
ability grouping within the classroom by pulling out small groups to work

92

with, and by separating students within the grade level into ability-grouped
classes. This may be causing students to identify themselves as struggling,
ineffective learners.
o District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parent’s low SES, lack of “value” of
education, and low educational background. These misperceptions about the
causes of the gap may cause Latino students to feel that their culture and
lives are misunderstood, thus lowering their interest in learning.
o Generally, interviewed teachers would not permit or encourage the Latino
ELL’s’ to speak Spanish in the classroom. This could be causing students to
feel that their culture and language are not valued, thus lowering their self-
esteem and interest.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 3
Increasing students’ self-esteem, self-efficacy, interest, value, and overall
motivation through various methods such as cooperative learning and culturally
relevant education, will help to close the achievement gap.
Increasing Student Self-Efficacy, Value/Interest, and Motivation
One way teachers can increase productivity is by developing students’ self-
efficacy. All students hold beliefs about their capabilities while at school. These
thoughts and feelings can be described as self-efficacy, which is the belief one carries
that they are able to complete a task. Self-efficacy determines student behavior and

93

beliefs and is vital for their academic success. The behavior of students is connected to
their feelings of self and what they are capable of achieving. Therefore, when teachers
help students to have positive academic experiences and develop confidence, students
will continue to succeed when faced with adversity (Pajares, 2003). Also, teachers who
help students to become more confident and to believe in themselves, will have greater
persistence and effort in assignments. In addition, these students carry less anxiety and
fear of failure (Bandura, 1997).
Another way to improve student motivation is for teachers to develop students’
value toward assignments and increase their confidence that they can accomplish tasks.
According to the expectancy-value theory, student value of a task and their confidence
will predict student behaviors and academic outcomes, which influence goals they make
for themselves (Pajares, 2003). Students who are confident that they will succeed hold
strong values toward subject matter studied (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Teachers can
increase academic task value for ELL’s by pointing out the relevance of the subject
matter and how it will positively affect their lives. This is especially important in the
areas that students hold little value toward and are not motivated to complete.
Similarly, it is also important for teachers to increase students’ interest in subject
matter. Students are motivated to study and work hard on topics that they have a
particular interest in, specifically those that are at current skill level. These topics hold
value since they are challenging, interesting, and have meaningful outcomes once
completed (Eccles & Roeser, 2005). By understanding student interest and their prior

94

knowledge, teachers can create a curriculum that is valued and intrinsically motivated for
the ELL. When students are engaged in a lesson that they care about, they will develop a
high level of competence based on their perception of the task. This will lead to the
pursuit of mastery-oriented learning, persistence through difficult periods, and deep level
understanding of the lesson (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008).
Another way of increasing students’ interest is by making subject matter
culturally relevant and meaningful to Latino ELL’s. Latino ELL’s are a unique subgroup
of students and teachers who gain background knowledge on student culture, language,
and home life, can use this information to increase their students’ motivation, self-
efficacy, and interest in learning. Such instruction is defined as Culturally Relevant and
Responsive Education or Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRRE or CRT). It is beneficial
because teachers can create intrinsic value for each student when they are aware of what
cultures and experiences are brought into the classroom. Teachers that reflect on the
different cultures and race in their classroom will develop effective teaching strategies,
strengthen student relationships, and expand English language pedagogy (Caldwell,
2003). CRT will help students feel that their lives, language, and culture are more
understood by teachers, and therefore feel more connected to school and have more
interest in learning.
Furthermore, teachers should not use ability grouping, as it can decrease students’
self-efficacy. Often, students are very perceptive about who is placed in particular
groups, resulting in developments of individual identity and perception of each student.

95

Brattesani, Weinstein, & Marshall, (1984), Cooper and Good (1983), Good (1987) and
others have conducted research on student awareness of differential treatment and have
found that students are generally aware of how they are perceived by others in
classrooms. Similarly, these researchers have also found that student attitudes are more
positive in classrooms where differential treatment is low. “In his 1983 review of the
teacher expectations research, Brophy estimated that five to ten percent of the variance in
student performance is attributable to differential treatment accorded them based on their
teachers' differential expectations of them; various other researchers have accepted and
quoted this estimate” (Cotton, 1989).
Therefore, instead of ability grouping, teachers can use cooperative learning
groups and productive student interaction to increase students learning and motivation.
Research shows that students receive academic and social gains from cooperative and
small group learning (Gillies, 2002). Cooperative learning engages ELL’s to work
together, which increases motivation, decreasing competition, and develops language
skills. When working in a group, students cooperate toward a common objective,
decreasing competition (Vaughan, 2002).
In addition, differentiated instruction and the use of effective instructional
strategies can help to raise struggling students’ achievement in a manner that does not
decrease their motivation or self-efficacy. As mentioned in the previous section,
differentiated instruction is instruction tailored to individual differences (Hall, 2009). A
diverse classroom can have a population of ELL’s and students with disabilities that

96

require modified instruction that is flexible with ongoing assessment. Teachers can
assess students to understand their background and prior knowledge in order to set
instruction at the appropriate level. ELL’s require differential instruction that matches
their levels of proficiency (Toohey, 2000). This will determine the readiness and
learning style of the ELL while developing motivation toward mastery of concepts.
Also, teachers can motivate students by promoting intrinsic, rather than extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic are the types of motivation that guide students desire
to learn a particular subject. Students that are intrinsically motivated hold a true interest
of the topic and want to learn based on their enjoyment. Extrinsically motivated students
participate in an activity with hopes of gaining something outside of the learning
objective (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Vansteenkiste, et al., (2006) stress the importance
that teachers focus on intrinsic rather than extrinsic goals for students as they will gain
long-term outcomes such as personal growth, meaningful relationships, and understand
academic material leading to competent demonstration of knowledge. In order for
teachers to implement intrinsic goal practices, they must be creative and innovative with
instruction. Although extrinsic goals are worthy, they can result in students having lower
self-efficacy, high depression, anxiety, and poor relationships with peers (Duriez,
Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & De Witte, 2004).
Finally, it is important that teachers have high expectations for their students in
order for them to feel motivated to complete tasks. Research has shown that teachers
who have high expectations for all their students and believe that they can learn, have

97

students with higher achievement and attitudes (Cotton, 1989). Teachers with low
expectations have lower motivation to teach and evoke this sentiment on students. Also,
these teachers often resort to teaching simplistically, rather than challenging students with
rigorous instruction that promotes critical thinking skills. This low level instruction can
cause students to have low self-efficacy and absorb teachers’ perceptions that they cannot
learn and succeed (Caprara et al., 2006).
Achievement Goal Theory
Students that have performance-approach-oriented goals do not wish to master the
subject matter, rather care about how they will be perceived when they show competence
to others, resulting in the lack of critical thinking and positively associated with surface
level thinking (Liem et al., 2008). Performance-approach goals often lower student’s
self-efficacy, value, goal setting, and learning outcomes. These students are also less
likely to feel that teachers have a genuine care for them to succeed (Eccles & Roeser,
2005).
Similarly, students with performance-avoidance complete tasks to avoid being
looked down on from their peers (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000).
Studies show that performance-avoidance goal-oriented students become disengaged and
lack persistence when faced with adversity on assignments. The performance-avoidance
student will also set limited goals that are disengaged due to the lack of value that is
connected with the outcome (Liem et al., 2008). The performance-avoidance goal has
negative roots such as fear of failure and rejection (Schunk et al., 2008).

98

Therefore, students should engage in mastery-orientated goals and approaches to
tasks. Research shows that ELL’s that engage in mastery-oriented goals have higher
goal-oriented motivation that allows them to develop reasons to value and pursue a task.
Students who develop mastery-oriented approaches seek to develop competence in the
topic. Students who use mastery-oriented goals develop critical thinking and deeper
learning skills (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The use of such deep level thinking help
students go beyond the surface level information and gain critical thoughts (Amerin &
Berliner, 2003). Students who have a mastery-oriented goal structure carry a high sense
of well-being and have less misconduct than students who have a performance-oriented
goal structure (Eccles & Roeser, 2005). Overall, mastery goals are positively associated
with deep learning and improved self-efficacy (Liem et al., 2008).
Mastery goals are also positively related to a student’s persistence and effort when
engaging in an academic activity. Persistence is related to student self-efficacy that
allows continued motivation toward specific academic goals. Students that have high
self-efficacy carry elevated levels of persistence and effort resulting in desires to learn
new skills (Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2006). This effort regulation and management is a
students continued investment when encountering adversity in the academic setting.
Students need to have persistence and consistent effort at school if they are to accomplish
their set goals (Liem et al., 2008).
Similarly, teachers who use mastery-oriented goals and approaches to instruction
create an environment where all students are recognized and encouraged from a mastery-

99

oriented standpoint. When students observe positive goals from teachers in the
classroom, it carries over to personal goals that they wish to master. Students will
develop positive self-efficacy and identify their own mastery goals when they can relate
this to the teacher/classrooms mastery goals. Also, mastery-oriented approaches not only
benefit teachers who use them to guide their instruction, but can improve their relations
with colleagues and students thus increasing student motivation (Roeser, 2004).
Research shows that elementary teachers who developed performance-oriented
instructional practices had beliefs that there was negative competition amongst staff and
administration leading to inequitable treatment between the two. However, mastery-
oriented teachers believed that student success was due to the collaboration of
administrators and staff, leading to motivation for students that attend that particular
school (Eccles & Roeser, 2005).
Teacher Attribution (Self-Efficacy)
It is important for teachers to have feelings and beliefs that they are capable of
improving student academic outcomes. With the growing demands of NCLB, new
responsibilities, and limited external rewards, teachers need to have intrinsic motivation
to be successful instructors (Fishman, et al., 2003). Teacher self-efficacy is connected to
career satisfaction and ability to succeed. Teachers who have a strong sense of self-
efficacy will appreciate colleagues and events outside of their classroom. They are more
committed to their profession than those that carry beliefs that they are inadequate
instructors. This belief will continue to motivate teachers to be as effective as possible

100

since it directly meets the needs of their intrinsic goals of competence and mastery, while
indirectly meeting performance-oriented goals through rewards and positive
reinforcement (Caprara, et al., 2006).
Also, research indicates that when teachers’ have higher self-efficacy, their
students learn better. A positive reciprocal effect on teacher’s perceived self-efficacy and
student achievement is the result of encouraging beliefs. Those that carry high self-
efficacy will carry personal responsibilities as well as influence students in a positive
manner. A study by Caprara et. al (2006) found that perceived self-efficacy of teachers
was linked to how well they effectively handle tasks, obligations, and challenges to
ensure that students have academic success. Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy
are able to affect student achievement by creating appropriate classroom environments
that motivate students. Students can benefit from increased teacher self-efficacy by being
more engaged in tasks, having increased self-esteem and motivation, and feeling more
included in classroom activities (Woolfolk-Hoy & Davis, 2006).
However, it is important that teachers become aware of their actual abilities and
goals, while seeking out support and resources in order to improve their abilities as
instructional leaders. According to the Trend in International Math and Science Study
2007 report, teachers in the United States report that they feel confident about their
knowledge of instructional strategies and their ability to implement them. However, the
United States continues to rank low compared to the achievement and success of other
countries (Gonzalez, Williams, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg, & Brenwald, 2008). This

101

overconfidence combined with low mental effort and persistence, inhibits teachers from
becoming motivated to develop their skills through collaboration and professional
development opportunities. Thus, teachers must utilize the professional growth
opportunities suggested in the previous section such as professional development,
collaboration, and mentoring.
Summary and Group Recommendations
In order to close the achievement gap, Latino ELL’s need to have high levels of
motivation, self esteem, and self-efficacy. They also need to be interested in school and
value learning. Therefore, the group recommends that teachers use cooperative learning
and CRT to motivate students in the classroom. CRT will help ensure that instruction is
differentiated to meet the needs of Latino ELL’s and that content is meaningful,
engaging, and comprehensible. Cooperative learning can be used as an alternative to
ability grouping, allowing students to learn from each other while increasing language
skills and self-esteem.
CRT can increase student achievement by allowing their identity to be valued.
Teachers must use appropriate skills and strategies that access background knowledge of
students, allowing them to have a greater chance of understanding difficult concepts that
they may have struggled with previously. Teachers must become aware of the
background and SES of each student in their classroom in order to properly use high-
quality instruction (Blachowicz, Watts-Taffe, & Fisher, 2006)

102

Finally, teachers should encourage and develop students’ intrinsic motivation
through the use of mastery-oriented goals and tasks. Teachers can help students set
personal learning goals by stating the standard and learning objective for each lesson.
Encouraging Latino ELL’s to value the process and experience of learning will result in
increased intrinsic motivated and successful learners. This will take the place of extrinsic
rewards gained from learning such as grades or tangible rewards.

103

Authors: Ashley Benjamin, Shannon Powers, and Eric Medrano
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis model to help the Glendale
Unified School District with a problem they identified: closing the ELL Latino/White
student achievement gap in the elementary schools. The Gap Analysis framework was
used to identify, eliminate, and refine the potential knowledge/skill, motivation, and
organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap Analysis process, combined with
scholarly literature, helped to identify possible research-based solutions to help close the
achievement gap.
The Gap Analysis
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). It helps
organizations to identify and clarify goals, and to analyze gaps between the desired and
actual levels of achievement. The process also helps organizational leaders to identify
the root causes of the gap so that effective resources and solutions can be identified and
implemented. Similar to a consultant model, a gap analysis focuses on identifying,
analyzing, and solving a specific problem.
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
1. Define and set goals – day-to-day, intermediate goals, and long-term goals that
are clear, consistent, concrete, and current.

104

2. Determine gaps – current performance level will be compared to the desired
standard of performance.
3. Investigate the causes of the gap – the roots of the gap may be knowledge/skill,
motivational, or organizational related.
4. Define and implement the research – research based solutions that target the
roots of the problem are selected and implemented.
5. Evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions – reactions, impact during the
program, transfer, and the bottom line are assessed and solutions are modified as
needed.
Methodology
• Scanning Interview (30-60 minutes)
o This general broad-based interview was used with district personnel and
leaders; it had five open-ended questions that allowed the interviewee to share
their perspective on the problem, the history of the problem, the solutions
being used, and the roots of the problem.
• One Month Interview (30-60 minutes)
o Three questions were asked of teachers to gain a better understanding of what
goals and instructional practices were being used in the classroom with ELL
Latino students over the past month.

105

• Innovation Configuration Chart
o A rubric of effective instructional strategies was used during the interview
process with teachers to help the interviewers determine how successfully the
teachers were implementing effective instructional strategies in the classroom
over one month.
• Stages of Concern Interview (1-2 minutes)
o A brief probing question was used to determine the concerns and attitudes of
individuals implementing effective instructional strategies.
The Sample
• 7 district level personnel.
• The principal from each school site.
• 11 teachers of varying experience and grade levels.
• Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were composed
of a high number of Latino ELL’s and demonstrated an achievement gap between this
subgroup and their white peers.
District Strengths
• The district reform strategy FOR seems to have increased a district-wide emphasis
and awareness of student achievement/assessment data and data-driven decision
making to guide instruction.

106

• The district demonstrates positive environmental, individual, and group culture.
School sites are clean, safe, and display student work; the staff is positive, get along
with one another, and collaborate often.
• Some district strategies to close the gap are: use data to identify gaps, emphasize staff
development and collaboration to discuss data, provide literature to staff, and hire
teacher specialists.
• Some school site strategies to close the gap are: use teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELL’s for individual instruction.
• Many of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possess
knowledge about general effective instructional strategies such as thinking maps,
think-pair-shares, and read-alouds. Most also seem to possess knowledge about the
importance of developing oral language for ELL’s.
• Most of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possess
knowledge about their students’ achievement and assessment data.
• Most of the interviewed teachers seem to have high self-efficacy and feel they were
capable of achieving their goals. Similarly, they stated that they had high
expectations for their students and believed all students could learn.
• Most of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed felt that
educating Latino ELL’s and closing the achievement gap were very important.

107

Problem Area 1
• While the FOR reform has many strengths, its emphasis on process and data often
seemed to result in a lack of attention and discussion on instructional strategies.
• District, school site administrator, and teacher goals lacked alignment.
• Interviewed teacher goals for their Latino ELL’s often varied and were unclear, not
concrete or current.
• Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; some of them seem disconnected
from the district’s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap and do not address
effective instructional strategies for ELL’s.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 1
The district should continue its focus on data-driven decision making, while
emphasizing the importance of connecting goals and school instructional focuses to the
ELL Latino achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 1
The group recommends:
• The district continues to collect, analyze, and discuss assessment and instructional
data regarding ELL Latino students and the achievement gap via FOR.
• District and school leaders should continue to encourage teachers to use data to
guide their instruction.

108

• The district should encourage school site administrators to use data on the
achievement gap and Latino ELL’s to guide their selection of school instructional
focuses.
• The district makes efforts to ensure that district, school, and teacher goals are not
only situated within the FOR framework, but are aligned, cascading, and relevant.
• School site administrators can also emphasize that teacher goals for Latino ELL’s
be mastery based, clear, concrete, current, and focused on SMART goals.
Problem Area 2
• While most of the district personnel are aware of generally effective instructional
strategies for all students, there is a lack of knowledge about effective instructional
strategies that apply to ELL Latino students and their needs.
• Most of the individuals interviewed shared the philosophy that “good teaching is
good teaching” and lacked the conceptual knowledge that Latino ELL’s need specific
instructional strategies that apply to their needs.
• Teachers are unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, and specifically how
and when they should be implemented.
• The district does not have a clear, consistent, unified ELD program, or time block for
ELD instruction.
• Many of the interviewed teachers do not seem to feel that teaching metacognitive
knowledge is a priority, and are not teaching higher level or critical thinking skills to
the Latino ELL’s.

109

Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 2
An increased use of and focus on ELD and effective instructional strategies that
meet the needs of Latino ELL’s will help to close the achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 2
The group recommends:
• The district focus their efforts on the two most important effective instructional
strategies, SDAIE and differentiation, which will ensure that instruction is
targeted to meet the needs of ELL Latino students and that content is made
comprehensible.
• Teachers can learn about these strategies, and how to successfully apply them in
their classrooms via comprehensive professional development programs such as
GLAD or SIOP.
• Because ELD is typically not occurring in the classroom, the district should
mandate an ELD time block to ensure that teachers are providing ELD
instruction.
• The district selects a published ELD program, or supplementary instructional
material for ELL’s, where teachers can more easily begin to incorporate effective
ELD instructional strategies into the ELD content and curriculum.
• Four research based ELD program publishers recommended by the CDE are:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill School Division, Pearson
Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, and SRA/McGraw-Hill.

110

• Over time, as teachers become more comfortable with the leveled content of the
ELD curriculum, schools can move away from the structured program and
provide more flexible in-depth ELD with the guidance and support of the school’s
ELL Specialists.
Problem Area 3
• According to the interviewed teachers, Latino ELL students are lacking self-efficacy,
self-esteem, and motivation.
• This may be the result of teachers’ consistent use of ability grouping of pulling out
low-level small groups to work with, and by separating students within the grade
level into ability-grouped classes.
• District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parent’s low SES, lack of “value” of education, and
low educational background. These misperceptions about the causes of the gap may
cause Latino students to feel that their culture and lives are misunderstood, thus
lowering their interest in learning.
• Generally, interviewed teachers would not permit or encourage the Latino ELL’s’ to
speak Spanish in the classroom. This could be causing students to feel that their
culture and language are not valued, thus lowering their self-esteem and interest.

111

Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 3
Increasing students’ self-esteem, self-efficacy, interest, value, and overall
motivation through various methods such as cooperative learning and culturally relevant
education, will help to close the achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 3
The group recommends:
• Teachers use cooperative learning as an alternative to ability grouping, which will
allow students to learn from one another while increasing their language skills and
self-esteem.
• Teachers use CRT to motivate students and ensure that instruction is
differentiated to meet the needs of Latino ELL’s through the use of content that is
meaningful, engaging, and comprehensible.
• Teachers should encourage and develop students’ intrinsic motivation through the
use of mastery-oriented goals and tasks. Teachers can help students set personal
learning goals by stating the standard and learning objective for each lesson.
• Teachers should help Latino ELL’s value the process and experience of learning,
increasing intrinsic motivation resulting in successful learners. This will take the
place of extrinsic rewards gained from learning, such as grades or tangible
rewards.

112

REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners:
Assessment and Accountability Issues. American Educational Research
Association, 33, 4-14. Retrieved from January 18, 2010, from JSTOR.

Alvarez, M.R. (1999, January). Why did proposition 227 pass? Paper presented for
Research Workshop on Proposition 227 and Its Implementation, San Diego, CA.

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H.
Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-
348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2003, February). The effects of high-stakes testing on
student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38.

Archer, J. (2005). Guiding hand. Education Week, September 14, S5–S10.

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

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychology, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In F. Pajares & T. C.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337). Emory
University, Atlanta, GA.

Batt, E. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to
overcome the greatest challenges. Multicultural Education 5(3), 39-43.

113

Blachowicz, C., Watts-Taffe, S., & Fisher, P. (2006). Integrated vocabulary instruction:
Meeting the needs of diverse learners in grades 1–5. Naperville, IL: Learning
Point Associates.

Boardman, A. G., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high-stakes”
assessment: What happens to professional development? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(6), 545-557.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Sage.

Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task-value, achievement goal
orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research,
97(6), 287-297.

Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions
for children's difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 527-544.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school [On-line]. Available:
http://stills.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ [2000, October 4].

Brattesani, K., Weinstein, R., & Marshall, H. (1984) Student Perceptions of Differential
Teacher Treatment as Moderators of Teacher Expectation Effects. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76: 236-247.

Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 25-38.

Butler, J. (2002). Staff Development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.
Retrieved October 4, 2010 from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html.

Calderón, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R.E. (1998). Effects of Bilingual
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition on students making the
transition from Spanish to English reading. Elementary School Journal, 99(2),
153-165.

Caldwell, B. (2003) A theory of learning in the self-managing school. In Volansky, A.
and Friedman, I. A. (Eds) (2003). School based management: an international
perspective. Israel: Ministry of Education.

114

California Department of Education. (1999). English language development
standards. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

California Department of Education. (2002). English-language development standards
for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento,
California: California Department of Education.

California Department of Education. (2007). Achievement Gap Fact Sheet. Retrieved
February 15, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/afactsheet.asp.

California Department of Education. (2009). Academic Performance Index: Information
Guide. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.aspe.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.

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

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers’ self efficacy
beliefs as determinants of jobs satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: a
study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-490.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N.,
Lively, T. J., & White, C. E. (2004) Closing the Gap: Addressing the Vocabulary
needs of English-Language Learners in Bilingual and mainstream classrooms.
Reading Research Quarterly, 39, (2), 188-215.

Cawthon, S. E. (2005). Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) training and
strategies that enable teachers to successfully help Hispanic English learners
accelerate language acquisition and improve academic achievement. Ed.D.
dissertation, University of La Verne, United States -- California. Retrieved
August 19, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT
3184780).

Charles W., & Gareth, R. (2001) Strategic Management. Houghton Mifflin.

Childs, J. H., Terry R., Jurgenson, N., Clifton, M., & Higbie, G. (2010). “Iterative
Cognitive Testing of the 2010 Race and Hispanic Origin.” Report for the
Statistical Research Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

115

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2005). Who Teaches Whom? Race and the
Distribution of Novice Teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377–92.

Coburn C. E., & Talbert J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts:
Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education 112, 469-495.

Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What Does Research Say about Effective
Practices for English Learners? Introduction and Part I: Oral Language
Proficiency, Kappa Delta Pi Record 46 (1), 10-16.

Cook, L., Cook, B. G., Landrum, T. J., & Tankersley, M. (2008). Examining the Role of
Group Experimental Research in Establishing Evidenced-Based Practices.
Intervention in School and Clinic 44 (2), 76-82.

Cooper, E. (2003). Embedded Immigrant Exceptionalism: An Examination of
California's Proposition 187, the 1996 Welfare Reforms and the Anti-Immigrant
Sentiment Expressed Therein. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 18(2), 345-
372.

Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983) Pygmalion Grows Up: Studies in the Expectation
Communication Process. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and Student Outcomes. Portland, Oregon: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.

Darling-Hammond L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1)(1 January).

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The Flat Earth and Education: How America’s
Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future . Educational Researcher,
36(6), 318–334.

Diaz-Rico, L. & Weed, K. (2002). The crosscultural, language, and academic
development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston, MS: Allyn &
Bacon.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The
critical role of school leaders. Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education,
COPPSE Document No. IB-7.

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

116

Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective Practices for Developing Reading
Comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to
Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2004). Evidence for the
social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with
right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance, and prejudice. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2005). School and community influences on
human development. In M. H. Bornstein and M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental
Science: An advanced textbook (5th ed, pp. 513–555). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivation beliefs of Asian
American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 443–
440.

Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool
for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. ERIC Digest
EDO-FL-99.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based
education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational
Research, 99(4), 195-210.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP model, second edition. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 Achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

117

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.

Feldman, J, & Tung R. (2001). Whole school reform: How schools use the data-based
inquiry and decision making process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, April.

Finn, C. E., & Hess, F. M. (2004). On leaving no child behind. The Public Interest, 157,
35–56.

Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 44, (3), 594-629.

Fisher, P., Blachowicz, C., & Watts-Taffe. (2008). Vocabulary Instruction. Three
Contemporary Issues. In L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Ed.), Handbook of
research on literacy instruction: Issues of diversity, policy, and equity (pp. 321).
New York: NY. Macmillan.

Fishman, J., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning
to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 643-658.

Fives, H. & Buehl, M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for
examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary
Educational Psychology. 33(2) 134–176.

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Flynn, K., & Hill, J. (2005). English language learners: A growing population. Denver,
CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Focus on Results. (2010). Curriculum. Retrieved November 7, 2010 from
http://focusonresults.net/curriculum/index.html.

Gandara, P. (2010). Education crisis: The Latino. Educational Leadership (2).

118

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gifford, B., & Valdés, G. (2006). The Linguistic Isolation of Hispanic Students in
California’s Public Schools: The Challenge of Reintegration. In A. Ball (Ed.),
With More Deliberate Speed: Achieving Equity and Excellence in Education—
Realizing the Full Potential of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 125-154).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Gillies, R. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative learning experiences: A two-year
follow-up. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 1, 15-20.

Glendale Unified School District. (2009). Our district directory. Retrieved September 25,
2010, from http://www.gusd.net/gusd/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=75.

Glendale Unified School District. (2009). Foreign Language Academies of
Glendale (FLAG). Retrieved July 2, 2010, from
http://gusd.schoolwires.com/15791032013386410/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BM
DRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=54216.

Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from 2
research reviews. P. 1-7.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and
does not say. American Educator, 32 (2).

Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the
role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence.
Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53-60.

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008).
Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S.
fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.

Good, T. (1987). Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Findings and
Future Directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38: 32-47.

Graham, S., Bellmore, A., Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2009). It must be me: Ethnic
diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 38(4), 487-499.

119

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement,
ego involvement, and depth of processing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 187–194.

Hall, B. (2009). Differentiated Instruction: Reaching All Students. Research into Practice.

Hall, G. & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based
approach. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.

Hamann, E., Zuliani, I., & Hudak, M. (2002, April). English language learners,
comprehensive school reforms, and state departments of education: An un-
bridged dichotomy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000).
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest
and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding language, literacy, and academic
content in English and Spanish: The linguistic highway from Mesoamerica to
Southern California. English Teaching Practice and Critique 8, (2), 137-166.

Herman, J, & Gribbons, B. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school
inquiry and continuous improvement: final report to the Stuart Foundation.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los
Angeles.

Hough, D. (2004). The Link Between Instructional Practice and the Racial Gap in Middle
Schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 28, 1. Retrieved January 20, 2010
from JSTOR.

Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher
decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice.” Teachers
College Record 106(6), 1258–1287.

120

Jepsen, C., & de Alth, S. (2005). English learners in California schools. San Francisco:
Public Policy Institute of California.

Johnson, R. (2002). Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap. Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Corwin Press, Inc.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation
theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19,141–184.

Kelleher, J. (2003). Professional development that works: A model for assessment-driven
professional development; Phi Delta Kappan, 84.

Kerr, K. A., Marsh J. A., Ikemoto G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to
promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and
lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education 112, 496-
520.

Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-
cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 205–230.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Towards the understanding
of a double-edge sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 67–72.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal
setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845.

Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196.

Liem, A., Lau, S. & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and
achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer
relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33, 486-512.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.

121

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2005) The link between high school reform and college
access and success for low-income minority youth. American Youth Policy Forum
& Pathways to College Networks.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Reseach-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mason, S. (2002). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public
schools. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Maxwell, W. & Shammas, D. (2007). Research on race and ethnic relations among
community college students. Community College Review, 34, 344-361.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction(2
nd
.ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle River: NJ

Maynard, D.W. (1985). On the functions of social conflict among children. American
Sociological Review, 50, 207–223

McKinsey & Company (2009). The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in
America’s Schools, pp. 1-23.

McMillan, J. H, & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based
inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Menken, K. (2000). Do the models fit? Towards comprehensive school reform for
English language learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education, Center for the Study of Language and Education. Retrieved August 25,
2010 from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/framing/4models.html

Murnane, R. J., & Steele, J. L. (2007). What is the problem? The challenge of providing
effective teachers for all children. The Future of Children, 17(1), 15-43.

122

National College for School Leadership. (2005). Leading Coaching in Schools.

Nietfeld, J., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises
and feedback on performance and monitoring accuracy. Metacognition and
Learning, 1, 2, 159-179.

Pajares F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review
of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2): 139–158.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H. Ryan, A. M. Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers'
communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 102, (1), 35-58.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: Sage
Publications.

Payan, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2006, August). Current State of English-Language
Learners in the U.S. K-12 Student Population.

Phinney, J., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity,
immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 493-510.

Pickard, M. J. (2007). The new Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview for family and
consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1),
45-55.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitve knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into Practice.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-
regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of
metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Project GLAD. (2010). Preparing today’s youths for the future. Retrieved September 25,
2009 from http://projectglad.com/.

Reid, J. (2006, August). New census data shows 1.3 million children have fallen into
poverty since 2000. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from
http://cdf.childrensdefense.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7887

123

Renninger, K. A., Bachrach, J. E., & Posey, S. K. E. (2008). Learner interest and
achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 15. Social Psychological
Perspectives (pp. 461–491). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Roeser , R. W. (2004). Competing schools of thought in achievement goal theory? In M.
L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol.
13: Motivating students.

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on
computer skills and computer cognitions of K-3 students. Elementary School
Journal, 102, 141−156.

Rosswork, S. G. (1977). Goal setting: The effects of an academic task with varying
magnitudes of incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 710-715.

Rothenberg, C. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching English language learners: A
differentiated approach. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Education.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L., (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.

Santamaria, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting al learners. Teachers College
Record, 111(1), 214-247.

Scarcella, R. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English Language
Learner; Oakland: Regents of the University of California.

Schmid, C. (2001) Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New
Second Generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71-87.

Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and
goals: motivational and informational effects. The Journal of Educational
Research, 78, (1), 29- 34.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive
skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, (2), 359-382.

124

Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in Education. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Servage, L. (2009). Who is the “Professional” in a Professional Learning Community?
An Exploration of Teacher Professionalism in Collaborative Professional
Development Settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, (1) 149 ‑171.

Shin F., Rueda, R., Simpkins, C., & Lim, H. J. (2009). Developing Language and
Literacy in Science: Differentiated and Integrated Instruction for ELL’s. In J.
Coppola & E. V. Primas (Eds.), One Classroom, Many Learners: Best Literacy
Practices for Today’s Multilingual Classrooms (pp. 140-160). International
Reading Association.

Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2) 315-
342.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of
reading instruction. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247-284.

Slavit, D., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, and
English language learners: Meeting the needs of all students. Multicultural
Education, 14(4), 20-27.

Spellings, M. (2007). Commentary on “Building on Results: A Blueprint for
Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act”. Retrieved on February 1, 2010
from http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/070423.html.

Stone, R. T., & McQuillan, J. (2007). Beyond Hispanic/Latino: The importance of
gender/ethnicity-specific earnings analyses. Social Science Research, 36, 175-
200.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tafoya, S. (2004). Shades of Belonging. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

The Education Trust (2005). The Power to Change: high Schools that help all students to
achieve.

125

The National Association of Elementary School Principals (2008). Leading Learning
Communities. Collaborative Communication Group Inc., VA.

Thomas, K. W., (1992). Conflict and Conflict Management: Reflections and Update.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,(3), 265-274.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA:
University of California at Santa Cruz, Center for Research on Education,
Diversity, and Excellence.

Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K.,
Conover, L., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to
student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse
classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-
3), 119-145.

Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, June). Young, diverse, urban: Hispanic population
reaches all-time high of 38.8 million, new Census Bureau estimates show.
Retrieved November 7, 2010, from
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-1000.html.

U. S. Census Bureau. (2004, January). Hispanic Populations of the United States: U.S.A.
Retrieved October 18, 2010, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/cps2004.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009, November). State & county Quickfacts: U.S.A. Retrieved
October 18, 2010, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

U.S. Department of Education (2010, March). National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). U.S. Department of
Education’s Survey of the States’ Limited English Proficient Students and
Available Educational Programs and Services, 1999‐2008 summary reports;
enrollment totals from the National Center for Educational Statistics Core of
Common Data, 1999‐2000 through 2007‐2008. Retrieved November 7, 2010,
from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

126

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-
contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19–31.

Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among
students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 359-366.

Villalba, J. A., Akos, P., Keeter, K., & Ames, A. (2007). Promoting Latino student
achievement and development through the ASCA national model. Professional
School Counseling, 10, 464-474.

Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire
faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement.
American Journal of Education 112, 549–71.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 68–81.

Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy of
adolescents (pp. 117−137). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Young, M. V. (2006). Teacher’s use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team
norms. American Journal of Education 112, 521-550.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

127

APPENDIX A: SCANNING INTERVIEW

Scanning Interview

Is it okay if I record our interview today?
I want to assure you that your comments are confidential and we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic students in Elementary School, and
your thoughts on this topic would be helpful.

1. What are your general thoughts about ELL Hispanic students in Elementary Schools
in Glendale? (Is this a problem/overview)
- What is the current situation?
-What is being done about it?
-Is the situation a ‘problem’- in what sense?

2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation. (general history)
- Over the past 5-10 years, what has the district done to address ELL Hispanic
Elementary students?
-Were these efforts successful?
-Do they continue to this day? If no, what happened?
- Has anything in regards to this topic changed over time?

3. Regarding ELL Hispanic Elementary students, are there any formal or informal goals
for what you or the district are trying to accomplish? (goals)
- What is the goal of this effort?
-What is the time frame?
-How will you/the district know if you are successful?
-Do role groups have different goals for this effort?
-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 in this topic? (causes/roots of the problem)
-Is this problem linked to many role groups or 1?
- Is this problem one of lack of knowledge skill, of motivation, of culture, or of politics?

5. Are there any suggestions you have for how our team could better understand this
topic in the district?

128

APPENDIX B: ONE MONTH INTERVIEW

One Month Interview

Is it okay if I record our interview today?
I want to assure you that your comments are confidential and we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic students in Elementary School, and
your thoughts on this topic would be helpful.
We’d like to know what things you have done in your class over the past month to help
your ELL Latino 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
Latino students learn?

3. To what extent were you successful?

129

APPENDIX C: INNOVATION CONFIGURATION CHART

Innovation Configuration Chart

Successful Moderately Successful
Just Getting
Started
Lesson Purpose
Teacher and students know the
purpose, objectives, and goals of
the lesson and specific activities.
The lesson is clearly linked to state
standards
Teacher and students show some
understanding of the purpose,
objectives, and goals of the
lesson and specific activities.
The lesson is somewhat linked
to state standards
Teacher and students
carry out activities
with little connection
to the overall purpose
of the lesson.
SDAIE
Strategies
The teacher knows and uses the
SDAIE strategies on an ongoing
basis such as emphasis on
academic language, tapping into
prior knowledge, cooperative
learning, etc.
The teacher somewhat knows
about SDAIE strategies and uses
them some of the time.
The teacher knows
little about SDAIE
strategies and does
not use them
purposefully.
ELD Strategies
The teacher recognizes that ELL
have specific needs and
instructional strategies. The
teacher uses visuals, gestures, and
attempts to lower student anxiety
levels.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that ELL students
have certain needs, and applies
some ELD strategies.
The teacher focuses
instruction on all the
students without
using many specific
ELD strategies
targeted to ELL’s
Learning Styles-
Auditory,
Visual, and
Kinesthetic
The teacher often taps into students
learning styles in the same lesson;
the teacher uses auditory
techniques involving speaking and
listening, visual aids and pictures,
and movement and touch to help all
students learn.
The teacher somewhat taps into
students learning styles in the
same lesson; the teacher
sometimes uses auditory
techniques involving speaking
and listening, visual aids and
pictures, and movement and
touch to help all students learn.
The teacher rarely
taps into learning
styles, or typically
uses only one of the
styles when teaching.
Differentiated
Instruction
The teacher recognizes that
students learn in different ways and
have different needs; the teacher
often varies instruction, and
differentiates student
practice/assessment to
accommodate students.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that students learn in
different ways and have different
needs; the teacher sometimes
varies instruction, and
differentiates student
practice/assessment to
accommodate students.
The teacher rarely
differentiates
instruction and
typically teaches
things in one way
that he/she feels is
the most effective.
Cooperative
Learning
The teacher recognizes that
students can learn socially and
learn from each other. The teacher
allows students to work in both
assigned and randomized small
groups while ensuring all students
are speaking and participating. The
teacher has goal-directed
instructional conversations with the
group.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that students can
learn socially and learn from
each other. The teacher
sometimes allows students to
work in both assigned and
randomized small groups while
ensuring all students are
speaking and participating.
The teacher typically
uses direct
instruction and
lecture, and rarely
has students work in
groups.
Thinking Maps
and Graphic
Organizers
The teacher often uses thinking
maps and graphic organize to allow
students to organize their thoughts;
for example circle maps, tree maps,
flow maps, or charts are often used
across the curriculum.
The teacher sometimes uses
thinking maps and graphic
organize to allow students to
organize their thoughts; for
example circle maps, tree maps,
flow maps, or charts are often
used across the curriculum.
The teacher rarely
uses thinking maps or
graphic organizers.

130

Student
discussion and
oral language
practice (Think-
Pair-Shares etc)
The teacher provides many
opportunities for the students to
practice oral language; for
example, oral presentations, think
pair shares, and in group work.
The students have opportunities to
share and are actively engaged and
participating.
The teacher provides some
opportunities for the students to
practice oral language; for
example, oral presentations,
think pair shares, and in group
work.
The teacher mostly
does direct
instruction and
lecture while students
listen attentively.
Scaffolding,
build upon prior
knowledge,
make
connections
The teacher often builds lessons
upon student’s prior knowledge
(knowledge from previous years or
lessons, or experiential
knowledge). The teacher allows
and encourages students to make
text-text, text-self, and text-world
connections and connections to
their culture and communities.
The teacher sometimes builds
lessons upon student’s prior
knowledge (knowledge from
previous years or lessons, or
experiential knowledge). The
teacher sometimes has students
make text-text, text-self, and
text-world connections
The teacher focuses
on teaching new
knowledge with little
scaffolding or
connection-making.
Modeling
The teacher clearly, and with
purpose, models difficult and new
tasks/concepts for students in an
organized and step by step way.
For example, guided reading.
The teacher sometimes models
difficult and new tasks/concepts
for students in an organized and
step by step way. For example,
guided reading.
The teacher rarely
models and typically
focuses on lecture.
Instruction is
meaningful and
engaging to
students
The teacher connects instruction to
student’s interests, and makes
instruction meaningful and
engaging to students in a variety of
creative ways. Students are given
many opportunities to be involved
and participate.
The teacher sometimes makes
instruction meaningful and
engaging to students.
The teacher rarely
makes instruction
engaging, and
typically follows the
teacher scripts in the
teacher manuals word
for word.
Concrete,
relevant, and
immediate
feedback to
students
The teacher provides concrete,
relevant, and immediate
individualized feedback to students
throughout lessons and throughout
the day both formally and
informally.
The teacher sometimes provides
concrete, relevant, and
immediate individualized
feedback to students throughout
lessons and throughout the day
both formally and informally.
The teacher rarely
provides feedback to
students, or feedback
is mostly given for
larger projects in a
simple formal
manner.
Evaluation and
Assessment
Ongoing review of student
engagement, inquiry process, and
student learning. Use of multiple
sources of assessment (formal and
informal).
Some review of student
engagement, inquiry process,
and student learning. Use of
some sources of assessment
(formal and informal).
Little to no review of
student engagement,
inquiry process, and
student learning. Use
of little to no sources
of assessment
(formal and
informal).
Uses data to
guide instruction
Assessment and Evaluation data is
used to modify and guide
instruction. The teacher determines
individual students needs based on
the data, and then provides
feedback and targeted instruction as
needed.
Assessment and Evaluation data
is sometimes used to modify and
guide instruction. The teacher
sometimes determines individual
students needs based on the data,
and then provides feedback and
targeted instruction as needed.
The teacher rarely
uses data to modify
or guide and
instruction, and
mostly uses data as a
basic progress report.
Collaboration
with other
teachers
The teacher often collaborates with
other teachers about instructional
strategies, lessons, and data. The
teachers share knowledge and
modify or expand upon instruction
based on gained ideas.
The teacher sometimes
collaborates and shares ideas.
The teacher sometimes uses
ideas gained from this
collaboration.
The teacher mostly
keeps to him/herself
and rarely seeks
advice, support, or
ideas from peers.

131

Culturally
Relevant and
Responsive
Education and
Literature
(CRRE)
Student’s different cultures,
race/ethnicities, backgrounds, and
experiences are recognized and
valued. The teacher seeks out
CRRE resources and literature to
connect to instruction and to
engage students.
The teacher sometimes uses
CRRE resource and literature in
the classroom.
The teacher sticks
mostly to the
teacher's guides and
the literature and
resources provided
by the school
curriculum.
Systematic
vocabulary
development,
and teaching of
phonemic
awareness and
fluency skills
The teacher recognizes that ELL’s
need targeted and comprehensive
vocabulary development and
instruction. The teacher often
focuses on developing phonemic
awareness and fluency skills. The
teacher explicitly teaches English
(syntax, grammar, vocab,
pronunciation etc.)
The teacher sometimes
recognizes that ELL’s need
targeted and comprehensive
vocabulary development and
instruction. The teacher
sometimes focuses on
developing phonemic awareness
and fluency skills.
The teacher rarely
recognizes that
ELL’s need targeted
and comprehensive
vocabulary
development and
instruction. The
teacher rarely focuses
on developing
phonemic awareness
and fluency skills.
A targeted
intervention
strategy/method
is used for
failing/strugglin
g students
After analyzing the data and
determining student’s needs, the
teacher targets instructional
strategies and provides
interventions to failing students.
For example, IWT, pre-teaching,
tutoring, modified practice etc.
The teacher sometimes provides
interventions to struggling
students.
The teacher mostly
teaches to the whole
class, and rarely
provides
individualized
targeted
interventions.
Uses
supplementary
resources
The teacher goes beyond the given
resources and lesson plans and
seeks outside resources such as
materials, artifacts, videos,
pictures, etc. to make instruction
more differentiated and
meaningful.
The teacher sometimes goes
beyond the given resources and
lesson plans and seeks outside
resources such as materials,
artifacts, videos, pictures, etc. to
make instruction more
differentiated and meaningful.
The teacher mostly
uses the program and
school provided
resources for
instruction.
Allows students
to work in their
primary
language
The teacher recognizes that
sometimes ELL’s lack vocabulary
and can express themselves better
in their native language. The
teacher encourages the use of their
home language and promotes their
pride of their language and culture.
The teacher also often explains
things in the student’s native
language when they don't
understand.
The teacher sometimes allows
students to speak in their native
language, and sometimes
explains things in their home
language.
The teacher rarely
allows students to
speak in their native
language, and rarely
explains things in
their home language.
The teacher feels that
learning and speaking
English is the
priority.
Teachers have
meaningful
relationships/int
eractions with
students
The teacher goes above and beyond
the daily typical teacher/student
interactions and seeks to be an
advocate for students. The teacher
meets with students individually on
a regular basis to determine
student’s needs in and out of the
classroom and seeks to support
them.
The teacher sometimes meets
with students. The teacher
sometimes has in-depth
interactions with students in
class about student concerns and
needs.
The teacher mostly
lectures and focuses
on instruction. The
teacher rarely
interacts with
students one on one
and rarely has in-
depth discussions
with students.
High
Expectations for
students and
belief that all
students can
learn
The teacher has high expectations
for all students and has the
educational philosophy that all
students can learn and succeed.
The teacher sometimes has high
expectations for all students and
has the educational philosophy
that most students can learn and
succeed.
The teacher believes
that certain students
can learn and
succeed. The teacher
has different
expectations
depending on the
student.

132

Positive
classroom
environment
with clear
classroom
management
plan
The teacher's classroom
environment is open and
welcoming. Students feel
comfortable and safe, and feel
comfortable asking questions and
seeking out help. There is a clear
and consistent classroom
management plan that the teacher
and students know.
The classroom environment is
sometimes open and welcoming.
Students sometimes feel
comfortable asking for help.
There is a classroom
management plan that is
sometimes used, but not very
consistently.
The teacher
maintains a closed-
door policy.
Students rarely ask
for help, and there is
not a clear classroom
management plan.
Opportunities
for Complex
Thinking and
Critical
Thinking Skills
The teacher has high expectations
for students, and has rigorous and
challenging lessons that promote
the development of complex
thinking skills. Promotes higher
ordered thinking skills.
The teacher has moderately high
expectations for students, and
has some rigorous and
challenging lessons that promote
the development of complex
thinking skills.
The teacher has low
expectations for
students, and has few
rigorous and
challenging lessons
that promote the
development of
complex thinking
skills.
A curriculum
rich with content
The teacher teaches all subjects and
connects them across the
curriculum (art, social studies,
history etc.) making instruction
more meaningful and complex,
allowing students to make
connections and develop
vocabulary.
The teacher teaches most
subjects and connects them
across the curriculum (art, social
studies, history etc.) making
instruction more meaningful and
complex, allowing students to
make connections and develop
vocabulary.
The teacher focuses
on the main core
subjects.
Mastery
Learning is used
The teacher uses precise
behavioral objectives
permitting students to reach a
"mastery" criterion before
moving to new learning.
The teacher uses some
precise behavioral objectives
permitting students to reach
a "mastery" criterion before
moving to new learning.
The teacher uses
little precise
behavioral
objectives
permitting students
to reach a
"mastery" criterion
before moving to
new learning.
 

133

APPENDIX D: STAGES OF CONCERN INTERVIEW

Stages of Concern Interview

Are you currently aware of the ELL Latino achievement gap?

Are you currently using instructional strategies with you ELL Latinos?

What are your feelings and/or concerns about these?

134

APPENDIX E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Closing the achievement gap for the Latino ELL population has become a priority
for many school districts across the nation. Yet despite additional funding, research, and
professional development for educators, schools continue to struggle closing this
achievement gap. The executive summary discusses the purpose of the project, provides
an explanation and usage of the Gap Analysis problem-solving approach, the sample and
method of data collection, and the findings. At this point in the findings, the focus will be
on the gaps of the districts and schools, not on their strengths. Solutions to problems will
be discussed in another section.
Purpose of the Project
The Latino achievement gap is a concern in the field of education. As the United
States becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, it is urgent that educational agencies
are successfully able to educate all children. This gap is a relevant problem for urban
school districts because if they do not improve their Latino students’ achievement and
ensure that all students reach proficiency by the 2013 – 2014 academic school year, they
are at risk for various NCLB consequences.
The purpose of this project is to use the gap analysis model to help a local school
district close their Latino/White student achievement gap in the elementary schools. The
Gap Analysis framework will be used to examine the roots of the problem and the causes
of why ELL Latino students in a local school district’s elementary schools are struggling.

135

The Gap Analysis process will help identify, eliminate, and refine the potential
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap
Analysis will help identify possible solutions to close the achievement gap in a local
school district.
The Gap Analysis
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). A gap analysis
helps organizations identify and clarify goals, and analyze gaps between the desired and
actual levels of achievement. A gap analysis also helps organizational leaders to identify
the root causes of the gap so that effective resources and solutions can be identified and
implemented. Similar to a consultant model, a gap analysis focuses on identifying,
analyzing, and solving a specific problem.
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
1. Define and set goals – day-to-day, intermediate goals, and long-term goals
that are clear, consistent, concrete, and current.
2. Determine gaps – current performance level will be compared to the desired
standard of performance
3. Investigate the causes of the gap – the roots of the gap may be
knowledge/skill, motivational, or organizational related
4. Define and implement the research – research based solutions that target the
roots of the problem are selected and implemented

136

5. Evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions – reactions, impact during
the program, transfer, and the bottom line are assessed and solutions are
modified as needed
Methodology
Project Timeline
Fall 2009
• Topic defined as ELL Latino
achievement gap
• Data Collection on context of
problem
• Background and information on
district

Spring 2010
• Interviews of key district personnel
• Qualifying Exams
• Draft of Chapter 1 and defined
possible causes of the gap
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer 2010
• More in-depth data collection at
school sites
• Chapter II completed
• Explored reforms for district to
close the achievement gap

Fall 2010
• District presentation of
comprehensive report of findings
and recommendations
• Finished Capstone Project
Spring 2011
• Defended Capstone Project and
Graduation

Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods included informal interviews. The purpose of the
interviews was to “gather descriptive data in the subjects’ own words so that the
researcher can develop insights on how participants interpret some piece of the world”
(Bogdan &Biklen, 1992, p.96). The interviews were intended to gain an understanding
of the insider’s viewpoint and experience. An interview protocol was used that had

137

questions based on the research questions, the problem, and the literature. Participants
were allowed to respond to the questions freely, and probing questions were asked as
needed to gain an in-depth understanding of certain topics. Specifically, a Scanning
Interview (See Appendix A) was done of all district and administrative personnel. This
general broad based format had five open-ended questions that allowed the interviewee to
share their perspective, the history, solutions being used, and roots of the problem. A
One Month Interview (See Appendix B) was used with teachers to determine what goals
and instructional practices were implemented in the classroom with ELL Latino students
over a specified period. Three questions were selected to gain a better understanding of
what the teacher had been doing in his/her class over the past month. An Innovation
Configuration Chart (See Appendix C) was used during the interview process to help the
interviewers determine how successfully the teachers were implementing effective
instructional strategies over one month. Finally, a Stages of Concern (See Appendix D)
was used to determine the concerns and attitudes of individuals implementing effective
instructional strategies.
The Sample
Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were
composed of a high number of Latino ELL’s and demonstrated an achievement gap
between this subgroup and their White peers. The team interviewed seven district level
personnel, three principals from each of the school sites, and 11 teachers of varying
experience and grade level for thirty-minutes to one-hour each.

138

Findings
Organizational Culture – the culture’s understanding of what they represent, value, and
complete as an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.107).
• Culture –
o The district demonstrates positive environmental, individual, and group culture.
School sites are clean, safe, and display student work; the staff are positive, get
along with one another, and collaborate often.
• Process: Policy and Procedures –
o The district currently focuses on the seven phases of the FOR reform; the
district’s emphasis on FOR causes a focus on data and process rather than on
instructional strategies.
o Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; these focuses lack a
connection to FOR and the district urgency statement, and may not have a relation
or impact on the achievement gap.
o Some district strategies to close the gap are: use data to identify gaps, emphasize
staff development and collaboration to discuss data, provide literature to staff, and
hire teacher specialists.
o School site strategies to close the gap are: use teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELL’s for individual instruction.

139

• Materials and Resources –
o There is currently no clear, consistent, or organized ELD program in place in the
district.
o There is a supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning” being
used at some schools, but it is applied to all students and does not utilize ELD
instructional strategies.
• Foreign Language Academies of Glendale (FLAG) –
o There is a misconception that the FLAG is closing the achievement gap, when the
revealed purpose of the program is to increase enrollment, ADA, and funding in
the district by increasing the number of out-of-district students and families.
o The FLAG program affects a very small percentage of Latino ELL’s, therefore
not impacting the gap.
o The Latino’s participating in the FLAG program are not necessarily ELL’s or
struggling students, thus not representing the demographics of the students
impacting the achievement gap.
Knowledge/Skill – the necessity of determining whether people know how to achieve
their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 44).
• Factual Knowledge –
Strengths –

o Teachers possess knowledge about general effective instructional strategies
such as thinking maps, think-pair-shares, and read-alouds.

140

o Teachers possess knowledge about the importance of developing oral
language for ELL’s.
o District personnel possess knowledge about their students’ achievement and
assessment data.
Weaknesses –

o Teachers are unaware of what instructional strategies specifically help ELL’s

o Educators’ lack knowledge about the roots of the ELL Latino achievement
gap and perceive the problem to be parents’ low SES, value of education, and
educational attainment levels.
• Conceptual Knowledge –
o Teachers currently believe “good teaching is good teaching” and lack the
conceptual knowledge that Latino ELL’s need specific instructional strategies
that apply to their needs.
• Procedural Knowledge –
o Teachers do not know how and when to implement effective instructional
strategies for ELL’s.
o Teachers do not know of or how to implement a systematic, thoughtful, plan
for how to teach oral language and vocabulary to ELL’s.
• Metacognitive Knowledge –
o The FOR process does not appear to encourage teachers’ deeper reflection on
their own cognition or thinking.

141

o Teachers are not teaching students in a manner that allows them to develop
their metacognitive knowledge, thinking strategies, contextual/conditional
knowledge for solving a problem in a certain context, or self knowledge of
their strengths and weaknesses.
o Teachers are not teaching higher level or critical thinking skills to the Latino
ELL’s; they are focusing on basic simplified instruction with those students.
Motivation – the internal process that keeps a group going, keeps them moving, and tells
them how much effort to spend on work tasks (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 80).
• Self-efficacy –
o Teachers have high self-efficacy and felt they were capable of achieving their
goals.
o Teachers’ felt their Latino ELL’s lacked self-efficacy, self-esteem, and
motivation.
o Students’ low self-efficacy may be the result of teacher’s consistent use of
ability grouping; students may be identifying themselves as struggling,
ineffective learners.
• Task Value –
o Teachers felt that educating Latino ELL’s and closing the achievement gap
were very important.

142

o District personnel felt that a main cause of the achievement gap was that
students’ low value of education was due to their parents’ low value of
education.
• Attribution –
o District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parents low SES, lack of “value” of
education, and low educational background.
o These attributions caused teachers to feel helpless about the situation.
o These attributions and feelings conflicted with teachers’ statements that they
had high expectations for their Latino ELL’s and believed all students could
learn.
• Interest –
o Teachers’ misperceptions about the causes of the gap may cause Latino
students to feel that their culture and lives are misunderstood, thus lowering
their interest in learning.
o Speaking Spanish is not encouraged in the classroom, possibly lowering
student interest while at school.
• Goal Orientation –
o District, school site administrators, and teacher goals are not aligned.
o Teacher goals vary enormously and were unclear, not concrete, not current,
and lack clarity and focus.

143

APPENDIX F: SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

 

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

Abstract (if available)

Abstract An Alternative Capstone Project: Evaluating the Academic Achievement Gap for Latino English Language Learners in a High Achieving School District is a project between three USC dissertation students and a local school district. In this dissertation, students will use research-based literature and the gap analysis model to help the local school district identify the possible knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the Latino English Language Learner achievement gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

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

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: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

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: 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 readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Medrano, Eric (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/08/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag achievement gap,English language learners,gap analysis,Latino,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (city or populated place), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email ericmedrano2@yahoo.com,ermedran@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3929

Unique identifier UC1424390

Identifier etd-Medrano-4370 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-472252 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3929 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Medrano-4370.pdf

Dmrecord 472252

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Medrano, Eric

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