University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1
PERCEPTIONS OF GRADE 4-6 TEACHERS ON HISTORIC FAILURE OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS ON STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT
by

Brenda Montaine

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

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Brenda R. Montaine

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 2
Dedication
To us all, as we are all, I believe, language learners.
Dedicated to my parents who instilled in me a love for learning and always had books
available to me, especially science fiction books that helped me envision that all things are
possible, they just might not be possible, yet.
Also, dedicated to my family, their love, support, and understanding helped me persevere
through the demands of writing this dissertation.
I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my friends who sent good thoughts and
prayers to me throughout this process.
In addition, I dedicate this dissertation to my colleagues (past and present) who were
interested in my research and share a commitment to help all students.
Moreover, I dedicate my research to all of my students, notably the ones who called me
their teacher, during my studies at USC - my inspiration.
For my teachers, in gratitude.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 3
Acknowledgements
With grateful appreciation for the fortitude of my ancestors, love and support of my
family and friends, and wisdom from my dissertation chairs and USC Rossier School of
Education faculty. Thank you to my wonderful dissertation team, Dr. Paula Carbone, Dr. Patrick
Crispen, and Dr. Patricia Tobey, for their support and expertise. I appreciate the above and
beyond time that Dr. Carbone put in toward ensuring my success.
A special thank you goes out to the administrators and teachers who directly supported
the research for this dissertation, welcomed me onto their campuses, and afforded me a glimpse
into their world. This dissertation would not exist without the sharing of craft knowledge and I
commend the teachers who were willing and able to help me give voice to their professional
practice and perceptions.
I find purpose and definition in my tenacity. It takes tenacity to reach for and attain an
EdD. I am enjoying new found gumption imparted to me through the USC EdD process which
will take me into the next phase of my vocation.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 10
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 15
Research Questions 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Organization of the Study 19
Significance of the Study 20
Importance of Problem 21
Disparities in ELL Education 22
Limitations and Delimitations 24
Limitations 25
Delimitations 25
Definition of Terms 26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 29
Review of Relevant Research 29
K-12 Education in the United States 29
Education in California 34
Literacy in California 35
ELL Education in California 43
Equitable Curriculum 47
Eurocentricity 48
Monolingualism 50
Quality Instruction 52
Comprehensive Assessment 58
Relevant Research on Teacher Perceptions Related to Grades 4-6 62
Current Teacher Preparation 63
Looking at ELL Achievement Through the Lens of the Teacher 64
Implications for Students 65
Looking at ELL Achievement Through Theory 66
Conceptual Framework 66
Worldview 67
Student-Centered 67
Growth Mindset 68
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 68
Covert Culture 69
Learning Theory 69
Student-Centered Conceptual Framework 70

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 5
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 73
Research Questions 73
Conceptual Framework 73
Rationale for Qualitative Research 73
Site Selection 74
Protocols 74
Data Collection 75
Survey 75
Interview 76
Document Review 77
Data Analysis 78
Ethics 79
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement? 81
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement? 82
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 84
Overview of Participants 85
Site Context 87
Anywhere Unified School District 87
SoCal Unified School District 88
Research Questions 89
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement? 90
Limited time for training, strategies, and learning new strategies in instructional
practices 93
Limited time for meeting a range of students’ learning needs 94
Limited time for collaborative teaching using groups with large class size 95
Limited time to promote strategies for language acquisition 97
Limited time for parent collaboration 100
Themes found in literature that were not present in the analysis 102
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers
in support of ELL Achievement? 103
Participant successes 103
Small group for explicit instruction 105
Individual meetings 106
Increase vocabulary 107
Increase student talk may increase confidence 109
Access 111
Skills and strategies 111
Training and mindset 112
Work with parents 114
Resources 115
Keep an eye on policy change 116
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 6
Summary of RQ1 and RQ2 118
Triangulation of Survey and Document Review 119
Survey Results 119
Document Review Findings 121
SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP. 124
Summary of Survey and Document Review 127
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 128
Summary of Findings 129
Barriers and Barrier Removal 130
Discussion of Removing the Barrier of Time 130
Discussion of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 132
Solutions 135
Recommendations for Practice 135
Implications 136
Understand and Transform 137
College/Career Readiness 141
Supporting Student Needs 142
Further Study 142
Conclusion 144
References 146
Appendix A Table A1 159
Appendix B Table B1 160
Appendix C Table C1 161
Appendix D Sample Home Language Survey from the CDE 162
Appendix E Survey and Interview Protocols 163
Appendix F Codebook 171
Appendix G Matrix of Research 173
Appendix H Table H1 178

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Twelve Recommended Practices toward achieving the purpose of Title I 32

Table 2: Information on Interview Participants 86

Table 3: Anywhere Unified School District 2015 CAASPP ELA Scores in Percentages
Grades 4-8 side-by-side Comparison of White/ELL Subgroups (CDE, 2015a) 88

Table 4: SoCal Unified School District 2015 CAASPP ELA Scores in Percentages Grades
4-8 side-by-side Comparison of White/ELL Subgroups (CDE, 2015a) 89

Table 5: Participants who Shared Agreement on Each Perceived Barrier and Instances Each
Theme Appeared in the Analysis 101

Table 6: A summary of RQ2’s Barrier Removal Subsets, Participants Identifying the
Strategy, and Literature Connections 117

Table 7: Survey Responses 120

Table 8: Information Included from SPSA as Related to ELLs, Barrier Removal, and
Additional School Site Information 126

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Reading assistance implementation flow chart. 33
Figure 2: Six Guiding Elements. 70
Figure 3: Mountain model. 72
Figure 4: Time Barrier 92
Figure 5: Breaking the Time Barrier. 131

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 9
Abstract
Focused on an equity of educational access issue, this qualitative study identified grade 4-6
teacher perceptions of English language learning in Southern California. The historic failure of
English language learners (ELLs) on standardized tests in Southern California was presented as
an important problem to solve. The literature review for this paper linked ELL failure on
standardized tests to a lack of equitable curriculum, lack of teacher training, lack of quality
instruction, and lack of comprehensive assessments. In addition, the lens of grade 4-6 teachers
within the scope of the problem was explored and subsequent solutions of ELL failure on
standardized tests was examined. This qualitative research paper reviewed relevant research on
ELL literacy and language needs, and researched teacher perceptions. The purpose of this paper
was to answer two research questions. Both questions are interrelated in that they focused on
grade 4 through 6 teacher perceptions of barriers and barrier removal in support of ELL
achievement. In the analysis, time was determined to be the barrier and a variety of practices,
skills, and strategies were recommended by participants to remove the barrier of time toward
ELL achievement. The most mentioned practice was small group instruction. Moreover, within
small group instruction, teachers worked to build vocabulary and increase student talk. A multi-
faceted barrier removal process was revealed. Possible solutions toward facilitating ELL
academic achievement were discussed, and areas in need of further research were presented.
Ultimately, solving the problem of ELL failure on standardized tests in California, which the
researcher would like to present nuanced, instead, as a problem of standardized testing failing
California ELLs, is important to solve. In turn, helping ELLs may help all students, in due
course, succeed in academics and livelihood.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
This study explored the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers regarding the historic failure of
English language learners (ELLs) on standardized tests in two unified school districts in
Southern California. Pseudonyms replaced the names of districts and teachers. One district was
assigned the name SoCal Unified School District and the other was named Anywhere Unified
School District. Focused on an equity of access to quality education issue with a student-centered
growth mindset lens, the author conducted research for this dissertation utilizing a qualitative
approach. A historic perspective of education at the national, state, and local level was addressed
with the goal to add teacher perceptions to the knowledge base and promote education reform
toward equity of access to quality education under the United States’ promise of “liberty and
justice for all” (4 USC Sec. 4. 2010. Print).
Background of the Problem
Anecdotally, imagine a student, somewhere in Southern California, who entered her
seventh-grade year designated as an ELL after seven years of instruction and intervention in the
areas of English language development (ELD) and reading. ELD is the designated and integrated
time during the school day that teachers are required to use California ELD standards to meet the
ELD needs of ELLs (California Department of Education [CDE], 2015b). To complicate ELL
access to a quality education, this student was born in California and has two parents who speak
English. In addition, this student may be a second- or third-generation ELL who entered public
school in Kindergarten, yet has scored below or far below grade level in reading on standardized
tests for four years and received the equivalent of D grades (Below grade level proficiency) in
reading for seven years. Parents were invited to seven years of conferences to be told again and
again that their child struggles in the area of reading. Seven years of teacher comments suggested
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 11
that reading every day will improve grades. Because a heritage language other than English was
listed on the home language survey, this student received an ELL designation. This child failed
to learn English to a proficient level within five years and is more likely to drop out of school
than every other child who was designated as an English Only (EO) student or all the other
redesignated fluent English proficient (R-FEP) classmates (Hahnel, Wolf, Banks, & LaFors,
2014). This student may be imagined, but this scenario is historically and currently very real for
thousands. According to Olsen (2010), 330,000, which is 59%, of ELLs in grades 6 through 12
in California fail to reach a level of English proficiency necessary to be reclassified R-FEP
within six years (p. 31).
Historically and currently, there are disparities and inequities of access to quality
education that may have an impact on ELL future and livelihood that exist in the state of
California. As reported by Oakes (2003) and the CDE (2011), ELLs’ standardized test scores are
lower than those of non-ELLs. Furthermore, despite California having a globally competitive
economy, not all of its students have access to a minimum standard of resources for education or
benefit from all that is available in this state and nation (CDE, 2011; Oakes, 2003). In addition,
data from National Center Education Statistics (NCES) indicated that California students have
less access to their teachers than students in the rest of the nation, with a 2011 teacher student
ratio of 16 to 1 in the United States and 24.1 to 1 in California (NCES, 2013b, p. 2). Ultimately,
historically and currently, ELLs face a disparity of access to a quality education. The purpose of
the NCES is explained in the following account:
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for
collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations. NCES is
located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12
NCES fulfills a Congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report complete
statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and
review and report on education activities internationally. (NCES, 2017a, par. 1)
ELL’s future and livelihood may be dependent upon addressing this disparity of access to
quality education issue. The CDE (2015a, 2015e) and NCES (2013a, 2013b, 2017b, 2017c) are
two important sources with data that indicate disparity in access to quality education for ELL
students in California (Appendix A). Eight reasons for disparate outcomes for ELLs including
LTELL status were identified by Olsen (2010):
 Lack of language curriculum
 Language program not designed for ELLs
 Poorly taught curriculum
 Rare or absolutely no native language education
 Inconsistent lessons
 Cancellation of lessons
 Lessons inaccessible
 Absent for lessons
Consequently, multiple reasons for disparate outcomes contribute to the complexity of
identifying causes and solutions of potentially multiple barriers and barrier removal toward
achievement.
Multiple researchers have considered the impact of disparate outcomes for ELLs
compared to non-ELL students (Bennett, 2001; Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010; Good,
Masewicz & Vogel, 2010; Hahnel et al., 2014, Lee & Buxton, 2013; Rueda, 2011).
Ramifications include ELL student failure on tests and in classes, retention, long-term English
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13
language learner (LTELL) status, and lack of a high school diploma. These disparate results
express a larger societal impact of ELLs facing poverty and incarceration. Bennett (2001) may
agree that there is a moral obligation for educators at all levels and positions of power to solve
issues of equity of access to a quality education for all students, not just ELLs (Universal Design
for Learning [UDL], 2016).
The CDE (2011) and NCES (2017b, 2017c) are two data sources that indicated many
eighth grade students in California, not just ELLs, are unable to demonstrate solid academic
performance or proficient skills in reading (Appendices A, B, and C). In 2013, data from the
NCES identified California as a Mega-state representing changing demographics in the United
States. Even though, since 1998, California eighth graders gained 8% proficiency in reading,
data show that they have consistently performed below the national average. NCES implements
and overseas The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is identified by NCES
as the biggest ongoing national test identifying what a sampling of students in the United States
grades 4, 8, and 12, may know and be able to do in regards to curriculum such as math, reading,
and sciences (NCES, 2017b). On the 2013 NAEP, 71% of California eighth grade students tested
basic or below in reading as compared to 61% of all U.S. eighth graders (NCES, 2017b). In
addition, the CDE reported that 57% of the 431,578 eighth graders who took the 2013 California
Standards Test (CST) scored proficient or above in English language arts. To illuminate this
problem further, in California, in 2013, data from the CDE indicated that 245,999 eighth grade
students were unable to demonstrate proficient skills in reading on the CST. This problem has an
impact on these students' future success and on-time high school graduation. For example,
McCallumore and Sparapani (2010) explained evidence in a study on the importance of ninth
grade for on-time graduation, to support the need to fully prep students for barrier removal
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 14
before they are retained in the 9th grade. With 22% more enrolled in the 9th grade than any other
high school grade, it becomes an important potential retention grade level in the quest for on-
time graduation. At this time, multiple data sources indicate that many eighth grade students in
California are unable to demonstrate solid academic performance or proficient skills in reading,
which leaves them vulnerable to be selected to repeat the 9th grade. Furthermore, data on ELLs
is more disparate than the data presented for all students.
Data highlight disparate outcomes for ELL students in the U.S. Since the onset of the
NAEP in 1998, statistics, provided to the public by the U.S. Government, have shown that ELLs
are outperformed by non-ELL students on standardized tests (NCES, 2013a; NCES 2013b;
NCES 2017c). Since 2007, the average scale score for fourth grade ELL reading has ranged
between 190 and 192; in comparison, the average scale score for non-ELL fourth graders ranged
between 225 and 227 as measured by the NAEP (NCES, 2017b; NCES 2017c). Moreover, at the
last reporting of the academic performance index (API), by the CDE (2013) data showed
disparate outcomes for ELL students in California. ELL students reached a final 717 API score
in 2013 compared to White students reaching a final API of 852. Rather than claim an
achievement gap, this dissertation frames disparate outcomes for ELLs as an equity of access
issue.
The issue of equity of access to quality education is not just an ELL problem or eighth
grade problem in California. Equity of access to quality of education may happen to any student
when there is a lack of quality curriculum, lack of a quality teacher, and/or a lack of a
comprehensive assessment. However, this is especially true for an ELL due to navigating a
classroom with a different discourse, which is not a factor for English proficient students (Mays,
2008). Building a case for on-time graduation, and addressing needs of students sooner than later
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 15
made reviewing tests scores available from the NAEP important to the background of this study.
The NAEP is a broad sampling of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in California compared to the U.S.
According to the NAEP results, eighth grade students in California perform below the rest of the
U.S. in reading (NCES, 2013b; NCES, 2017c). Since the onset of the NAEP in 1998, statistics
provided to the public by the U.S. Government have shown that less than 30% of California
eighth graders who took the NAEP demonstrated proficiency in reading (NCES, 2017c). In 1998,
79% were below proficiency in reading and, in 2013, 71% tested below proficiency in reading
(NCES, 2013a; NCES, 2013b; 2017c). The NAEP results were shared for all students, making a
case that all students, not just ELLs, may benefit from earlier support sooner for on-time
graduation (Hahnel et al., 2014). For ELLs, the results are more disparate. For example, 2015
NAEP results showed eighth grade average scale scores in reading, on a scale to 500 with 243 set
as basic and 281 set as proficient, were reported as 215 for ELLs and 266 for those not labeled
ELL (NCES, 2017c). Test scores revealed an ELL equity of access issue.
The problem of ELL access to quality education in California is important to address
before the eighth grade because equity of and ability to be prepared for high school, succeed in
graduating, perhaps attend college, and then navigate the job market in a globally competitive
society is dependent upon students reaching and demonstrating proficient skills in reading. The
statement of the problem is presented in the next section.
Statement of the Problem
Since only ELL students can be labeled LTELL and be at risk for late completion of high
school and missing four-year college admissions requirements due to a continuing ELL status,
the problem of ELL equity of access became the catalyst for this study. For example, ELL data
has remained stagnant. Since the 2005-2006 federally mandated testing cycle, data showed
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 16
disparities between gains of White students compared to those of ELLs. Furthermore, according
to the CDE (2013), no more than 9% of ELLs in California scored advanced in English
(Appendix C). In addition, at the end of the CST academic performance (API) reporting cycle in
2011, even though ELLs gained 55 API points to White students gaining 36 API points, a gap of
135 points remained between the two subgroups. Per CDE (2013) data, the White subgroup
scored above the 800 API state goal while ELLs scored below this goal (Appendix B). A
continuous cycle of ELL failure on standardized assessment, on the one hand, may initiate policy
mandates for quality education accountability and, at the same time, on the other hand, be
perpetuated by those same policies as evidenced by over a decade of disparate results.
In 2015, there was a federal policy change from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This federal policy change to ESSA is still being studied.
In today’s ESSA world the API, which is now identified by the CDE as “The outdated
cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999” measured academic
growth for the last time in 2013 and has yet to be replaced (CDE, 2017a, par. 1). By definition,
an ELL is not proficient in English and, therefore, historically scores below grade level
proficiency on standardized tests as the labeling is designed. Federal policy perpetuates the
parameters that create ELL lack of proficiency and then mandate proficiency for all ELLs at the
same time. To further complicate the issue, data illuminated that ELLs were more likely to live
in poverty, more likely to drop out of school, and more likely to have less access to quality
curriculum and teachers than English proficient students (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly,
& Callahan, 2008; Hahnel et al., 2014).
Certain perceptions may or may not be present in teachers, students, and in our society
regarding the definition of an ELL. An ELL is a student who has not yet reached a level of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 17
English language proficiency sufficient to be redesignated as R-FEP. According to Olsen (2010),
ELLs in grades 6 through 12 in California are labeled LTELL after “more than six years without
reaching sufficient English proficiency to be redesignated” (p. 31). Perceptions that may or may
not be present in teachers toward ELLs and, in some cases LTELLs, may or may not contribute
to an R-FEP status which is important to academic success. This study was designed to
investigate teacher perceptions of pedagogical practices toward the potential academic success of
ELLs. The purpose of the study was to answer two research questions which are presented in the
following section.
Research Questions
To innovate through research is to have the awesome responsibility to create questions
that allow the world to be seen anew and, therefore, be changed (Christensen, Dyer, &
Gregersen, 2011). May those that come next have better questions than I.
Two research questions guided this dissertation:
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement?
For this qualitative study, ELL achievement is the dependent variable and barriers, barrier
removal, and teacher perceptions are the independent variables. The purpose of the study is
discussed next.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 18
Purpose of the Study
The purpose this study was to answer two research questions as presented in the previous
section and was designed to research the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on pedagogical
practices toward the potential academic success of ELLs amidst the historic failure of ELLs on
standardized testing. Although Chapters Three and Four focus on grades 4-6, it was important to
also highlight data as they were available for grades 4-8 ELLs, other subgroups, and for all
students as related to the importance of solving equity in access to quality curriculum, teachers,
and assessments for ELL students. The ramifications of waiting to solve educational equity
issues beyond grade 8 were painted as grim by McCallumore and Sparapani (2010). Therefore,
grades 4-6 were selected to home in on obstacles prior to grade 8.
The research of Hahnel et al. (2014) established that ELLs face more obstacles to
reaching college and career readiness and, even more direly, are at a greater risk for a decreased
quality of life than non-ELLs. This qualitative study was designed to address the problem of ELL
students’ historic failure on standardized testing by identifying promising pedagogical classroom
practices in regards to an ELL equity of academic success and access issue.
Hahnel et al. (2014) would agree that inequity of access impedes teachers, schools, and
districts from fully preparing all students for the college or career of their choice. Through
increasing awareness and adding to the knowledge base regarding pedagogical practice toward
ELL success and equity of access to quality education, this dissertation may assist teachers,
schools, and districts in removing barriers to academic success and equity of access for all
students.
Furthermore, Hahnel et al. (2014) promoted solving the current problem of ELL equity of
access as important to the whole of society. For an ELL to have and demonstrate advanced ELD
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 19
skills is important to being redesignated R-FEP, passing state tests, becoming college and career
ready, and achieving competitiveness in a global job market. Schools may be assisted in meeting
the goal of preparing students for their personal choice in college, career, and, ultimately, global
leadership. Within the context of global leadership, the state and nation only stand to benefit not
only from an English-proficient society, but also from embracing a multi-lingual proficient
society as well (CDE, 2015b).
Organization of the Study
Teacher perceptions within the context of a historic failure of ELLs on standardized
testing are an important topic to study in order to add to the knowledge base to potentially end a
cycle of inequity of access to quality education. Rueda (2011) suggested prudence in closely
investigating goals, approaches, practices, and solutions for any mismatch that may be present
and, ultimately, be a barrier to success.
It was determined that triangulation of a participant recruitment survey prior to follow up
interview, and document review would best be presented in a strictly qualitative research model.
Creswell (2014) noted that an important strength of qualitative research is inquiry in order to
look through the lens of the participant revealing a perspective that may or may not be different
from the personal views of the researcher or the findings in a literature review. (Creswell, 2014).
In addition, since qualitative research is a process for collecting and analyzing data that is not
closed-ended, it may be the best avenue through which to pursue and present a study of
participant perceptions (Creswell, 2014). Since this study was designed to ultimately present
teacher perceptions, a qualitative research approach was finalized.
This study was designed to look for evidence of the concepts discussed in Chapter Two
that may or may not be reflected in grade 4-6 teacher perception on barriers to and barrier
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 20
removal for ELL achievement. Concepts cited in the literature included equitable access to
quality education for ELLs. Quality educational concepts included equity of access to quality of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Within the section of curriculum, the theme of diversity
is prevalent. Moreover, in the section of Chapter Two that addresses instruction, the theme of a
deficit model versus a diverse value-added model is present. Finally, the conundrum of assessing
an ELL within parameters designed to make it almost impossible for an ELL to demonstrate
proficiency and for schools to demonstrate growing yearly progress toward an increase in ELL
proficiency on standardized testing is illuminated in Chapter Two. Subsequently, Chapter Three
was designed to establish protocols for the study.
Throughout the process of writing Chapters One through Three for this dissertation, a
theme of barriers to ELL achievement was present. In due course, Chapter Four revealed the
perceptions of the participants, not the perceptions of the author or the literature. Chapter Four
revealed a perceived lack of time and not a lack of diversity. Themes of Eurocentricity and/or
monolingualism, were not present in the analysis of the research for this dissertation. Chapter
Four revisited the theme of curriculum, instruction, and assessment found in the literature review
as appropriate to the analysis of participant perceptions. Chapter Five provided an opportunity
for discussion of the findings, creative solutions, and recommendations for future study. The
significance of the study is addressed in the following segment.
Significance of the Study
The author’s first spoken word was agua, which is Spanish for water. Her parents wanted
her to say water. She was an EO learner growing up in Burbank, California. She enunciated
agua. Her parents accepted her utterance as correct. Had she been in a different setting, her
efforts may have been deemed incorrect and in need of intervention. For all of the students who
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 21
have been misunderstood by the context of education and the lens of the teacher, this study may
help change the context of English language learning. Therefore, this study may potentially help
all students, not just ELLs, gain access to demonstrating proficiency within the context of a
quality education (UDL, 2016). The importance of the problem is found in the next section.
Importance of Problem
In order to break the cycle of historic failure of ELLs on standardized testing, it is
important to research teacher perceptions, bring awareness to the disparity of ELL test scores,
and increase the knowledge base of ELL equity of access to quality education as perceived
through teacher first-hand eyewitness accounts. To illuminate, there has not been a significant
change in proficiency level scores since the 2006-2007 academic term for ELLs. To clarify, in
California, historically since 2006-2007, about 9% of the ELL population tested Advanced,
about 27% tested Early Advanced, about 35% tested Intermediate, about 16% tested Early
Intermediate, and about 14% tested at Beginning (CDE, 2014).
Even though, by definition, an ELL lacks proficiency in English, it is still puzzling to see
that almost a decade's worth of data (CDE, 2014) identified the same results over and over on the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT). At the time of this dissertation, the
CELDT was the California state mandated test for determining proficiency in the English
language for only the students with a primary language other than English (CDE, 2017c). The
CELDT data maintained that the majority of ELLs are clustered at an Intermediate and below an
Intermediate level even though the state sets proficiency as a goal and even though, once an ELL
is proficient, their scores are no longer included in the ELL subgroup (CDE, 2014). In addition,
lack of coherent reporting for ELLs adds to the complexity of the problem. For example, data
from the NCES (2013a, 2013b, 2017c) lumps ELL students with students with learning
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 22
disabilities through data titled “students with disability (SD) and/or ELL” (p. 7). Many
researchers (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Lesaux, 2006) have considered the implications of
ELLs scrutinized for a possible learning disability label as a civil rights issue and worked to end
the historically quick correlation of lack of English language with possible lack of intelligence.
The problem of ELL equity of access to a quality education is highlighted with an ELL
taking 5 to 7 years, on average, or more of ELD to become proficient in the areas of reading,
writing, listening, and speaking as measured by the CELDT. The CELDT is scheduled to be
changed to the English Language Assessment in California (ELPAC) by 2018. Gándara et al.
(2003) provided warnings regarding standardized test scores. To begin, scores are not precise,
students centered, and fail to augment instruction. Furthermore, CELDT is an encumbrance on
schools and scoring is not timely. The following section addresses disparities in ELL education,
specifically the ELD domain of reading, because of the necessity to read standardized tests in
order to pass them. Whether the test is writing, math, or science, the ability to read, at a
proficient level, has an impact on the ability to demonstrate proficiency. Through understanding
that disparities exist in ELL education, the importance of the problem of ELL equity of access to
a quality education is identified as an important problem to solve. Disparities in ELL education
are discussed next.
Disparities in ELL Education
Multiple sources indicated that there is a disparity in access to quality education for ELL
students in California. Since California’s educational structure and policies are designed for
White middle class English speakers, ELLs are set up to fail. For example, Mays (2008) and Gee
(2008) would agree that discourse designed for White middle class students prevents free and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 23
equal education for ELLs. By design, students without knowledge of native English discourse
are unable to navigate the academic demands of education in California (Gee, 2008; Mays 2008).
The federal government would agree that it is important to have a proficient English-
speaking society to have a common language for connection, communication, and culture.
However, they would also agree it is important to have a population proficient in diverse
languages and abilities in order to compete in a global market. At this time, current practices in
California separate students as early as Kindergarten into EO, EL, or Initially Fluent (IF). Then,
the state mandates proficiency and starts testing for reading proficiency in grade 3. Therefore, by
definition, an EL is not proficient in English, yet must take an English language arts test
designed for grade-level proficiency. After that, the state reports that ELLs are not as proficient
as the EOs. At this time, the state and nation ignore what Hahnel et al. (2014) defined as a new
subgroup of Ever English Learner (Ever-EL). Ever-EL is a subgroup combination of the scores
of both ELLs and R-FEPs. In this way, data began to show a pattern different than what may be
called worse than a zero-sum result. Instead of the ELL subgroup showing consistent growth,
data demonstrated scores were consistently static and/or worse, as shown in 23% of ELLs
proficient or above for the last year of the CSTs in 2013 then only 11% of ELLs scoring
proficient or above for the first year of the CAASPP (CDE, 2016).
The issue of ELL students struggling in reading is important to address because the
equity of and ability to be prepared for high school, succeed in graduating, and then navigate the
job market in a globally competitive society is dependent upon students reaching and
demonstrating proficient skills in reading. Resolving reading issues before the eighth grade, for
all students, prevents failure in ninth grade, allowing for on-time high school graduation. In
highlighting that human capital includes the acquisition of knowledge and skills, Reschly (2010)
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 24
elucidated that the practice of resolving reading issues prevents a divergent path from continuing
between those who can read and those who can't read—a problem important to address. This
notable predicament is crucial to deal with for the future of our youth, state, and nation. A
democratic, representative government in a technologically advancing world depends on its
citizens reaching and demonstrating, at the very minimum, proficiency in reading.
While schools all over the nation adjust curriculum and instruction to go along with new
state standards, statistics on student dropout rates and crime rates continue to point toward a need
to scaffold a variety of supports for students. This paper adds to the knowledge base toward
ending an ELL problem of lack of access to quality education. ELLs’ future and livelihood may
be dependent upon solving disparity of access delineated in this study.
The negative implications and reality an ELL, with an additional LTELL label, may face
are retention, dropping out of school, lack of high school diploma, and unemployment (Hahnel et
al. , 2014). Therefore, solving this equity of access issue before eighth grade, when possible, is
important to their future livelihood and employment. The limitations and delimitations are
discussed subsequently.
Limitations and Delimitations
Research by Creswell (2014), Maxwell (2013), and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) influence
this section to identify limitations and delimitations of this study. Maxwell (2013) would agree
that being transparent on limitations, including bias and delimitations, contribute to the validity
of the study. The reader can then make informed decisions and opinions about the credibility,
dependability, and transferability of the information presented. Limitations are revealed in the
following portion.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25
Limitations
A limitation to a study is an item outside of the realm of the design of the study or control
of the researcher. Limitations may be expected and considered; however, they may not be
changed to accommodate the parameters of the study and may have an impact on internal
validity. Limitations for this study included education and the nation being in a time of flux. In
2015, there was a federal policy change from NCLB to the ESSA, and this change is still being
studied. The CDE (2016) provides timelines for transitions to new expectations and practices.
California is in the transition from the CELDT to the ELPAC as the test for English language
proficiency. The last year planned for the use of CELDT is 2017. In addition, California adopted
a new ELA/ELD framework in 2015 to inform practice along with the new Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) first officially tested by SBAC in 2015. Furthermore, California is in
transition to the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) projected to be assessed in 2018.
Moreover, the timeframe for the data collection and analysis portion of this study commenced
two months after the 2016 presidential election. Biases, covert or overt, in nation, state, and local
policy as well as any personally held by the teachers interviewed are out of the control of the
researcher. Delimitations are found in the next section.
Delimitations
A delimitation is a direct outcome of the design of a dissertation. Delimitations of this
study which may have an impact on the generalizability of this dissertation and address issues of
external validity were sampling, population, and timeframe. Data collection was limited to two
districts: SoCal Unified School District, and Anywhere Unified School District which are both
located in Southern California. The population selected was limited to grade 4-6 teachers in
those two districts. The focus of the study was further limited by a narrow focus on grade 4-6
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 26
teacher perceptions for only the ELL subgroup. ELLs were selected due to the increased risk for
disparity in educational outcomes as compared to non-ELLs (Hahnel et al, 2014). Grade 4-6
teachers were selected for their important first-hand knowledge and perceptions toward ELL
achievement. Furthermore, the study was limited by a timeframe of two months of data
collection.
This study was bounded by the choices the researcher made to answer the research
questions through coding and triangulating survey, interview, and document review data. This
study did not include any formal observational data collection or analysis. While the researcher
acknowledges that informal observation did occur during the interview process, a systematic
analysis of observation did not occur. Finally, the study is bounded by the lens of the researcher
as illustrated in the conceptual framework found in Chapter Two. The following section presents
the definition of terms used in this study.
Definition of Terms
Access - Without barriers to rigorous content for college and career readiness (Hahnel et al.,
2014).
Adequacy - When funding and programs are able to support all students to meeting or exceeding
standards (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2014).
Context - Within UDL (2016), with every educational context change which may include the
curriculum, subject, delivery, location, and performance expectations, an illusion of a
disability may manifest or dissipate. In connecting UDL to Sociocultural Theory and
Social Cognitive Theory, context is akin to environment.
Disparity - Barriers impeding access to college and career readiness (Freire, 1993).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 27
Ever-EL - Ever-English Learner Student (Ever-ELs). A promoted new subgroup. A combined
group of all students who are currently an ELL or have previously been labeled ELL and
are now classified R-FEP (Hahnel et al., 2014).
EL/ELL - English Learner (EL) or English Language Learners (ELLs). A student with a primary
language other than English. In addition, by definition, a student in the process of
learning English. This language acquisition process is expected to take 5 to 7 years
(Hahnel et al., 2014).
Equity - Having access to rigorous content for college and career readiness (Hahnel et al., 2014;
Freire, 1993).
Inequity - Not granted access to rigorous content for college and career readiness (Hahnel et al.,
2014; Freire, 1993).
LCAP - Local control accountability plan (LCAP). According to the CDE (2016) the LCAP is a
requirement of the local control funding formula (LCFF) to identify goals and progress of
subgroups across multiple measures.
LCFF - Local control funding formula (LCFF). According to the CDE (2016) LCFF was first
implemented in the 2013-2014 school year after a previous K-12 funding policy that had
lasted 40 years was changed.
LTELL - Long term English language learner (LTELL). A student who has been an English
learner for more than 5 years (Hahnel et al., 2014). According to the CDE (2015b), a
student enrolled in grades 6 through 12 who has been enrolled more than 6 years and
maintains the same English proficiency for two or more years is an LTELL. In addition,
the CDE (2015b) defines a student in grades 5 through 11 at risk for LTELL if he/she has
been enrolled four years and scores intermediate or below in the fourth year of the state’s
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 28
annual English language test as well as does not meet standards on the ELA state
standardized test.
R-FEP - Reclassified/redesignated fluent English proficient (R-FEP). A student who was
previously an ELL and met certain English language criteria (Hahnel et al., 2014)
Bringing awareness to promising pedagogical classroom practices may assist elementary
school teachers in Southern California better meet the new state standards’ goal of preparing all
students for college and/or career readiness. Moreover, this qualitative study will add to the
knowledge base of pedagogical practices implemented toward ELL success at the Rossier School
of Education.
Chapter One presented the overview for this study. Chapter Two reviews the literature for
this study and is found in the following segment.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 29
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The author’s parents told her to read, and, so, she read. The author’s parents told her to
go to school, and, so, she went to school and kept going to school. Furthermore, the author tried
to complete her studies because her parents encouraged her to and wanted her to succeed.
Ultimately, the author reached graduate school because school worked for her. This dissertation
was written with a lens of hope. It is one of the author’s lifelong wishes to contribute to
education working better for all students, as the author posits that all students, and perhaps this is
especially true for graduate-level students, are learning both academic language and content at
the same time. This literature review contributed important context toward the design and
execution of qualitative research used to collect and share data on grade 4-6 teacher perceptions
on an equity of access to quality education issue. Relevant research is reviewed next.
Review of Relevant Research
This literature review begins with a historical context of K-12 education in the United
States. Policies and practices from the federal, state, and local levels in education were explored
toward greater understanding of the role of grade 4-6 teachers on the landscape of equity of
access to quality education for, specifically, ELLs.
K-12 Education in the United States
The goal set by the NCLB of 2001 expected all students reach proficiency by 2014 (CDE,
2013). This goal was not achieved, and proficiency remains an elusive goal for many students.
However, this expectation and philosophy of 100% proficient students continues to drive goal
setting in the United States and is echoed by the CDE and local education agencies (LEA) across
California. While high expectations for all students are important to a student-centered growth
mindset approach as promoted by Dweck (2006) and, is in part, inspiration for this dissertation,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 30
not all students are there yet, nor will they reach proficiency or beyond without scaffolds in place
or barriers removed (Freire, 1993; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
The federal government functions with a dual role of both bully and big brother, both
hero and villain. Mead and Rotherham (2008) may agree that this dual role of the federal
government is found in the act of disbursement of educational funding in order to push policy.
The Tenth Amendment affords each state educational rights (U.S. Const. amend. X). This
constitutional privilege sets up the protected practice of a 50-state variety of practices and
policies that follow federal law yet only need conform to federal suggestions toward what works
in education when accepting federal money as an educational funding source (Owings, Kaplan,
& Volman, 2015).
According to the federal government’s own website, within the scope of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), reframed as NCLB in 2001, and now ESSA of 2015,
10.8% of elementary and secondary education funds come from the federal government (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016). The federal government provides a historical context justifying
involvement in U.S. education (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In 1867, what we now
know as the U.S. Department of Education began to research what worked in education. The
federal government then moved on to vocational education and expanded to assuage the impact
of World War II throughout the remainder of the 1940s. In response to the Cold War and Soviet
activity, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. The 1960s
brought about the ESSA Act of 1965 in response to anti-poverty, civil rights, and a mission of
equal access. In 1980, with Congressional approval, the U.S. Department of Education became a
Cabinet-level agency spanning preschool through research past the doctoral level. At this time,
the section of ESSA (2015) that sets aside anti-poverty money for schools is known as Title I.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 31
Title I policy. According to Hahnel et al. (2014), ELLs are more likely to be living in
poverty than non-ELLs. Furthermore, the CDE (2013) and NCES (2013a, 2013b, 2017c) have
established data that showed ELLs score lower than non-ELLs on standardized testing.
Therefore, since ELLs are a subgroup more likely to benefit from Title I funds, this section on
Title I policy was included in this literature review.
In this section, Title I policy is defined, discussed, and critiqued. The research of Fowler
(2009) as well as Wirt and Kirst (2005) is used to set a historical perspective on policy
controversy. In addition, the research of Stone (2002) is used as a lens into the equity of Title I
policy.
Title I policy existed within the NCLB Act of 2001 and now under the ESSA of 2015.
The United States Congress created NCLB as the reauthorization of the ESEA of 1994. ESEA
linked Title I funds to standards-based performance (Fowler, 2009). NCLB continued to link
funds to standards and testing and had a purpose “to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB Act, 2001, p.1).
Title I – refining educational accomplishment for of the underprivileged is found within NCLB,
and now ESSA, with a continued purpose “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach minimum, proficiency”
(ESSA, 2015; NCLB Act, 2001, p.1).
There are 12 recommended practices for accomplishing the purpose of Title I. All 12
recommended practices of Title I are identified in Table 1 and are included as an example of the
complexity of developing quality educational programs to meet high expectations for academic
success for underprivileged students (CDE, 2015a).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 32
Table 1

Twelve Recommended Practices toward achieving the purpose of Title I

Practice
1. Ensuring high-quality academic assessments…
2. Meeting educational needs of students in need of reading assistance…
3. Closing achievement gap…
4. Holding schools, LEA’s, states accountable for improving academic achievement of all
students....
5. Distributing targeting assistance…
6. Improving and strengthening accountability…
7. Providing greater decision making authority and flexibility to schools…
8. Providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program
9. Promoting schoolwide reform…
10. Significantly elevating the quality of instruction…
11. Coordinating services under all parts of this title …
12. Affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate....
Note. CDE’s Title I recommended practices are included in Table 1
Districts, schools, and teachers are held accountable to developing and implementing
programs based on the 12 recommendations of Title I. Regardless of extra high expectations,
additional funding and attention, ELLs historically and currently continue to fail on standardized
tests. This disparity of academic achievement and the barriers to ELL achievement were
therefore selected to be further explored within the research questions and protocols designed in
the dissertation. Figure 1 illustrates how Title I is interpreted and put into practice at the
elementary school level.
Some aspects of Title I are not controversial and some are. Fowler (2002) would agree
that controversy is triggered by disagreement. Title I under NCLB set a timeline of 12 years for
the whole education system in the United States to have all students be proficient in reading and
math (CDE, 2015). Having proficient students is not controversial. Having every student
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 33

Figure 1. Reading assistance implementation flow chart. This figure illustrates reading assistance
at one Title I elementary school in Anywhere Unified School District in Southern California,
toward promoting student reading proficiency. The flow chart is based on a Title I parent
orientation presentation that is no longer available online.

proficient within 12 years no matter how many years of English instruction they had in the
United States is not controversial. Almost all Americans agreed with the purpose of Title I,
having proficient students, which makes it, therefore, not a controversy. Since few educators
agreed that having all students proficient within 12 years was possible, and, furthermore, was not
achieved, that part of Title I is a controversy that continues today under ESSA (CDE, 2015a,
Fowler, 2002; NCLB, 2001).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 34
Additional controversy regarding ESSA is role of government and power. The
reauthorization of NCLB into ESSA contributed to increasing federal control of education and
decreasing local control (Fowler, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Furthermore, money that is
distributed and how it is distributed under Title I is controversial, as not everyone agrees on who
gets how much, when, and for what (CDE, 2015a; Fowler, 2009; Stone, 2002). Stone (2002) and
Fowler (2009) have common ground on identifying that policy challenges or issues ensue when
there is disagreement on recipients, distribution, and a social process for distribution of anything.
The disagreement within society on defining power and the role of government make for
controversial policy issues (Fowler 2002). Increasing the controversy of ESSA is the fact that, in
2016, many students remained below proficiency in reading, and everyone was learning how to
transition from NCLB to ESSA (CDE, 2015a). California, identified as a Mega-state in 2011, has
the largest population of ELLs in the country (NAEP, 2013). Since the collection of data for this
dissertation took place in California, it was important to transition from a national perspective on
education to a state perspective on public education.
Education in California
Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the
conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.
—Horace Mann
This section addresses education history and literacy. In addition, educational funding is
discussed as well as current recommended and, at times, mandated practices toward student
achievement. Public education has not always existed in the United States of America. At first,
states identified public education as an opportunity to balance ethical equity (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). There was a time when public education was created by states to contribute to a more
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 35
moral society rather than a more reading-proficient society (Fowler, 2009; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Now, public education, under ESSA, is identified by the federal government to be the great
banner of balance (ESSA, 2015; Fowler, 2009; Stone, 2002; NCLB, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The federal government offers states money under Title I to help educate the
disadvantaged, mandates testing for proficiency, and sanctions for not reaching 100%
proficiency. Although NCLB brought attention to the equity of advantage versus disadvantage,
an access of equity to quality education continues to exist under ESSA, as demonstrated through
and evidenced by a failure of all subgroups in California to demonstrate proficiency on state and
national testing.
The CDE (2016) provides online resources regarding educational expectations on their
own website. Education is compulsory in California. Between the ages of 6 and 18, it is unlawful
to not attend school. The only exceptions are for 16- and 17-year-olds who graduated or passed
the California High School Proficiency Exam (CHSPE) who can, then, leave if granted parent
permission. Within the complexities of ELL’s language acquisition and the requirements for
demonstrating proficiency in the English Language, of the four domains of reading, writing,
listening, and speaking tested on the CELDT, soon to be ELCAP, only two are encompassed in
the label of literacy. Literacy, for the purpose of this dissertation, refers to the ability to read and
write. To better understand the importance of studying ELL access to quality education, literacy
in California is explored next.
Literacy in California
In California and in the United States, ELL students perform below non-ELL students in
reading. According to the NCES Mega States Report, in 2011, there were 1,467,989 ELLs in
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 36
California out of a total of 5,208,247 ELLs nationwide. This data highlighted the need for
California to lead in addressing the literacy and language needs of ELLs (2013b, p. 2).
To build the background necessary to understand the importance of studying ELL access
to quality education, research on the impact of reading proficiency as it relates to future success
including on-time high school graduation was considered. Although proficiency was set as not
only an important goal, but also a sanctioned mandate, not all students are proficient in reading
in California (CDE, 2016). To highlight the importance of reading proficiency reached early on,
McCallumore and Sparapani (2010) indicated that, without proficient reading skills reached by
the end of eighth grade, which is traditionally the transition from middle school to high school
on-time high school graduation may not be possible. Having a high school diploma or equivalent
is important to many future employment endeavors.
In 1989, the Carnegie Council identified middle schools as a last resort for many students
to establish means for future success (Keehn, Harmon, & Shoho, 2008). Therefore, having access
to a quality education may subsequently allow students to acquire proficient reading skills prior
to high school for increased on-time graduation rates. Without addressing literacy skills prior to
eighth grade, California high schools are projected to be impacted with over a million struggling
readers at a time (NCES, 2011). Consequently, meeting students’ literacy needs became a focus
of several researchers, including Damber (2009). According to Damber, it is important to student
literacy learning for educators to resist a deficit model and counteract a monolinguistic
expectation so that students with skills in a language or languages other than the dominant
discourse are allowed to contribute to the classroom environment in individual and diverse ways.
Several researchers indicated that students' literacy needs are individual and diverse.
Researchers agree that meeting individual students' needs is important (Damber, 2009; Enriquez,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 37
2011; Martin, 1993; McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010). Damber (2009) identified ELD and
socioeconomics as individual student factors. Martin (2013) suggested that students are diverse
due to variance in their development. To illustrate the complexity of literacy needs, Enriquez
(2011) pointed out that experiential learning that takes place beyond school site boundaries has
an impact on reading comprehension. Disaggregation of complex student data, including
standardized tests as well as classroom assessments, is a practice to identify individual student
learning needs. In addition, a teacher informally meeting with students, on a one-to-one basis,
would be another educational practice toward the discovery of individual student academic
strengths and. Once student needs are identified, strategies and interventions may be selected and
implemented to meet those needs.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on strategies developed and
identified to meet the individual needs of struggling readers. The many strategies to choose from
in order to meet the individual needs of struggling readers include small group instruction
(Degener & Berne, 2014), vocabulary development (Hyland & Tse, 2007; Keehn et al., 2008;
Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007), introducing a literacy hour (Machin & McNally, 2005),
implementing readers' theater (Keehn et al., 2008), increasing student talk (Carrison, & Ernst-
Slavit, 2005), and utilizing action strategies (Jongsma, 2004). Project GRAD (What Works
Clearinghouse, 2007) offers scholarships and summer institutes. More strategies include silent
sustained reading and silent sustained writing promoted by Holt and O'Tuel (1989). Furthermore,
according to Damber (2009), teachers can scaffold lessons and build in daily routines that all
lead to students' independence. In addition, teacher instruction may include the use of realia to
prompt class writing and the use of oral presentations to promote participation (Damber, 2009).
After-school tutoring with one-on-one reading practice and support with teachers believing that
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 38
all students can read at or above grade level with their support (Nelson-Royes & Reglin, 2011) is
another option. Ultimately, Cummins and Yee-Fun (2007) established that many pupils are
challenged by abstract linguistics.
Research indicates that schools need to not only meet academic needs, but also foster
positive social interactions (Martin 1993). McCallumore and Sparapani (2010) suggest support
for incoming ninth graders may include providing them with schedules, maps, and samples of
assignments. Vaughn et al. (2011) promoted Response to Intervention with reading remediation
and on-going support. In 2010, Reschly studied and promoted the Check and Connect
Intervention, which focuses on building strong relationships, problem solving skills, and teaches
students to be persistent. Moreover, Au (2011) was a proponent of the following four
considerations in supporting literacy in students. First, it was recommended to support students
in building a positive attitude toward literacy. Next, scaffold what students need to apply to
navigate through reading and writing activities. In addition, it was important to support time for
independent reading so that students had access to academic language. Ultimately, helping
students find use for reading and writing skills in specific and individually deemed important
ways may be a key in increasing their motivation for, and proficiency in, reading. After all, if
students can view reading as helping them accomplish goals important to them, it may become a
more important and useful aspect of their lives. Moreover, the focus on action strategies as well
as building stamina toward silent sustained reading and writing is not an exhaustive list of
possible strategies for scaffolding literacy achievement. Research will continue to flush out
strategies to support individual student literacy needs, which is beginning to be seen as important
to the whole of society. For example, Reschly (2010) deduced and promoted that the importance
of solving reading issues is not only for the benefit of the individual, but also for the benefit of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 39
society as a whole. The variety of strategies and interventions addressed above includes
suggestions to scaffold reading participation for students who struggle with reading. Knowing
what students lack, what students need, and what strategies and interventions are available
addresses the problem of students in California with literacy skills below proficiency. One of the
more recent adoptions of California in supporting student achievement is found in the newly
implemented educational LCFF and LCAP.
LCFF/LCAP. Since 1954 and the onset of the modern civil rights movement, policies
and pressure have not worked, yet, toward equity and adequacy in education (Gamoran & Long,
2006). According to Odden and Picus (2014) adequacy is when all students meet or exceed
standards. Complex policies and pressure include the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education
decision declaring separate but equal policies unconstitutional, NCLB’s mandated and
sanctioned call for 100% proficiency, and incentivizing proficiency through Blue Ribbon schools
and public access to API scores.
According to Gamoran and Long (2006), a persisting pattern of access gap and
segregation in school remains in spite of policy and moral obligation to close gaps and diversify.
In addition, the research of Gamoran and Long discussed educational trends and possible
considerations for next steps. One trend and two possible next steps based on the Gamoran and
Long reading follows. The trend has been that schools and schooling failed to bring about
equality of opportunity and participation as evidenced by a lack of equality of results. Two
possible subsequent steps for new policy to see equal opportunity to fruition are recommended.
The first is to enact policies that have greater benefits for disadvantaged students than for their
more advantaged peers, and the second was that policies that have similar effects on all students
could be focused mainly on disadvantaged students.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 40
Odden and Picus (2014) may agree that next up on the docket of policy and pressure
toward equity and adequacy in education is the new California funding formula and
accountability plan that goes with it. Unique to CA, LCFF and LCAP were partially
implemented in the 2013-2014 school year under Assembly Bill 97 and Senate Bill 91 (CDE,
2016). LCFF was authored and designed to resolve faults found in previous educational finance
formulas, discontinued categorical funding formulas, reduced spending requirements, and
increased guidance on fiscal and academic plans (California Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO],
2013).
For the teachers at Anywhere Unified School District, LCFF may always be synonymous
with a recovery in the state’s public education. This includes funding levels in California back to
2008 levels (LAO, 2015). With this new formula of LCFF announced, Anywhere Unified
Teacher’s Union (ATU, a pseudonym) negotiated a pay raise for teachers. LCFF marks a
financial and student enrollment recovery era in Anywhere Unified School District. According to
the LAO (2013), LCFF changed how districts receive and budget money and is further discussed
next.
Under LCFF, school districts now receive extra funding dollars for students deemed
English learners (ELs) and/or Limited Income (LI). According to the CDE (2017c), an ELL must
reach a defined level of English proficiency as evidenced by CELDT/ELPAC in order to be
redesignated. On the one hand, the CELDT/ELPAC ensures students reach a proficiency in
English before ELD instruction is no longer required but, on the other hand, prevents them from
full access to the same courses offered to non-ELL students (CDE, 2017c). Moreover, if this
same ELL student is identified as LI, as evidenced by free or reduced-price meal applications,
districts then receive funding allocation amounts above a baseline for two categories of student
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 41
need (LAO, 2013). Once an EL is redesignated as R-FEP, extra funding is only still allocated if
the student is additionally LI. So, students with potentially more learning needs are allocated
more money from state funding at the district level through the LCFF. Only time will tell if this
practice slows down the R-FEP rate rather than increase it, as districts will face losing state
money for every ELL redesignated.
The LCFF in California is designed to meet district and school potential need for
additional resources that students who are not fluent in English and children from low income
homes may require toward achieving proficiency or beyond. The LCFF and LCAP are the
California governor’s response to considerable evidence that a continuing access to quality issue
education exists for ELLs and/or LI disadvantaged students (CDE, 2016). Providing resources in
an equitable manner is critical to school finance. Toward equity and adequacy, LCFF includes
the following considerations for ELLs and/or LI students as reported by the LAO:
 each ELL student above 55% of enrollment generates an additional 50% of adjusted base
rate (a district’s ELL/LI count is based on a 3-year rolling average of ELL/LI enrollment)
 additional 20% above a qualifying student’s adjusted grade-span base rate (students who
are both ELL and LI are counted only once)
These considerations make for a simple formula until bureaucracy takes hold with the LCAP
requirement. However, many educators may agree that parent involvement is a positive outcome
of the new funding accountability model (CDE, 2016). The concept of finance adequacy is
discussed in the following portion.
Finance adequacy. LCFF is California’s answer toward a more equitable finance system
in education. It will be up to the local level of district and school to make evidence-based
decisions as to where to spend money toward equity and adequacy. Perhaps in planning for the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 42
eradication of the ELL/LI access to quality education, districts may want to respond to the
importance of ensuring quality teachers and culturally relevant quality curriculum (Sleeter, 2012;
Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006). After all, without addressing ELL
and/or LI access to quality teachers and quality curriculum, schools will lack the necessary
infrastructure to address the literacy and language needs of a potentially soon-to-be majority
student population.
Unfortunately, not all students meet or exceed standards (CDE, 2013, 2016). Odden and
Picus (2014) would agree that adequacy is a focus on the ability to provide an education in which
all students meet or exceed specific standards of learning. Educational funding research, such as
that of Odden and Picus (2014) and OECD (2013), agree that resources need to be allocated
adequately toward all students meeting or exceeding standards. In addition, it may be hard to
find an educator who disagrees with a goal of receiving adequate or better resources to support
student achievement. However, agreement on a philosophy of funding educational adequacy, in
order to meet the needs of all students at the school site level, does not automatically translate
into aligned specific practices. Moreover, to add to the complexity of funding adequacy, it is
recommended by OECD (2013) that schools be given autonomy on site-level budget decisions.
For example, tutoring may help some students meet high goals, yet the exact tutoring and by
whom are not identified. In general, since the OECD (2013) leaves site budget decision up to the
district and school site, there is a lack of details on translating funding adequacy theory into
practice.
Prior to researching teaching perceptions on barrier and barrier removal toward EL
achievement, literature was reviewed. According to the literature reviewed for Chapter Two,
there are many recommendations and resources already created that identify areas of need and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 43
offer suggestions toward supporting student achievement. Seven documents reviewed for
evidence of barrier and barrier removal for EL students: the LCAP, Evidence-Based Model,
Academic Program Survey (APS) Essential Program Components (EPC), Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA), and Hattie’s (2015a) effect size. Table H1 (Appendix H) was created to
sort through these many recommendations for student achievement as aligned to the eight areas
of the LCAP.
According to OECD (2013), it is at the school site level that the following questions
should be answered after analysis of potential and mandated practices toward student
achievement:
 What do schools need?
 What works?
 What strategy in resource allocation helps schools improve student performance?
After all, it is at the school site level where students either demonstrate proficiency or inequality
in access to quality education. The LCAP may guide districts and, therefore, school sites toward
sound decisions supporting educational adequacy for all students. ELL education in California is
explored in the following segment.
ELL Education in California
This section presents California ELL identification and redesignation policy.
Identification and redesignation of non-native English speakers is steeped in law, standardized
testing, hegemony, and urgency toward accelerated acquisition of English reading, writing,
listening, and speaking.
The identification process for the label of ELL begins with California Education Code,
Section 52164.1 mandating a home language survey to determine what language is spoken in
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 44
each student’s home (CDE, 2016). However, this process is only used to identify students with a
second language other than English listed on school enrollment forms in the mandated home
language survey section (Appendix D). There are four questions on the CDE’s home language
survey sample. According to the CDE (2010), a CELDT test “should be” administered if
language other than English appears on any of the first three questions and a student “may be”
tested at a school district’s discretion if a language other than English appears on the fourth
question (CDE, 2010, p. 6). Conventional wisdom may dictate that all Kindergarteners are
learning English and, therefore, are ELLs; however only students exposed to a language other
than English in the home, and whose parents list a language other than English on the home
language survey are subjected to the CELDT. So, if conventional wisdom defines
Kindergarteners as all in need of English language instruction, and the CDE (2017h), under
Education Code Section 48200, mandates the enrollment of students in school at age 6, then the
potential for a 6-year-old to be culled from her native English-speaking classmates for being an
ELL may be a practice of misidentification and over-identification. The redesignation to R-FEP
is important to students’ access to full academic content and electives rather than a supplanting
of subjects due to lack of time, personnel, and resources for schools and teachers to deliver all
subject matter content, ELD and Specially Designed Academic English Instruction (SDAEI) as
may be implemented for a non-English speaker during the school day. The CDE (2017c) allows
for SDAEI to be implemented for ELLs as ELD and at least two academic subjects. So, an ELL
may potentially receive two content areas while an EO student receives all of the following
content areas: English language arts, math, science, and social studies. Therefore, potentially by
age 6 and day one of Kindergarten, a student may experience inequity of access to curriculum
and instruction.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 45
Perhaps the policies in place that limit access to curriculum and instruction have roots in
cultural and political biases. In other words, CELDT data on all students, could demonstrate that
an ELL Kindergartener in Southern California labeled ELL has higher skills in English than
classmates with EO designations. Currently and traditionally, California curriculum, teacher
programs, and state testing are all designed to meet the needs of White native English- speakers
(Gee, 2008; Mays, 2008). A focus on English is evidenced by the emphasis on ELLs reaching a
minimum level of proficiency in English to be afforded a removal of the label of ELL and
receiving the, elusive for some, R-FEP designation which opens up access to curriculum and
instruction that may be only afforded to EO students.
Consequently, the literacy and language needs of ELLs are not met within a system
which, in most cases, promotes EO curriculum, EO-curriculum-trained teachers, and EO
assessments designed for sanctions until all subgroups attain proficiency. Furthermore, the
dominant majority culture has been considered White EO, and the minority culture has been
identified and labeled ELL. This differentiation may be on the brink of a flip. According to the
CDE (2017e), the combined ELLs and R-FEP students make up approximately 42.8% of all
students in California (California Language Census, 2015). Therefore, the combined subgroup of
ELL and R-FEP may soon be the minoritized majority instead of the minority if disparate
practices and outcomes for ELLs are not remedied.
Researchers have considered the impact of disparate practices and outcomes for ELL
students as compared to non-ELL students (Bennett, 2001; Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010). In
addition, researchers have recommended strategies including curriculum reform, instruction
reform, and assessment reform to solve disparate practices and outcomes for ELLs. Educators in
all levels and positions of power may use a variety of strategies to solve the problem of disparate
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 46
practices and outcomes for ELLs (Bennett, 2001; Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Good et al.,
2010; Hahnel et al., 2014; Lesaux, 2006; Mays, 2008; Proctor et al., 2007; Rueda, 2011; Sleeter,
2012; Yoon, 2008). Bowan-Perrott, Herrara, and Murry (2010) support and recommended that
strategies be implemented early on. Mays (2008) would agree that strategies should involve
curriculum reform, instruction reform, and assessment reform, which are discussed in the next
subsections.
In the analysis of relevant research for Chapter Two of this dissertation, areas of concern
regarding equal access to quality education for ELLs in California were identified for further
exploration. The three areas of concern addressed in this section of Chapter Two are lack of
equitable curriculum for ELLs, lack of quality instruction for ELLs, and lack of comprehensive
assessments for ELLs (Bennett, 2001; Gee, 2008; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, &
Christian, 2005; Lesaux, 2006; Mays, 2008; Sleeter, 2012).
Whether there is a mismatch of curriculum, instruction, or assessment for an ELL, there
are a variety of approaches, practices, and/or solutions that may be employed to support their
achievement. Even though researchers may disagree on approach and practice, they do agree that
there has not been found one sole strategy or solution that has worked to support all ELLs. A
projected time period for ELLs to reach proficiency and beyond is 5 to 7 years. When the task of
language acquisition is drawn out beyond five years, an ELL becomes identified as an LTELL
(Hahnel et al., 2014). In addition, research by Hahnel et al. (2014) confirms that a label of
LTELL means an ELL is at an even greater risk for dropping out of high school as compared to
non-ELLs and R-FEP students. The CDE (2015b) offers an ELA/ELD framework of essential
considerations in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Issues with curriculum,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 47
instruction, and assessment may impede student achievement. In California, it is the CDE that
sets the tone for curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Equitable Curriculum
The CDE (2017d) is the reference used for the following information on the California
education system. The state adopted new state standards in 2010 called the CCSS. In California,
a state board of education determines educational standards. Educational standards are in place to
describe what all students should have knowledge of and proficiency in. According to Sleeter
(2012), equitable curriculum is to be culturally responsive and connected to student learning. At
this time in California, educators are under pressure to implement assessment instead of respond
to learner diversity (Steeler, 2012). Therefore, at this time, curriculum is what teachers
implement to address standards. Curriculum may include adopted standards and research-based
instructional material or any strategy and/or realia prop that may be implemented to deliver
lessons toward student mastery of CCSS, also known as the new state standards (CDE, 2015a).
Rueda (2011) framed curriculum reform strategies as necessary when a lack of consistent and
coordinated implementation of curriculum causes low achievement.
In implementing curriculum reform to prevent low achievement for ELLs, five strategies
were considered: Understanding by Design (UbD), program fidelity, bilingual education,
remedial programs, and scaffolding.
First, Wiggins and McTighe (2011), in UbD, suggest a teacher backward plan from the
long-term goal, identify what the evidence for learning will be, and plan for lessons. In this way,
curriculum is planned in units. In UbD, learning is successful when a transfer of understanding
across many disciplines is evidenced. Second, mandating fidelity to a program and, therefore,
taking away teacher autonomy has been one strategy implemented by school districts (Rueda,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 48
2011). In addition, the research of Han and Bridglall (2009) pointed to the benefit of bilingual
education and features the benefits of remedial classes to meet the needs of ELLs. In
implementing research into practice, remedial programs are implemented in California more
often than bilingual programs (Han & Bridglall, 2009). Moreover, Proctor et al. (2007) advocates
for scaffolds including technology supports. Furthermore, if a lack of consistent and coordinated
implementation of curriculum causes low achievement, then districts and schools may consider a
strategy of curriculum reform to raise achievement (Rueda, 2011). In regards to equal access to
equitable curriculum for all students, Mays (2008) indicated multiple issues may be associated
with a general lack of diversity.
In the analysis of equitable curriculum, a lack of diversity was a theme identified for
further study. Under the umbrella of a lack of diversity, two issues were identified in this review
of literature: Eurocentricity and monolingualism (Bennett, 2001; Darder, 2013; Mays, 2008;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). A focus on only one culture and only one language alludes to there being
only one acceptable way to be. Sleeter (2012) suggested that a culturally responsive curriculum
includes building on student strengths and embracing diversity; therefore, access gaps would be
narrowed as achievement increased. The ELA/ELD frameworks adopted and published by the
CDE (2015b) promote biliteracy as a valuable asset and diversity as advantage. The CDE and
Sleeter (2012) would agree that diversity is important to competing in a global market. Going
directly against the ELA/ELD framework is curriculum which remains Eurocentric and
monolinguistic.
Eurocentricity
The first of two issues to be discussed is Eurocentricity. Traditionally and currently,
ELLs face a majority of curricula designed for White middle-class English-speaking students.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 49
Historically, in all states, written and unwritten educational practices expected students to
internalize, then represent and reflect, White middle class discourse (Stanton-Salazar 1997; Mays
2008). Prop 227 was overt, and tradition was covert, as the practice focused on increasing
English-emersion and decreasing bilingual education failed to increase student achievement
(Jacobson, 2006). Thus, Stanton-Salazar (1997) would agree a Eurocentric approach left out
other ways for students to be and other avenues for students to become with regard to identity
and success. Moreover, a Eurocentric approach may be tied to perpetuating what Freire (1993)
described as an oppressive educational banking model in which teachers conveyed information
to students rather than involving the student in the learning process.
Furthermore, perhaps Freire (1993) would agree that a Eurocentric approach to education
is also a damaging manifestation and practice of cultural hegemony that expected all students to
read the same Eurocentric literature. Consequently, the practice of setting up curriculum solely
designed for White middle-class discourse has been correlated to both overt and covert attempts
toward ensuring inequity of access. This inequity may have been to the benefit of the superiority
of the dominant discourse and to the detriment of non-native discourse (Bennett, 2001; Gee,
2005).
In this outdated model, the diversity and knowledge base of the student was overlooked.
This identified lack of diversity led to a lack of learned flexibility for the ELL to navigate from
home to school, which is important to identity and motivation in meaning making for the
individual student (Brofenbrenner, 2005; Collin 2012). Furthermore, research by Bennett (2001)
and Mays (2008) noted that language plays an important role for ELLs during the school day in
meaning making and identity development. A Eurocentric, English-only practice may break a
link that the students have for bridging the school day to home and vice versa.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 50
Monolingualism
The second of two issues within the context of curriculum diversity is monolingualism.
Within a Eurocentric California educational setting, the practice of English only was promoted
overtly in the passing of Proposition 227. Under Proposition 227, many classrooms lacked the
diversity that students’ culture and language could bring to the learning environment. Moreover,
within this English-only monolinguistic approach to curriculum, ELLs first language (L1) was
not valued or considered to the extent necessary for educational motivation and higher level
thinking skills (Bennett, 2001; Mays, 2008). Freire (1993) would agree that this is now an
outdated covert attempt to keep English only in the classroom. An ELL may not be able to
participate in educational institutions when L1 and culture are not seen as valuable by the
dominant discourse (Stanton-Salazar 1997; Mays 2008).
Striving for English only or the assumption of English only in California, the nation, and
globally, was/is a hegemonic practice and belief that contributes/ed to the disparity of academic
performance of ELLs (Darder, 2013). In the case of a global society, research supports bilingual
and trilingual as important to national finance, safety, and security. Without allowance for
mutilingualism, a classroom, school, society miss out on the benefits of diversity. Gutiérrez and
Orellana (2006) and Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) would agree that Proposition 227 encouraged
teachers to participate in oppression, in this case language oppression. To illuminate, English-
only curriculum may lack diversity, teachers may lack training, and assessments may be
incomprehensive to the majority of ELLs (Lesaux, 2006; Sleeter, 2012).
With the propositions passage in 1998, it was only through a parent waiver process that
districts or schools would implement bilingual education (Hahnel et al. 2014). Otherwise, they
were mandated to teach only in English (CDE, 2016). According to SB 1174, the proposition
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 51
was up for revision. The bill, scheduled for a November 2016 general election vote, became
Proposition 58. Its text acknowledged that students were denied the benefits of multilingual
education and that it is beneficial to Californians, national security, and diplomacy to allow
parents and schools choice for students to learn English and one or more other languages. With
the passage of Proposition 58, the practice of English only or else ended. Now, there is
allowance for parents, teachers, schools, and districts to have choice in meeting individual and
group needs through a variety of ELD programs not mandated to be English only. Instead, they
may be bilingual or trilingual. Thus, the hegemonic influence of Proposition 227 came to an end.
Lesaux's (2006) research recommended further research into inequity of access for ELLs
to meet their learning. Subsequently, Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003), Gutiérrez and Orellana
(2006), Au (2011), and Sleeter (2012) expanded the research base by identifying culture as key
in teacher training, literacy instruction, and building a classroom learning culture based on
shared experiences through shared learning as well as inquiry into and building upon cultural
experiences students bring to the classroom. Research, such as that cited in this dissertation,
continues to be conducted and analyzed in order to suggest possible solutions in curriculum
reform to solve the problem of ELL low achievement as measured by standardized testing.
The following section was designed to address the issue that teachers without access to
diverse curriculum or multicultural training cannot deliver quality instruction to ELLs. Once
diverse curriculum is available, it is up to the teacher to deliver quality instruction. Rueda (2011)
and Hattie (2015a, 2015b) supported the notion that it takes a well-trained teacher to deliver
quality instruction.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 52
Quality Instruction
Rueda (2011) framed teacher reform strategies as necessary when a lack of
professionalism is the cause of low achievement. Several studies indicated that teacher training is
important to ELL students’ literacy and language needs of (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-
Gonzalez, 2008). Therefore, strategies for teacher reform include on-going professional
development before and after attainment of tenure in order to achieve equity in access to quality
teachers delivering quality instruction. In this section, the topics of quality teachers and
multiculturalism are explored.
Quality teachers. Researchers have considered the importance of ensuring quality
teachers for ELLs (Bennett, 2001; Mays, 2008; Hahnel et al., 2014; Lee & Buxton, 2013; Lucas
et al., 2008). Hattie (2015a, 2015b) would agree that data showed quality teachers deliver quality
instruction. According to the California Standards for Teaching Practice (CSTP) published by
the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2009) a quality teacher will implement the
following six interrelated domains of teaching practice:
• Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
• Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning
• Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning
• Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students
• Assessing Students for Learning
• Developing as a Professional Educator (p. 3)
One way teachers might engage all students in learning is to facilitate experiential learning that
necessitates that students engage in scholastic discourse (Zwiers, 2007). Furthermore, according
to California’s Continuum of Teaching Practice (2012) a teacher is to self-assess or
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 53
collaboratively assess his/her own developmental level aligned to the CSTP toward a “Level 5:
Innovating” of 5 potential levels (2012, p. 4). The Continuum of Teaching Practice (2012) was
developed as an instrument of professional growth. Therefore, a quality teacher not only delivers
quality instruction but is also poised to deliver equitable instruction which safeguards learner
academic achievement.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) and Hahnel et al. (2014) would agree a quality teacher can be an
institutional agent to assist students in many ways including being poised to help a student
navigate the accumulation of social capital. Teachers who advocate for and believe in their
students’ worth may find that stepping in as advocate could benefit their ELLs academic success
(Gee, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Furthermore, teachers with knowledge of ELL challenges,
through professional development and first-hand knowledge, are in an important position to
apply what they know and see working in the classroom for all their students, whether R-FEP or
EO. According to Lucas et al. (2008), an additional course in teacher education curriculum
would contribute toward better preparing new teachers to address the literacy and language needs
of ELLs. Course or courses could be brief, but ought to tackle necessary elements of literacy for
students acquiring the English language (Lucas et al.). Also, an increase in professional
development for all teachers would highlight a shift from looking just "through language" for
meaning to teachers learning to look "at language" with their ELL students to meet literacy and
comprehension needs as well (Lucas, et al., 2008, p. 370). Rueda (2011), noted that there is a
vast number of strategies for quality teachers to draw from in making choices to deliver quality
instruction. Rueda reported that federal guidelines call for the implementation of research-based
strategies to prevent low student achievement due to untested practices. Through research-based
strategies, students’ comprehension and confidence may be increased.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 54
Genesee et al. (2005) recommended instructional strategies quality teachers may use to
enhance student comprehension and confidence through quality instruction. For example,
explicit teaching is an instructional strategy that may enhance student understanding. Smith,
Sáez, and Doabler (2016) promoted explicit instruction as direct, specific, clear, and void of any
guesswork. Understanding may also be enhanced by teachers selecting literature that introduces
cultural minority literary figures. In this way, students have a chance to be visible by seeing
people like themselves represented in literature shared in their classroom (Knoester, 2009).
Tadlock (2005) suggested it is only when students are able make sense of curriculum in
meaningful ways that learning may take place. Hyland and Tse’s (2007) research on academic
vocabulary supports the importance of vocabulary in making sense of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. Because every discipline utilizes specific terminology, understanding
vocabulary within the context of a specific course and/or community is important to accessing
information and norms. Sociocultural theory in tandem with social cognitive theory, as presented
in Chapter Three, support that learning is a complex interaction between continual interaction
between cognitive, behavioral, and contextual dynamics (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2014). A
teacher therefore, is in a position to frame information and norms to support student acquisition
of language and content.
Furthermore, teachers are in a position of power to contribute to a positive school
environment, meaningful curriculum and instruction, higher order thinking, and best practices
with enrichment in mind. Teachers well versed in ELL theory may be able to instruct students to
set learning goals and build a cooperative learning community through quality instructional
practices. Moreover, researchers Hahnel et al. (2014), Shapiro (2008), and Stanton-Salazar
(1997) would agree that quality teaching goes hand in hand with quality instruction. To
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 55
illuminate, a teacher can continue important instruction beyond the delivery of material by
building rapport with students, advocating for students, and helping students gain social capital.
Possibly most important, a teacher can believe in the worth of a student and help that student
navigate the system (Hahnel et al., 2014; Shapiro, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
A trusting relationship established between the teacher and the students is a potential
avenue which may allow for improved quality of instruction that may not exist without a
foundation of mutual respect. Singh (2008), Stanton-Salazar (1997), and Hattie (2015a, 2015b)
noted that a student who trusts a teacher may have reduced anxiety, increased self-confidence,
and be more motivated to participate in learning. A teacher having credibility with a student from
the student’s perspective has a large potential learning effect size of .9 (Hattie, 2015a), for, even
if a teacher delivers a quality lesson, other important factors may contribute to student
achievement, including how much a student may or may not choose to participate (Cuban, 2013).
Even though, according to Cuban (2013), access to quality curriculum and instruction does not
guarantee student achievement, it is an important component in supporting student growth.
In a student-centered classroom, a teacher will look to student diversity as an asset, rather
than a deficit, to contribute to class discourse. The power of the teacher believing in the worth of
a student is a shift away from the banking model Freire (1993) warned was an oppressive
practice. Within the banking model and rampant in the practice of English-only Eurocentricity,
the teacher was trained to solely fill the perceived empty students with White middle-class facts,
figures, and rhetoric. In this damaging model, the diversity and knowledge base of the student is
overlooked. Also, in a banking model, if an ELL student allows the teacher to make deposits,
then the ELL student is perceived to be a good compliant learner (Freire, 1993). This detrimental
model is replaced by a nation and state promoting and embracing diversity and multiculturalism
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 56
as important to the survival of the United States as a viable nation in a global economy and work
force. Students must be allowed to tap into many discourses to navigate through their individual
macrosystem, emotional and ideological cultural contexts not dependent on geographic location,
and participate in showing what they know (Brofenbrenner, 2001; Gee, 2008).
Freire (1993) posed that teachers and students are at the same time both teachers and
students. In this way, a dialogue of meaning making occurs and now material is jointly contested,
connected, and constructed, with both teacher and student affirmed in becoming more educated
(Au, 2011). A teacher, ascribing to deficit model of diversity, may fail to recognize that a student
has years of cultural experiences to contribute and draw upon to make connections to creating
meaning from curriculum and instruction. Therefore, instructional practices may be selected that
are more aligned to an outdated banking model. Alternatively, a teacher embracing diversity may
select instructional strategies that partner with the student toward classroom practices aligned
with a student-centered growth mindset. Therefore, those strategies, in a practice of embraced
diversity, may promote more meaningful learning and more capacity for erudition.
On the one hand, many communities do not embrace multiculturalism and remain
monolinguistic. On the other hand, many communities are pinnacles of diversity, for, in
embracing diversity and honoring student culture and language, meaning is made (Freire, 1993;
Gutiérrez and Rogoff, 2003; Sleeter, 2014).
Multiculturalism. Research-based strategies explored in the quest for reducing an ELL
equity of access to quality education now include considerations of student culture and/or
language needs (Rueda, 2011). Bennett (2001) and Yoon (2008) advocated for multiculturalism.
Sleeter (2012), Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003), and Gutiérrez and Orellana (2006), advocated for
culturally responsive curriculum and instruction and advocated for teachers to be trained in and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 57
embrace diversity. A quality teacher may draw upon strategies based on multicultural
considerations when low achievement is attributed to student culture and/or language needs.
Teachers may choose to engage students in reading a variety of genres including a
multicultural framework. Furthermore, teachers may consider curriculum and instructional
selections which enhance student cognition and also tap into their L1 and symbolic language.
Reading routine for literature development could include preview, summary in L1, checking for
understanding, retelling who did what during reading, and include a review after reading
(Bowman-Perrott, et al., 2010).
Strategies to assist ELLs include Bennett's (2001) multicultural clusters and genres.
Bennett's (2001) research suggests adopting multicultural considerations and delivers a
theoretical outline of topics for inquiry that illuminate the multiplicity of learners and schools.
Four clusters were identified along with 12 genres. Clusters included multicultural knowhow and
identified multicultural assumptions supporting student achievement as well as genres, or
additional sub categories, including history, theory and social action. Consequently, multicultural
education was illuminated as complex and multi-faceted. Teachers are poised to be able to
implement recommended strategies in support of student learning.
Teachers who advocate for and believe in their students’ worth may find that stepping in
as advocates could benefit their ELLs’ academic success (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Gee, 2005). In
addition, there are many strategies teachers can use to gain student interest and attention. For
example, according to Yoon (2008), teachers have an opportunity to promote student interaction
by including the culture of all students as part of class discussion. Quality teachers may deliver
quality instruction with multiculturalism in mind, which goes hand in hand with implementing
strategies of teacher reform to increase equity of access to quality education.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 58
If a lack of professionalism, or culturally responsive instruction, is the cause of ELL low
achievement and inequitable access to quality education, then districts and schools may consider
teacher reform to raise achievement. Sleeter (2012), and Gutiérrez and Orellana (2006),
recommend teacher training for ELLs which includes a positive focus on difference instead of a
negative focus on student deficiencies. The two subgroups of quality instruction discussed above
for the purpose of this review of literature were quality teachers and multiculturalism. While
these are two important subgroups it is important to note that there are many more strategies that
may be explored for districts and schools identifying a lack of professionalism as a cause of an
inequity of access to quality education.
This section built a case that quality instruction and ELL access to quality teachers
delivering multicultural instruction are factors in supporting student success. The next section
highlights that a lack of comprehensive assessment contributes to disparate outcomes for ELLs
on standardized tests in spite of quality instruction and increased student abilities.
Comprehensive Assessment
In light of the current California assessment system implementing CELDT, and utilizing
the online Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to deliver the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), it is difficult to get at the heart of
quality instruction for ELL achievement. For example, The United States and California promote
bilingualism, yet an ELL who, by definition, has not acquired a proficient level of English, is
required to take standardized tests in English, perpetuating a perception of ELL as synonymous
with low achievement (Hahnel et al., 2014). The disparity in test scores, at deeper analysis,
shows disproportionate access to power and cultural capital. Freire (1993) would agree that
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 59
maintaining an assessment system designed to report ELL failure to achieve proficiency
promotes inequity of cultural capital.
Rueda (2011) frames that the state and nation's answer to assessment reform is an
increased accountability system. When lack of accountability is determined to be the cause of
low achievement, strategies for assessment reform may be necessary. In the case of ELLs
continuing to perform below EO students on standardized tests, assessment reform for
comprehensive assessments may be further looked at as an answer to a disparity in scores rather
than just an increase in accountability or sanctions (Hahnel et al., 2014).
A growing amount of literature has been published on the disparate outcomes of ELL
students on standardized tests as compared to White native students (CDE, 2014; NCES, 2013a;
NCES, 2013b). To add to the disparity of the ELLs’ actual and perceived historic failure on
standardized testing, NCES (2013a, 2013 b, 2017b) set 238 out of 500 as a proficient score for
fourth graders as measured by the NAEP (NCES, 2013a; NCES, 2013b, NCES, 2017b). The
results of the 2013 NAEP scores (NCES, 2017c) revealed that fourth graders in California are,
on average, missing the proficiency mark by a scaled score of 44 to 46 points whereas non-ELLs
miss proficiency by a scaled score of only 13 to 15 points.
Although teachers with knowledge of ELL challenges, through professional development
and first-hand knowledge, are able to have the flexibility to allow ELLs to show what they know
in a variety of accommodating formative ways, disparity of access shows up in the low
standardized tests scores of ELLs who are not able to show what they know. For these reasons
and more, Lesaux (2006) supported data and assessment reform. Eurocentric English-only
testing may lead to data showing disparate outcomes of ELL students compared to White native
students (Hahnel et al., 2014).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 60
Assessment reform could be more than increased accountability. It could also allow
unconventional ways for ELLs to show what they know and alternative formulas for students to
demonstrate knowledge and mastery of ideas other than each test proving that an ELL is, indeed,
not English proficient. Thus, ELL low achievement on standardized testing is a multifaceted
disparity of access perpetuated by our current assessment system (Hahnel et al., 2014).
The research of Hahnel et al. (2014) is important to disaggregating standardized testing
data in new ways to show how a newly defined subgroup of Ever-EL could begin to shift
perception of ELL achievement. Ever-El is a combination of the scores of both the ELLs and the
R-FEPs. In this way, data may begin to show a different pattern than what may be called worse
than a zero-sum result as shown in the fact that 23% of ELLs earned scores of proficient or
above on the CST in 2013 and only 11% did so the first year of the CAASPP, as listed by the
CDE (2015a). Data from the SBAC accountability system, therefore, determined that the same
one-size-fits-all philosophy remains, and the number crunching of the new Computer Adaptive
Testing (CAT) at this time showed worse results for ELLs then the predecessor CST.
Currently, assessments are reworked for validity and rigor and change often without
being revised to support equity of access to quality education. Federal law, such as ESSA, holds
the U.S. educational system accountable to ever changing test rules and formulas with sanctions
for the privilege of receiving Title I and Title III money (CDE, 2015a). New rules and more
formulas continue as data from the CDE and NCES illustrated a disparity of outcomes for ELLs
as they participate in showing what they know or do n-t know on standardized tests. If research,
such as a qualitative dissertation, indicates that a lack of accountability is the cause for low
achievement, then districts and schools may choose to implement assessment reform strategies.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 61
Many researchers agreed that a lack of comprehensive assessments and data contributes to
disparate outcomes reported for ELL students (Lesaux, 2006; Mays 2008; Guler, 2013).
Consequently, reforming assessment to meet students’ literacy and language needs became a
focus of Guler (2013). Bowman-Perrott et al. (2010) and Guler (2013) considered the lack of
comprehensive assessments and assessment data and lack of consistent data reporting throughout
the United States as problematic to understanding ELL academic needs. Therefore, at times,
instructional practices are based more on guess work than on reliable measures, since Guler
(2013) would agree that standardized testing for ELLs is not student-centered and not a reliable
measure of what they know or need to know.
Researchers also considered technology usage for a way for students to access reading
material as well as testing material. For example, Guler (2013) recommended the following for
consideration as best practices in guiding assessment of ELLs: consider student backgrounds,
comprehensible test questions supported by bilingual dictionaries, be generous with time, assess
student performance and progress, and use multiple measures. Further recommendations includes
having more than one rater rate assessments and to ignore grammar errors that do not get in the
way of reading comprehension. Moreover, it is suggested that technology used for assessments
be embedded with comprehension supports. In response to students being able to show what they
know, a computer test could be made to include a pop up glossary in the ELLs’ L1 (Guler, 2013;
Proctor et al., 2007).
Discourse at home for ELLs varies from the dominant discourse of Eurocentric
curriculum, instruction, and assessments which contribute to the inequality of an English-only
stance toward ELL curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Mays 2008). Curriculum,
instruction, and assessment in California currently propagate culturally embedded Eurocentric
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 62
English-only educational practices which historically show ELL failure to reach proficiency.
Gee's theories of discourse and new literacy studies (NLS) lay the foundations for continued
research into ways students, teachers, and society can work together to add value, capital, and
understanding at the intersection of cognitive, social, and cultural processes (St. Clair & Phipps,
2008; Gee, 2008). It is a complex task to narrow the equity of access gap and solve the problem
of ELLs’ failure on standardized tests. Lesaux (2006) recommended more research into a
comprehensive way to assess ELLs, norm language and literacy skills, and improve instruction
toward ELL achievement.
Relevant Research on Teacher Perceptions Related to Grades 4-6
Research has previously illuminated that teachers themselves believe they are not
prepared to meet the educational needs of an ELL. According to Batt (2008) professional
development was cited as necessary to make up for what was not covered in the teacher
certification process. Rodriguez, Manner, and Darcy (2010) echoed the need for teachers to
participate in professional development and, in addition, juxtapose teacher preparedness with
bias. Rodriguez et al. (2010) considered that there was a continuum of teacher opinion on ELLs
ranging from ascription to a deficit model to a belief in an asset model. Research, including the
work by Rodriguez et al. (2010), previously alluded to teachers having an actual and perceived
need for professional development in supporting ELL achievement. Furthermore, teacher
perceptions may include that, even with a well-trained quality teacher, a perceived prognosis for
an ELL to graduate high school and participate in higher education is limited even after
participation in additional coursework and training on ELLs (Rodriguez et al., 2010).
Contrary to a reported teacher perception of needing more training to fill in a gap from
theory learned in teacher preparation courses to implemented practice in the classroom,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 63
according to Téllez and Manthey (2015), teachers rated their implementation of ELD strategies
as strong when a schoolwide program, instead of an individual level, was considered.
Ramifications for research conducted by Téllez and Manthey (2015) include the need to further
study and consider teacher perceptions of ELLs as related to a larger schoolwide group culture
rather than on an individual basis. The theoretical frame for the methodology of this dissertation
is found in Chapter One, and Chapter Three and takes into consideration grade 4-6 teacher
perception and ELL achievement. Tran (2015) advocated for continued research into teacher
perception on meeting ELL needs. The next section presents a discussion of information on
teacher preparation.
Current Teacher Preparation
According to the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing (2015), a teaching
authorization is required for a teacher to provide ELD instruction to an ELL. Since February
2012, California requires teachers complete coursework guided by specific standards designed
for California Teachers of English Learners (CTEL). CTEL has three guiding principles:
 That the primary purpose of examination and program standards is to determine
whether California public school teachers seeking certification have the knowledge
and skills to provide instruction to English learners
 That the examination and program routes require candidates to demonstrate the
knowledge and skills necessary for California public school teachers to provide
effective instruction to English learners
 That the examination and the program standards are aligned with the
Reading/Language Arts Framework adopted by the California State Board of
Education, English Language Development Standards for California Public Schools,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 64
the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Teacher Preparation Programs, the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Teacher Induction Programs… (California
Commission on Credentialing, 2013, p. 5)
Specific standards are in place to guide the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of
teachers in order to ensure a teacher is knowledgeable and effective in providing ELD instruction
to ELLs. In order to gain insight into effective ELL instruction, this study looked at ELL
achievement through the lens of the teacher.
Looking at ELL Achievement Through the Lens of the Teacher
There are many important reasons this study looked at ELL achievement through the lens
of the teacher. According to Téllez and Manthey (2015), there is more to be learned about ELLs
by studying teacher perceptions. A teacher is a first-hand witness to curriculum, instruction and
assessment. In direct response to a teacher’s vision and tone for the classroom’s curriculum and
instruction, a learner’s affective filter can increase or decrease (Singh, 2008). A teacher is an
important ingredient in lowering the affective filter framing an environment that decreases
anxiety, builds student self-confidence, and increases motivation. Some of these important
reasons are extrapolated below:
 First, Téllez and Manthey (2015) would agree that the knowledge base of reasons
for teacher perceptions on preparedness to teach ELLs needs to be further
explored.
 Teachers with knowledge of ELL challenges through professional development
and first-hand knowledge have the flexibility to allow ELLs to show what they
know (CDE, 2015e).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 65
 Teachers are in a power position to contribute to a positive school environment,
meaningful curriculum, higher order thinking, and best practices with enrichment
in mind. Teachers well versed in ELL theory may be able to help students set
goals and build a cooperative learning community (Genesee, et al., 2005).
 A teacher is in a position to build rapport with students, advocate for them, and
help them gain social capital (Hattie, 2015a, 2015b; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
 There are many strategies teachers can use to gain student interest and attention.
 Furthermore, there are many strategies teachers may use to enhance student
comprehension and confidence (Hattie, 2015a, 2015b).
 Possibly most important, a teacher can believe in the worth of a student and help
that student navigate the system (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
What a teacher frames for students through choice in curriculum has immediate and far-reaching
implications for students. Subsequently, implications for students follow.
Implications for Students
As ELLs navigate who they are and what they are doing, they face a myriad of challenges
(Collin, 2012; Gee, 2013). Teachers who understand the challenges that ELLs face are equipped
to help them bridge the gap in equity and access to quality education. Students play a role in their
own meaning making and identity and can participate in working toward academic success.
Whereas it is a goal for all students to be proficient, it may be noteworthy to acknowledge that
success may come at a cost to an ELL. According to Knoester (2009), ELLs risk change in their
very identity, interests, and social relationships to go from non-English language readers to
English language readers. However, it is the belief of a myriad of researchers, including the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 66
author of this dissertation, that the benefits of an ELL becoming R-FEP outweigh the potential
ramifications of a label of LTELL (Hahnel et al., 2014).
Looking at ELL Achievement Through Theory
Within the parameters of a student-centered education growth mindset framework for this
dissertation, Bennett (2001) and Freire (1993) would agree with Genesse et al. (2005) that better-
quality schooling is paramount in increasing ELLs’ achievement on systemized tests and ending
a cycle of disparate outcomes. Part of an improved educational system is affording ELLs
equitable access to quality education.
Bennett's (2001) work in multiculturalism and Freire's (1993) work in revealing
oppressions elucidated how education can bring together a partnership among all stakeholders
and better forge a positive relational interchange for individuals in regard to the meeting of
minds which may, in turn, change the macrosystem (emotional and ideological cultural contexts)
of American culture (Brofenbrenner, 2005). As seen in Chapter Two, it is important to ELL
identity, motivation, and achievement that teachers embrace diversity as opportunity. Currently,
the research of May (2008) supported the benefit of diversity is echoed in the California
ELA/ELD frameworks published by the CDE in 2015. The conceptual framework is next to be
discussed.
Conceptual Framework
Within the scope of this dissertation, guiding themes and biases are important to reveal.
The author believes that we are all language learners, that we can all learn new things, that the
definition and parameters of ELL need reform, that students need more variety in their
curriculum and more volume in their reading choices, that teachers need more training and
supports, and that standardized testing, as it is implemented, is not a student-centered practice.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 67
This conceptual framework section was built off a student-centered educational growth mindset
built from six elements.
The six guiding elements for this study are a worldview of pragmatism, adopting two
learning theories of sociocultural theory and social cognitive theory, acknowledgement of covert
cultural constraints, a student-centered focus, a belief in the growth mindset, and hope for all
students to benefit from adding to the knowledge base on teacher perceptions. These six
elements are explored further in narration.
Worldview
Creswell (2014) ascribed definitions to four worldviews: postpositivism, constructivism,
transformative, and pragmatism. This dissertation drew from the desire to identify cause and
effect under postpositivism and to seek understanding ascribed under constructivism as well as
the desire to elicit change in politics and policy that are not aligned with all students reaching a
minimum proficiency as in a transformative view. The worldview that best fits with the
conceptual framework for this dissertation is one of pragmatism since it allows for the fluid
mixing of any and all of the four worldviews.
Student-Centered
Elmore (2002) and Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007) would agree that what is
important for a student-centered focus is what students are learning, doing, and producing toward
their own autonomy of life success. The work of Datnow et al. guided this dissertation as it
relates to a necessary response to the disaggregated data of SBAC showing that ELLs perform
below other sub groups on standardized testing. While teacher perceptions of ELLs are explored,
it is important to anchor this dissertation in a conceptual framework to ground the pragmatist
approach to a student-centered focus through RQs inquiring on barriers and barrier removal
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 68
toward ELL success. Therefore, taking the lens of an instructional leader, this dissertation was
designed to question teachers about what obstacles are perceived to impede what ELLs are
learning, doing, and producing, and what pedagogical practices a teacher is doing to remove
those obstacles.
Growth Mindset
This concept comes from Dweck (2006). The premise is that all students can learn, and it
is impossible to set boundaries on what is possible with years of hard work. To illuminate, when
a person adopts a growth mindset, they embrace mistakes as opportunities to learn.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Dr. David Rose (personal communication, July 19, 2011), in a keynote speech, gives
insight into UDL. All students can benefit from a student-centered educational growth mindset.
If we change educational context, then student need/s may change. The thought here is that a
learning context may create the illusion of a disability. Within the context of music and perfect
pitch, if a person does not have perfect pitch, then a label of disability could be argued for or
against (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2016). To illuminate, there is a quote
and parable that is appropriate toward understanding UDL and context: “If you judge a fish by its
ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid” (anonymous). The context
of water is important to the ability of a fish to succeed at being a fish. The business parable of a
frog being coached to fly, to its pending doom, illustrates how context may frame a label of
disability. In the final analysis of the failure of the frog to fly, it was determined that a smarter
frog was needed (Nickols, 2016). Educators and test creators set the boundaries for student
performance expectations. However, students are measured in a different way or on different
strengths, they may shine. Therefore, within a UDL mindset, context is everything. In relating
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 69
UDL to the learning theory concepts for this study, context can be considered akin to learning
environment. Therefore, UDL fits a focus on a student-centered educational growth mindset
which may allow educators and students to work around, through, and beyond, a disability label.
Covert Culture
To set the tone toward an understanding that aspects of culture are covert, the research of
Schein (2004) is used for explanation. Organizational culture is a powerful domain, but it is at
times invisible and a realm in which people may navigate at an unconscious level. An
individual’s navigation and participation within an organizational culture is akin to a relationship
analogous to personality relating to an individual as culture relates to a group. Behavior may be
seen and observed, but the cause of shared cultural patterns may not be seen or heard. It may go
unwritten and unspoken as to why new group members are taught certain group norms.
Learning Theory
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory was considered in the guiding principles in tandem with
social cognitive theory. Sociocultural theory posits cognitive development takes place within a
shared context (Roth, 2009; Smagorinsky, 2011). Social cognitive theory deals with suppositions
about learning and behavior. This theory concerns triadic reciprocity of personal, environmental,
and behavioral factors which are at work to influence one another. In addition, a person’s
learning takes place in tandem with a continual interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and
contextual dynamics (Denler et al., 2014).
Sociocultural theory has learning taking place in response to a context, personal and
environmental. Social cognitive theory is added on to bring in the third interplay, which is
behavioral aspects of learning. Duff (2007) further linked socialization with social cognitive
theory in two important ways, lending validity to the embracing of two learning theories. First,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 70
socialization relies on a learner not only being accepted into a new group, but also in the depth of
investment of the learner driven by personal needs. Second, the interaction between a learner’s
cognitive, behavioral, and contextual dynamics, as promoted in social cognitive theory, has
influenced the field of language socialization. Therefore, sociocultural theory becomes a bridge
to considering social cognitive theory when researching the complexities of language acquisition
within the context of ELL access to academic success.
Student-Centered Conceptual Framework
Once all six guiding elements are understood, they may also be visualized as six parts in
the net of a cube as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Six Guiding Elements. This figure illustrates six guiding elements displayed in a net
for a cube.

The six guiding elements for this study serve as the foundational building block for the
visual representation of the conceptual framework. The visual for the conceptual framework in
this study was inspired by and partially based on the Datnow et al. model (2007, p. 17).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 71
One difference between the new conceptual framework developed for this study and the
Datnow et al. framework is that, in the Datnow et al. (2007) model, the external factors of federal
state, and district policy are labeled on the outskirts of what the school implement toward student
achievement. In the new model, school influences are moved to the outskirts, showing the
struggle to work through external policy and politics to reach the apex of the model, the pinnacle
of this study, which is a glimpse into how a teacher may implement pedagogical practices toward
ELL achievement.
The conceptual framework for this study was designed to show the organization and
design of this study in a visual way. Researchers such as Bennett (2001), Elmore (2002), and
Mays (2008) may agree that the central goal of education is a focus on the student. For the
purposes of this study, the central goal was to illuminate grade 4-6 teacher perceptions. The
visual representation of the conceptual framework should be read from the lens of the new model
as if reading a topographical map of a mountain. In taking a topographical lens, the pinnacle of
this study, grade 4-6 teacher perceptions, is found at the apex of the model. Therefore, the new
model is named mountain model and is found in Figure 3.
Rueda (2011) would agree that objectives are reached when stakeholders are self-
regulated, engaged, and proficient. Ultimately, this study sought to reveal teacher perceptions in
a way that encourages and promotes self-regulated, engaged, and proficient stakeholders to work
together to resolve ELL equity at the local, state, national, and global levels.
Chapter One set the stage for the importance of assuaging the historic failure of ELLs on
standardized tests. Chapter Two analyzed relevant literature. Chapter Two also identified barriers
to the equity of access of ELLs to quality education as demonstrated by data. Through data
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 72

Figure 3. Mountain model. A new conceptual framework representing the design of this study.
This figure illustrates the lens of the researcher for this study. The Figure is to be read as if it is a
topographical map of a mountain.

disaggregated from standardized testing at the national and state level, a historic failure of ELLs
to attain proficiency in ELA was discussed. Chapter Three was designed to explain the
methodology and protocols for a triangulation of data collected on grade 4-6 teacher perceptions
on historic failure of ELLs on standardized testing.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research questions (RQs) were designed toward identifying and potentially removing
barriers impeding ELL achievement. The purpose of the study was to answer two RQs which
guided the protocols for survey and interview in this qualitative dissertation.
Research Questions
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement?
Conceptual Framework
The research of Datnow et al. (2007) inspired the visual for the student-centered
conceptual framework found in Chapter Two. Six guiding principles were used as the building
block for the conceptual framework created for this study (Figures 1 and 2). The six elements
used were pragmatism, sociocultural theory with a social cognitive theory add-on, adopts that
culture has covert elements, ascribes to the need for a student-centered focus, and growth
mindset which will, ultimately, benefit all (Datnow et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006; UDL, 2016).
Rationale for Qualitative Research
Triangulation of data from a participant survey, interview, and document review was
presented in a strictly qualitative research model. Teacher perceptions on barriers and barrier
removal toward ELL achievement were explored through an open-ended process for collecting
and analyzing data (Creswell, 2014). The process for coding data by hand for data analysis called
grounded theory was employed.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 74
Site Selection
The sites were four elementary schools spanning two districts, the Anywhere Unified
School District and the SoCal Unified School District, located in Southern California. The
population studied was grade 4-6 teachers. This study utilized purposeful sampling selection
designed to research grade 4-6 teacher perceptions on ELL achievement. The organizational
problem addressed in this paper is the inequity of access demonstrated through ELL disparity of
performance in ELA as measured by standardized testing. Having students who are below
proficiency, as measured by the SBAC CAASPP in California and the NAEP nationwide
impedes schools and districts in California from fully preparing all students for the college or
career of their choice.
Grade 4-6 teachers were selected for their important first-hand knowledge and
perceptions toward ELL achievement. Research questions were specifically designed to collect
data on perceived barriers ELLs face toward breaking the cycle of historic failure. ELLs were
selected due to the increased risk for disparity in educational outcomes as compared to non-ELLs
(Hahnel et al, 2014). Ultimately, contributing to the knowledge base to remove barriers to ELL
success was a goal of this research. An additional hope was that, in the analysis of teacher
perceptions within a context of grade 4-6 classrooms, all students may benefit as, after all, all
children are language learners. Moreover, this study posits that we are all potentially life-long
academic language learners. Protocols are discussed next.
Protocols
A teacher recruitment email and survey were used as well as interviews of educators of
grades 4-6. Moreover, for triangulation, data and documents were reviewed. Data collection in
discussed next.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 75
Data Collection
Superintendents in two out of three districts contacted by phone and follow up email
responded with support for this research study to go forward. Through an email recruitment
process, grade 4-6 teachers in two districts spanning 12 schools were asked to respond to a brief
survey and provide contact information. Follow-up phone calls and emails were conducted to
facilitate the completion of 11 grade 4-6 teacher interviews. These 11 interviews were effective
in reaching saturation of information gathered to answer RQ1 and RQ2. Once saturation was
reached, the researcher determined that no further interviews were necessary. In qualitative
research, saturation of information occurs when new information does not expose any unique
facts (Creswell, 2014). Eight interviews were conducted in the Anywhere Unified School District
spanning three schools, and three interviews were conducted in the SoCal Unified School
District at one school site.
A survey created by the researcher was used to collect the first phase of data for this
qualitative dissertation and was designed prior to the interview of grade 4-6 teachers for
triangulation purposes. Survey design is discussed next.
Survey
This researcher created survey emailed to grade 4-6 educators at six schools in SoCal
Unified School District and to six school in Anywhere Unified School District. In-person
interviews were scheduled based on participant willingness to discuss the topic further. Location
of the interview was based upon superintendent approval, access to elementary campuses after
the school day, and teacher willingness to meet.
The recruitment email used to initiate survey response was not effective in recruiting
responses or contact information of grade 4-6 teachers. The next level of recruitment was to
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 76
follow up with teachers by email and phone call inquiring into whether they received the
research recruitment email. Teachers who were interested in a follow-up interview scheduled
interview times and locations with the researcher via email or phone. With principal approval, it
was also helpful to set up a time researcher was welcomed on campus for any upper grade
teacher interested in participating to have convenient access to the researcher and vice a versa. At
the time of the interview, the participants received the consent form and were thanked for their
consideration of participating in the online survey. In hindsight, the researcher would have set up
the study to have the survey triangulation follow the interview by design. Waiting for survey
responses rather than proactively, immediately upon approval and access and directly seeking
out teachers for interviews was not a prudent usage of time. Time then became the major theme
of the qualitative research analysis and was ultimately a gate keeper in on-time completion of the
requirements for an educational doctorate.
The survey created included nine questions and began with a collection of demographic
information and ended with a place for optional contact information. Questions 2 through 8
implemented a four point Likert-type scale. The Likert-type scale utilized four choices: 1-
strongly disagree 2- disagree 3-agree 4- strongly agree. Question -9 was initially going to be a
yes/no format, but, instead, was adapted to the four point Likert-type scale for continuity. The
surveys were used for triangulation purposes. In addition, surveys were read for ideas, tone,
credibility, and usefulness (Creswell, 2013). A report on the information collected in the survey
was presented in Chapter Four (Appendix E).
Interview
All interviews included in the findings were of teachers with current classrooms meeting
the grade level criteria of grade 4-6. A semi-structured interview protocol was used. Eight
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 77
questions were planned with allowance for probing questions and follow-up questions to draw
out teacher perceptions regarding answering the RQs for this study (Appendices E, F, & G).
Interviews took place at the convenience of the teachers and the researcher. All 11
participants gave permission to be audio recorded. Interviews were conducted in January and
February of 2017. In order to keep anonymity, interviewees were assigned pseudonyms
(Creswell, 2014; ID:UP-16-00663, 2016). Since only one of the teachers was male, for
anonymity factors, gender-neutral first name pseudonyms were selected. To further facilitate
anonymity, popular last names were selected. Interviews were transcribed, verified, and then
deleted. Coding was done by hand. Class demographics were collected as part of the protocol for
setting the stage of the interview prior to the heart of the interview questions (ID:UP-16-00663,
2016).
Eight interview questions were asked. Teachers were provided a copy of the consent form
before they were asked for permission to record the interview. The interview then began with an
opportunity for teachers to ask questions about the study before they were asked to start with
telling about their current class. In addition, before the close of the interview, teachers had an
opportunity to add anything not covered.
Document Review
In order to better triangulate findings, barriers to ELL achievement as well as practices
for removal of barriers to ELL achievement were explored within the following documents at the
state, and local level.
 ELA/ELD Framework ELL policy
 CSTP ELL policy
 California Continuum for Teaching Practice ELL policy
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 78
 SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP
 The SPSA documents of Elementary Campuses located within SoCal Unified and
Anywhere Unified School District boundaries
The documents were reviewed and coded according to evidence of ELL barriers and/or barrier
removal. The researcher coded for wording and concepts that fell in either of the two
predetermined apriori categories of barriers or barrier removal for ELLs. Moreover, emergent
coding also took place as chunks of text were highlighted in order to assign a word category
(Appendix E). The coding of data provided the answers to the two RQs on grade 4-6 teacher
perceptions of barriers and barrier removal for ELL achievement.
Survey, interview, and document review results are all presented in Chapter Four.
Survey responses were shared via narration, statistics, and chart. Interviews were transcribed,
and the researcher listened to interviews and read transcripts for accuracy. An open coding
process was used for interview transcripts and document review except for the two apriori
categories of barriers and barrier removal included in the process since they are at the heart of
this study’s RQs (Creswell, 2013). Data analysis is discussed next.
Data Analysis
Following protocols as discussed by Creswell (2013), the interviews were transcribed.
The transcriptions were read for ideas, tone, credibility, and usefulness. Coding was done by
hand to highlight chunks of text and assign a word category. During this process, notes were also
written in the margins. A combination of predetermined apriori and emergent coding were used
since the overarching codes of barriers to ELL achievement and barrier removal toward ELL
achievement were already selected (Appendix E). Although themes emerged in the literature
review for this dissertation, these themes may or may not have also emerged in the coding of the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 79
interview transcripts. Therefore, except for two predetermined apriori codes, the design of this
qualitative study is emergent and coding interviews was, at first, an inductive process. In the
final analysis of coding themes, deductive reasoning was used to determine if more information
was needed (Maxwell, 2013). Once coding was completed, a summary of findings was presented
in Chapter Four.
Ethics
The researcher acknowledged that personal biases and beliefs influenced the stance to
champion the RQs for this study. Moreover, the researcher conducted this study thoughtfully
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In reflection of the process for the design of this study, the researcher
can concede personal opinions aligned with the importance of a student-centered educational
growth mindset and standardized testing going against a student-centered approach. To ensure
this study was ethical, the researcher participated in the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) process. To prepare for the IRB process, the researcher took
measures toward informed consent, confidentiality, and transparency.
Maxwell (2013) would agree that ethics permeate the whole of the research. It becomes
part of the research process itself and should guide the research questions, goals, conceptual
framework and findings. Glesne (2011) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) would agree that
confidentiality is important, so the researcher used pseudonyms for the district, schools, and
participants.
In the final report, the researcher did not divulge the county of the schools where the
survey and interviews took place. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) would agree that ethical problems
may occur while analyzing data. However, addressing informed consent, confidentiality, and
transparency, a dissertation addresses important concepts in ensuring an ethical study.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 80
Ultimately, all of the information included in the final analysis for a study is virtually determined
by the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016) a researcher is to address bias head on. The
researcher began this study believing a biased hope that there are positive outcomes when
implementing a student-centered approach. In addition, the researcher hopes that the ELL
performance gap is further explored in many settings and continuing measures are taken to
increase positive interactions between educators and students.
Maxwell (2013) warned of a flawed and biased study that may emerge without careful
assessment of a researcher’s bias and opinion on the findings. To assuage the potential for a
flawed and biased study, the researcher was willing to look at personal bias in order to analyze
and draw themes based on evidentiary support and not wishful thinking. In the findings sections,
the researcher anchored in the qualitative practice of telling a story based on evidence and in the
final analysis will leave it up to the audience to decide for themselves what is credible,
transferable, dependable, and worthy of being implemented toward their own hopes and goals
within their own setting. Based on the adaptation from Lincoln and Guba (1985), this study has
 Credibility because it is plausible that teachers have opinions and perceptions about their
ELL students and that teacher opinion and perception is valuable
 Transferability because it is descriptive and others could make an informed choice to
look into removing barriers for a variety of students not just ELLs
 Dependability because protocols were developed and followed
 Confirmability because a triangulation or more modernly noted, a crystallization of
understanding requires multiple means of data collection
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 81
How each of the two research questions were specifically answered follows in the next two
sections.
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ1 was answered through a triangulation of survey analysis, interview coding, and
document review. ELL achievement was the dependent variable, barriers to ELL achievement
was an independent variable, and teacher perception was also an independent variable. Survey
question #5 asked participants to rate the strength of their agreement to the statement that
barriers impede ELL achievement. Interview question #1 asked the teachers to explicitly list
barriers to ELL achievement, if any. In addition, three more interview questions indirectly
explored avenues toward answering RQ1. These three interview questions are:
 #5 What might be some of the challenges you face in preparing ELLs for state testing in
your classroom (at your school), if any?
 #6 What might be some of the challenges you face in your classroom (at your school) in
preparing ELLs for college and/or career readiness, if any? and
 #7B Could you please describe a time for me when you felt like you weren’t successful
teaching ELLs, if any?
Interview responses were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were hand coded identifying
concepts that answered RQ1. Table E1 in Appendix E shows alignment of survey items and
interview questions to the research questions. Documents reviewed for presence of ELL barriers
were: ELA/ELD Framework ELL policy, CSTP ELL policy, California Continuum for Teaching
Practice ELL policy, SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP, and The
SPSA documents of Elementary Campuses located within SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 82
School District boundaries. A triangulation of survey analysis, interview coding, and document
review for presence of perception of barriers ultimately answered RQ1. A brief discussion on
answering RQ2 follows.
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public
school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in support of
ELL achievement?
RQ2 was answered through a triangulation of survey analysis, interview coding, and
document review. ELL achievement was the dependent variable. Pedagogical practices to barrier
removal toward ELL achievement was an independent variable as well as teacher perception.
Survey question #6 was designed to rate the strength of their agreement to the statement the work
I do helps remove barriers to ELL achievement. Two additional survey questions indirectly
informed RQ2 which were:
 #7 I am a part of a schoolwide focus on effective ELD strategies.
 #8 My school is effective in preparing ELLs to be college and/or career ready.
Two interview questions directly informed RQ2 which were:
 #2 What training have you had in removing barriers to ELL achievement, if any? and
 #3 What do you do to remove the barriers to ELL achievement, if any?
Directly asking participants about pedagogical practices was one way to help answer RQ2. Three
interview questions indirectly answered RQ2 which were:
 #4 What strategies for ELD are implemented schoolwide, if any?
 #7A Could you please describe a time for me when you felt like you were really
successful teaching ELLs, if any? and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 83
 #8 In an ideal situation, without constraints of time and money (or your just mentioned
xyz), what would ELL achievement in the classroom (in the school) look like?
Interview responses were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were hand coded identifying
concepts that answered RQ2. Table E1 in Appendix E shows alignment of survey items and
interview questions to the research questions. Documents reviewed for presence of ELL barrier
removal were: ELA/ELD Framework ELL policy, CSTP ELL policy, California Continuum for
Teaching Practice ELL policy, SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP,
and The SPSA documents of Elementary Campuses located within SoCal Unified and Anywhere
Unified School District boundaries. A triangulation of survey analysis, interview coding, and
document review for presence of potential practices toward barrier removal ultimately answered
RQ2.
Included within Chapter Three was an explanation of methodology and protocols. In Chapter
Four, research questions are answered, and, finally in Chapter Five, solutions are presented and
further study recommended.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 84
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The problem of equity in ELL access to quality education was identified as important to
solve. The purpose of this study was to answer two RQs:
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement?
This study was designed to research the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on pedagogical
practices toward the potential academic success of ELLs amidst the historic failure of ELLs on
standardized testing. Furthermore, this study was designed to explore teacher perceptions
because researchers identified teachers as having important first-hand knowledge of ELL
achievement (Téllez &Manthey, 2015; Tran, 2015). Researchers Genesee et al. (2005) and
Stanton-Salazar (1997) would agree that a teacher is situated in a position of power and
influence. A teacher perception study was selected because the knowledge base of teacher
perceptions on ELL achievement, among other topics, has not yet been saturated (Téllez &
Manthey, 2015; Tran, 2015).
Information in Chapter One set up the frame of equity of access in which having
curriculum, instruction, and assessment accessible to students could be paramount in on-time
graduation important to livelihood (Damber, 2009; Gándara, et al., 2008; Hahnel et al., 2014,
Keehn et al., 2008; Oakes, 2003; Olsen, 2010; Mays, 2008; McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010).
Chapter Two reviewed relevant research into increased quality of curriculum and instruction, as
well as assessment reform. Chapter Three explained the qualitative research methodology
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 85
designed and used for this study (ID:UP-16-00663, 2016). In addition, the guiding elements and
conceptual framework for this study were presented. Chapter Four was designed to answer the
research questions and presented information on participants, site context, interview results,
survey results, and triangulation of document review. The overview of participants is discussed
next.
Overview of Participants
All 11 participants met the criteria of being a current teacher of grade 4, 5, or 6. Ten
grappled with large class sizes that left them challenged to work with ELLs in a meaningful way.
One was assigned to a special education classroom with a staffing ratio of 16 students to 1. The
others were assigned to classrooms impacted by class size larger than a 31 to 1 staffing ratio.
General education teachers reported class size averaged between 32 and 38 students. Depending
on the subject, time of day, and support staff availability, for approximately a third of the school
day, class size fluctuated. Class size ranged from a full class of 40 students to about 50% of the
roster size as a variety of students were pulled out or pushed in for reading or language
development support, for reading intervention, and/or special education services. Non-English-
speaking students were often pulled out of class for small group reading or language support by a
part-time teacher or aide for up to a third of the school day. In an SDAIE Program, ELLs receive
ELD instruction and at least two academic subjects (CDE, 2017g; Freeman, 2008). This practice
left the remaining two-thirds of the day for non-English-speaking students to sink or swim in
content in academic English, as noted by participant Jamie Anderson. Nine of the teachers had
more than 10 years of classroom teaching experience. Specific data on teacher and class
demographics were not shared due to maintain anonymity. Therefore, in Table 2, data are vague
in order to mask identities. Participants are listed in alphabetical order according to their
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 86
assigned last name. Citations reflect the order listed in the table and not a chronological order.
Information on site context follows.
Table 2

Information on Interview Participants

Teacher
Pseudonyms
Noteworthy Topic most mentioned
1

Jamie
Anderson
Stressed importance of looking
at student writing
Building background knowledge
and implementing instructional
practices
2 Landry Brown Emphasized the instructional
practice of replacing worksheets
with thinking, speaking, and
reasoning
Student access of language and
content, and teacher training
3 Jessie Clark Stressed importance of critical
thinking skills
Vocabulary development

4 Peyton Davis Gave weight to the importance
of building up student self-
esteem and confidence
Student access of language and
content, and working with
parents.

5 Shawn Garcia Stressed the importance of
making curriculum and
standards accessible to students
Range of student background
knowledge, student access of
language and content, and
working with parents.
6 Shay Lewis Emphasized importance of
implementing instructional
strategies
Building background knowledge,
and comprehension strategies
7 Devyn Miller Highlighted the importance of
listening to students
Building background knowledge,
parent level of support, and
small group instruction.
8 Leighton
Moore
Underscored importance of oral
language development
Student access of language and
content, and comprehension
strategies
9 Emory Taylor Drew attention to growth vs.
proficiency
Building background knowledge
and small group instruction
10 Elisha Wilson Accentuated the importance of
making learning experiential
Building background knowledge
and small group instruction
11 Emerson
Woods
Remembered the importance of
lowering the affective filter
Building background knowledge
and small group instruction
Note. First names are purposefully potentially considered gender neutral and last names are
potentially considered popular in order to protect participants’ identities.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 87
Site Context
According to traditional expectations, elementary school may be identified as a place for
safety, respect, and learning. In addition, within a historic context, elementary school is an
institution and banner of balance in an otherwise sea of haves and have nots. At the time of this
study, school is now a place where sixth graders throughout California are afforded study of the
ancient world compared to the distant past where only the wealthy had access to the studies of
the ancient Greeks (Vanessa Tour Guide [a pseudonym], The Getty Center, personal
communication, 2-7-2017).
Seven interviews took place on a public elementary school campus in general education
classrooms after dismissal at a quiet reflective time. Three interviews took place during the
school day in an on-campus office, and one took place off campus. Participants spanned four
elementary schools in two districts.
District demographic information was found online at the CDE affiliate Ed Data for both
Anywhere Unified School District and SoCal Unified School District (2017f). Context for
Anywhere Unified School District is delineated in the next section.
Anywhere Unified School District
Located within an urban region in Southern California, Anywhere Unified School District
had a very low ELL graduation rate reported at the time of this dissertation (CDE, 2017f). An
average of 65% of the K-6 enrollment at the three school sites combined qualified for free or
reduced-price lunch. The average combined enrollment was 410 with an average of 39% of the
students being designated as ELLs. Districtwide, ELLs in grades 4-6 scored less than half as well
in ELA as compared to all students in grades 4-6, according to the 2016 CAASPP (CDE, 2017f).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 88
Data included the following outcomes of ELLs on standardized tests at Anywhere Unified
School District. Table 3 presents the district’s ELA data on the 2015 CAASPP. As part of
CAASPP, “Students in grades three through eight and grade eleven will take the 2016–17
Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for English language arts/literacy (ELA) and
mathematics” (CDE, 2017b, par 2.). Context for the SoCal Unified School District is delineated
in the next section.
Table 3

Anywhere Unified School District 2015 CAASPP ELA Scores in Percentages Grades 4-8 side-
by-side Comparison of White/ELL Subgroups (CDE, 2015a)
Grade

Subgroup
Score
4
White/EL
5
White/ELL
6
White/ELL
7
White/ELL
8
White/ELL
Combined
Exceeded/Met Standard
59/33 66/26 61/14 61/8 54/6
Combined
Nearly Met/ Not Met
Standard
41/67 35/77 40/86 38/92 45/94

SoCal Unified School District
Located within an urban region in Southern California, SoCal Unified School District,
had a low ELL graduation rate reported at the time of this dissertation (CDE, 2017f).
Demographics of the schools in which the three SoCal Unified School District interviewees
worked included that about 33% ELLs and about 40% of the students qualified for free or
reduced-price lunch. ELLs in grades 4 through 6 in the district scored a little less than a third as
well as all students in those grades (CDE, 2017f). Data included the following outcomes of ELLs
on standardized tests at this district. Table 4 presents SoCal Unified School District’s ELA data
on the 2015 CAASPP.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 89
Table 4

SoCal Unified School District 2015 CAASPP ELA Scores in Percentages Grades 4-8 side-by-
side Comparison of White/ELL Subgroups (CDE, 2015)

Grade

Subgroup
Score
4
White/ELL
5
White/ELL
6
White/ELL
7
White/ELL
8
White/ELL
Combined
Exceeded/Met Standard
71/24 76/28 67/4 67/0 69/6
Combined
Nearly Met/ Not Met
Standard
30/76 23/71 33/95 34/100 21/93

In regards to the failure of ELLs on standardized testing, such as indicated by 100% of
seventh grade ELLs failing to meet standards on the 2015 ELA CAASPP, in SoCal Unified, this
study was designed to bring awareness to the problem, add to the knowledge base of teachers’
perceptions of the problem, generate potential solutions to the problem of standardized tests
failing to show what ELLs know, and answer the two guiding research questions. Research
questions are demarcated in the next section.
Research Questions
Two RQs guided this dissertation:
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement?
RQ1 and RQ2 were interconnected in that they both focused on ELL achievement. In RQ1, an
identified lack of one thing then caused a potential increase or addition of that one thing to be
addressed in RQ2. For example, for RQ1, teachers identified that they needed to navigate time
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 90
constraints in order to spend more time building vocabulary to meet all students’ learning needs.
This theme of vocabulary development as a barrier then appeared in RQ2 as a strategy for barrier
removal. Ten teachers identified vocabulary either as a barrier or as a tool to remove barriers
toward ELL achievement. Academic language, focusing primarily on vocabulary, was the most
pressing need identified in terms of ELLs’ access to instruction, curriculum, and assessment
(Oakes, 2003; Olsen, 2010; Proctor et al., 2007). For RQ2, teachers identified small group
instruction of vocabulary as a tool to remove the barrier of time in order to have more time to
increase student academic language so that students had more access to content and, in turn,
more success in the classroom and on standardized testing (Hyland & Tse, 2007). The following
section is a discussion of RQ1.
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
This section was included to introduce the themes and findings of RQ1. Themes and
findings are further demarcated in the subsequent subsections. Upper grades 4 through 6 in
elementary school are when ELLs are running out of time to become redesignated as R-FEP
before a life limiting label of LTELL is branded on them (Hahnel et al., 2014). The review of
literature revealed the importance of students being helped early on to facilitate on-time high
school graduation and livelihood (Bowan-Perrott et al., 2010; McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010).
Data revealed common barrier was time. This barrier was sorted into five categories as a result of
data analysis. Categories are listed in the following subsets, which are each followed by the
supporting literature:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 91
 Limited time for training, strategies, and learning new strategies in instructional
practices aligns to the literature by Gutiérrez and Orellana (2006), Rodriguez et al.
(2010), and Sleeter (2012).
 Limited time for meeting a range of students’ learning needs aligns to the
literature by Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003), Odden & Picus (2014), and the CDE
(2010).
 Limited time for collaborative teaching using groups with large class size aligns
to the literature by Degener and Berne (2014).
 Limited time to promote strategies for language acquisition aligns to the literature
by Cummins (2007, 2008), Hyland and Tse (2007), and Zwiers (2007).
 Limited time for parent collaboration aligns to the literature by the CDE (2016).
The over-arching theme in answer to RQ1 is that time is a barrier to ELL achievement. Figure 4
is a visual representation of the five identified categories as they relate to ELL achievement in
relation to ELL access to language and content of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Identifying time as a barrier to ELL achievement, participant Leighton Moore perceived
that “learning stops when the bell rings” and inquired, “I’m curious to know…how can we
extend learning at home in the evenings?” For continuity with the section titled Education in
California in Chapter Two, the researcher discovered the following account by Starr (1973):
Hearing of the discovery of gold, John Pelton, principal of Phillips Free School at
Andover, Massachusetts, packed aboard the steamer New Jersey books, maps, school
furniture, his young bride, and a shiny new school bell. On 26 December 1849 at First
Baptist San Francisco, Pelton opened California’s first free common school. (P. 87)
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 92

Figure 4. Time Barrier. A visual representation of the barriers grade 4-6 teachers perceived
impeded ELL achievement at the time of this study.

The school bell, present in California since 1849, was still ringing at the time of this
study, in varying degrees of volume, pitch, and duration, signifying a beginning and end to
recess and the school day. Consequently, for Leighton Moore and this study, the bell was a
tangible, not just metaphorical, representation of the barrier of time. Emory Taylor’s response
that, “It’s very often a time, a matter of time managements” helped solidify the overarching
theme that time was perceived as a barrier to ELL achievement. How teachers utilize
instructional time within a predetermined schedule may be a systemic issue rather than an
individual time management issue. Moreover, Shay Lewis commented that, “there’s not a lot of
time dedicated to these ELs specifically each day…I feel like it would be nice to have more time
with [ELLs].” This is a concept of time management is aligned to the literature on teacher
expectations found in CSTP (2009) as well as CDE recommendations on instructional minutes as
one of nine essential components on the APS (CDE, 2016). Furthermore, Devyn Miller said,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 93
“there’s just not enough time in the day, and that’s a huge problem.” Because they acknowledged
time as a barrier, teachers were focused on skills and strategies that could increase student
learning and achievement. The literature on effect size recommended skills and strategies that
had a potentially large effect size on student achievement, noted by Hattie (2015a), and teachers
looked to skills and strategies as potential barrier removal within the constriction of time.
Within the constraints of class schedule and class enrollment size, the teachers were
considering time available to meet with students in small groups or one-on-one to better meet
learning needs. Teachers mentioned they were tasked with meeting the language needs of a
diverse group of students who had varying degrees of background knowledge. Moreover,
participants reported students also had a diverse network of home support. Data showed a
concern was parent support, also affected by time. Some parents had more time and more
English language than others. Therefore, some students had more support on English language
acquisition at home than others. In addition, teachers explained they needed to spend time on
vocabulary development as they found that all students, not just ELLs, needed tools to
understand directions and questions. Teachers relied on their own training and background
knowledge to create and implement instruction to make instruction, curriculum, and assessment
accessible to all students (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Data is presented in the following
sections to demarcate the researcher’s synthesis of the answers to RQ1.
Limited time for training, strategies, and learning new strategies in instructional
practices. Seven teachers concurred that having the time to draw upon training, strategies, and
learn new strategies in instructional practices was a barrier to ELL achievement. Research by
Hattie (2015a, 2015b), Lesaux (2006), Lucas et al. (2008), Odden, Picus, and Goetz (2009),
Odden and Picus (2014), Rodriguez et al. (2010), and Rueda (2011) supported the supposition
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 94
that limited time for training, strategies, and learning new strategies in instructional practices
may be identified as a barrier to ELL achievement. Elisha Wilson commented, “I think what
would be helpful, that we really do not get, is a little more of the cultural training.” This is a
concept of how time spent toward ensuring well-trained teachers helps teachers have a wealth of
knowledge to draw to deliver quality instruction. Moreover, the concept of time well spent on
teacher training is aligned to the literature on the fact that meeting ELL learning needs may
require specific ELD training (Lesaux, 2006; Sleeter, 2012). Shawn Garcia said,
“Training…more just in how we reach the needs of the EL students.” Seven participants agreed
that, by identifying areas for more training, more could be accomplished toward meeting
students’ learning needs. The literature on implementing teaching training toward understanding
and meeting the needs of ELL students was noted by Lucas et al. (2008). Emerson Woods said,
“I don’t think I’ve had a lot of special training…even when we do go to training like ELD
training…they always kind of are just reminders that almost even take you back to…the
credential program.” Seven participants allowed for the possibility that a lack of training was a
barrier to ELL achievement. The theme of time as a barrier is continued in the following section.
Limited time for meeting a range of students’ learning needs. Seven teachers agreed
that having time to meet a range of students’ learning needs was a barrier to ELL achievement.
Research by the CDE (2015b), Damber (2009), Enriquez (2011), Martin (1993), and
McCallumore and Sparapani (2010) supported the inference that limited time for meeting a range
of students’ learning needs may be a barrier to ELL achievement. Emerson Woods said, “I
think…really servicing the wide range [of students] effectively—that’s the biggest challenge.”
Participants commented that student language abilities ranged from beginning to advanced
levels, and student academic levels ranged from below grade level to above grade level. The
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 95
concept of meeting a wide range of student needs was found in the literature on students with
diverse language and socio-economic levels and experiences beyond the classroom (Damber,
2009; Enriquez 2011). Because they acknowledged wide range of student abilities, teachers
considered class time configurations to meet needs. Peyton Davis noted, “I have [students] from
all walks of life really…from different backgrounds.” The literature on student diverse needs
noted that it may be important to meet with students one-on-one to identify specific academic
area of needs (Enriquez, 2011). Consequently, these teachers considered the time it would take to
identify and meet all needs and concluded that time was a barrier to this literature-supported
practice. The barrier of time is further illuminated next.
Limited time for collaborative teaching using groups with large class size. Ten
participants had class sizes over a 31 to 1 staffing ration. Four teachers agreed that class size was
a barrier to ELL achievement. Emory Taylor, the one who stressed growth over proficiency,
concluded “concrete skills of knowing how to decode, how to structure a sentence, how to use
punctuation, how to respond orally in a proper setting, [students] don’t necessarily get all that in
large class sizes.” Emory Taylor continued, “There are such a huge amount of kids in
here…sometimes it’s just really hard to get the time to sit with a child that cannot read or spell
and move him ahead to…more proficiency in that area.” The problem of class size was linked to
the recommendations in the literature by Odden and Picus (2014). This is a concept of how
removing barriers to students’ achievement could be supported by lower class sizes, allowing for
better support of students toward reaching, at a minimum, grade-level standard.
Based on research by Odden and Picus (2014), adequacy means all students meet or
exceed standards. Because teachers acknowledged that not all students met or exceeded
standards, they were interested in solutions to class size as a barrier to ELL achievement. Landry
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 96
Brown agreed, “Class size is [a barrier because] it’s difficult running the groups with that large
of a group.” In addition, Shay Lewis and Emerson Woods also identified class size as a barrier.
The literature noted smaller class size was one way to support student achievement, and these
teachers, constrained by the barriers of time, found the time to listen to students and learn of their
interests and academic growth (Degener & Berne, 2014; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Hattie,
2015a; Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2014). The literature by Degener and
Berne (2014) specified that, “the time a teacher spends talking with students about their reading
during small group instruction (i.e., guided reading) benefits students and teachers alike” (p. 43).
Additional comments from participant Emory Taylor on time for small group instruction
included “we have in the upper grades…such large classes that getting a chance to work
cohesively and consistently with small groups of [students] is very difficult…”
Since four teachers were concerned with utilizing class time for small group instruction,
they acknowledged the benefits of small groups for building a learning community. The work of
Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) promoted that learning takes place in the context of a community,
not independently. Four teachers directly identified small groups as a means to build a learning
community that they did not have enough time for, which supported findings that small groups
may be an important practice toward teachers delivering instruction, students being able to learn
and show what they know, and a classroom community developing trust. Gutiérrez and Rogoff
(2003) emphasized that building a culture of classroom learning is an opportunity to break down
generalities while focusing on meeting student current academic needs rather than predicting
future outcomes. Small group instruction is supported by both literature and participants as
important to timesaving. The data on the barrier of time toward ELL achievement is continued
next.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 97
Limited time to promote strategies for language acquisition. Eight teachers agreed
that time was a barrier to build student background knowledge. The research of Au (2011),
Damber (2009) and Mays (2008) supported the idea that limited time to promote strategies for
language acquisition may be a barrier to ELL achievement. Participant Elisha Woods illustrated
that “it just seems that…each class is getting harder and harder to teach because [of] their
background knowledge…so it’s difficult for me sometimes to say, ‘Ok, let’s learn the [current]
grade material’ when [students] don’t know [the previous] grade material.” Building background
knowledge could be linked to the literature and is important in how students could participate in
diverse and individual ways (Damber, 2009). This is the concept of how a filter of deficiency
could be perceived. In this case, teachers commented that, given enough time, students could and
would reach high expectations and standards proficiently. The teachers did not see the student as
deficient; rather, they saw that the student needed support in order to access the curriculum,
instruction, and assessments. For example, Devyn Miller shared it would be ideal if “we could
get students fired up about learning…see how fun it is, and see how much they can do… just
celebrate who they are and where they come from and where their families come from.”
The literature on viewing students as different instead of deficient (Gutiérrez & Rogoff,
2003) noted that building on what students already know may help ensure learning. These
teachers made allowances for building learning opportunities through activities and shared
experiences with their students. Devyn Miller went on to comment that having time and
resources to take students on field trips so that students who had never been to a beach or had
never been to the zoo would have a chance to participate “would be a dream.” An important key
to student access to instruction, curriculum, and assessment was a barrier due to lack of
vocabulary. Taking time during the school day to build students’ repertoire of academic language
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 98
in the form of vocabulary development was an important theme in the literature and in the
findings. Teachers taking time to address a perceived lack of time to assuage a perceived lack of
student vocabulary is discussed next.
Seven teachers agreed that lack of vocabulary was a barrier to ELL achievement. The
work of Proctor et al. (2007) supported the speculation that lack of vocabulary may be a barrier
to ELL achievement. Participant Landry Brown said, “Vocabulary is a huge one…understanding
the directions, reading the directions, and understanding what [the vocabulary] wants them to
do…there’s so many words that they don’t know.” Jessie Clark agreed that vocabulary is a
barrier and gave the following account:
I truly believe that [vocabulary] is the barrier to understanding a story. It’s the barrier in
understanding…science and social studies. It’s a barrier for English…all the way across
the board and for math because now they’re not just asked to perform math using an
algorithm, they need to understand it’s put into a word problem, and if they don’t
understand the words, they can’t do the word problem.”
This is a concept of how vocabulary is necessary to access curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, which aligns to the literature on the importance of vocabulary to understand context
and vice versa (Cummins, 2007, 2008; Hyland & Tse, 2007). Because teachers were
acknowledging the importance of vocabulary development, teachers identified the lack of
academic language and content necessary to access curriculum, instruction, and assessment, as
barriers to ELL achievement. A theme of time as a barrier continued as teachers attempted to
plan to develop student knowledge and use of vocabulary and academic language. Given that
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) takes more support and more time for
students to develop than Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), using time
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 99
efficiently and effectively to build student confidence in navigating academic listening, speaking,
reading, and writing standards and rigorous expectations is another area in the theme of time as a
barrier to student achievement aligned with the findings pertaining to RQ1 and research by
Cummins (2007).
Eight teachers agreed that limited instruction time was a barrier to build students’
language and content knowledge necessary to access curriculum, instruction and assessment. The
literature by the CDE (2015b), Gándara et al. (2008), Hahnel et al. (2014), Oakes (2003), and
Olsen (2010) supports the conjecture that limited instruction time may be a barrier to ELL
achievement. Participant, Jamie Anderson said, “Not everything’s accessible, so I have to [teach]
in a way where the standards are accessible. I have to speak in a way and [teach] in a way
where…I can reach everybody.” This concept of reaching all students is found in the literature as
UDL (UDL, 2016). Eight participants agreed that time was a barrier to support ELL achievement
and reach all students to and beyond proficiency. Because they acknowledged time as a barrier to
student access, teachers actively pursued practices that would make good use of class time,
which is a practice aligned to the CSTP (2009) and supported by the CDE (2016) and California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2015). Shay Lewis gave the following account regarding
time allotted for ELD instruction:
The time that we allot for [designated] ELD instruction is 30 minutes 4 days a week and
it’s just not enough. Especially in the upper graders when we’re [addressing]
…vocabulary that these EL’s have never heard of and have no connection to—that’s
where I would, I would say that they need at least double the amount of ELD time…I’d
say the shift is about third grade when the academic usage in science and social studies
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100
really jumps…in ELD we focus a lot on the reading [and] writing component so then the
vocabulary component, for subject specific vocabulary—we just don’t have enough time.
The implications of not enough time for instruction in vocabulary development include a
potentially perpetuated perceived limit to student English language acquisition. Teachers
concerned with time as a barrier during the school day suggested that a potential parent
partnership could continue learning past the school day. However, once again, time as a barrier
to student achievement was noted. The final section on time as a barrier to ELL achievement is
next discussed.
Limited time for parent collaboration. Eight teachers agreed that lack of time to
collaborate with parents toward extending learning beyond the school day was a barrier to ELL
achievement. The deduction that a lack of time to collaborate with parents may be a barrier to
ELL achievement is supported by the research and recommendations from the CDE (2015b).
Participant Emerson Woods explained, “I think sometimes we forget that when parents don’t
support their kids it’s not because they don’t care, it’s because maybe they don’t know how to
support them.” This is the concept of increasing parent involvement as supported by the
California new LCFF under the accountability component of LCAP (CDE, 2016).
Because they acknowledged that learning is a partnership, teachers looked for avenues to
work with parents in breaking down the barrier of time by extending learning beyond the school
day. The literature on learning theory noted that sociocultural theory’s supposition is that
learning takes place in a shared context of both personal and environment (Roth, 2009;
Smagorinsky, 2011) and social cognitive theory adds a behavior aspect to learning theory
establishing a triadic reciprocity in which a person’s learning takes place in tandem with a
continual interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and contextual dynamics (Denler et al.,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 101
2014). Since teacher participants acknowledged that including parents as potential partners in
removing time as a barrier to ELL achievement, they noted how their professional practice
aligned with the literature on learning theory. Peyton Davis continued the explanation of why
time to partner with parents was a barrier, “parents are working a lot, multiple hours.” Data
pointed to parents who were working or did not know how to help as a barrier to ELL
achievement. This aligned to the concept of education as a partnership within the theory of
learning as a triadic reciprocity among learning thought, action, and environment found in the
research of Denler et al. (2014). These teachers allowed for the notion that students’ home
factors may have an impact toward extending learning and considered that there might be a
parental partnership toward removing the barrier of time. In summary of RQ1, Table 5 shows the
number of participants who mentioned each subset of the theme of time as a barrier to ELL
achievement as well as a listing of literature connections.
Table 5

Participants who Shared Agreement on Each Perceived Barrier and Instances Each Theme
Appeared in the Analysis

Perceived Barrier # of
Participants
# of Instances
theme appeared
Literature Connections
Limited time to draw upon
training and learn new
strategies
5 7 Gutiérrez and Orellana
(2006); Rodriguez et al.
(2010); Sleeter (2012)
Not enough time to meet
students’ needs due to...
6 12 CDE (2010); Gutiérrez and
Rogoff (2003); Odden and
Picus (2014)
Range of student skills 7 10 Damber (2009); Mays (2008)

Large class size 4 8 Hattie (2015a, 2015b);
Odden and Picus, (2014)

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 102
Table 5, continued
Perceived Barrier # of
Participants
# of Instances
theme appeared
Literature Connections
Limited time for small group
instruction
4 5 CDE (2016); Degener and
Berne (2014)
Student background
knowledge
8 32 Guler (2013)
Student lack of vocabulary 6 15 Cummins (2007, ) Hyland
and Tse (2007)
Limited instructional time for
students to learn language and
content necessary to access
instruction, curriculum, and
assessment
8 54 CDE (2016); Academic
Program Survey (APS)
(CDE, 2016); California
Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP) (CCC,
2015)
Range of parent time and
ability to help with and in
English
8 14 CDE (2016)

The following section reveals the lack of the themes of Eurocentricity, monolingualism, and
deficit in the data analysis.
Themes found in literature that were not present in the analysis. This section reveals
that Eurocentricity and monolingualism were not presented in the data analysis. Participants
noted that ELLs, within an overarching theme of time, had a deficiency of skills and avoided a
deficit mindset by focusing on an external rather than internal factor to learning. As evidenced in
the section on building background knowledge for access, teachers noted that, without the barrier
of time, they believed that students could and would learn. Eurocentricity was not present.
Monolingualism was not a goal as teachers mentioned how they wished for any or more
vocabulary in students’ own language/s. Teachers agreed that standardized assessment was not
accessible for all students to show what they know. While teachers strived to put tools and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 103
strategies to use toward supporting students to grade-level proficiency they found time to be
focused on small group instruction and for student growth to be celebrated.
In RQ1, participants expressed importance of meeting the needs of all students around
time constraints. RQ2 is interconnected to RQ1 and continued the theme of time and addressed
the removal of time as a barrier. RQ2 is discussed next.
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public
school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in support of
ELL Achievement?
RQ2 delved into removing barriers. In this case, teachers shared how they looked for
ways to remove the barrier of time constraints to meet with students in small groups and one-on-
one for teaching and re-teaching of tools and strategies toward comprehension and vocabulary so
that students could access curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Participant successes are
discussed in the next segment.
Participant successes. Participants shared instructional successes. Seven interviews took
place in classrooms after the students were dismissed. Entering seven classrooms with the
aftermath of a day’s efforts toward standards and learning, the researcher was struck by the stark
void of students juxtaposed with the evidence of recent activities set against the backdrop of a
seascape of plastic chairs, desks, papers, books, supplies, charts, and posters. The collection of
student successes shared gave a glimpse into the teachers as caring, giving individuals in
addition to illustrating effective support of ELL learning. This theme connected to the literature
which indicated quality teachers as being an important ingredient for quality instruction and
more importantly poised to care about and advocate for all their students (Hahnel et al., 2014;
Shapiro, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 104
Participant Landry Brown shared that “a non-English speaker…is now speaking in
sentences—that’s very exciting to me.” Landry Brown continued and told of when students
returned to share that they have graduated high school and started their first job, “I love to
hear…how well they’re doing.” Shawn Garcia shared about a time of success with an ELL group
in the following account:
When [I was] successful teaching…they had to present an argument or an opinion, and I
was able to give them a series of different sentence frames…then we were able to…build
it more to a paragraph…I really thought that it…gave them a lot more confidence in what
they were doing...It wasn’t just something that was isolated…it could apply to other
areas.
By acknowledging that successes could be small, as in beginning to speak in sentences, or large,
as in graduating high school and starting a first job, or show up immediately, unexpectedly, or
after months of diligent work, teachers embraced a growth mindset versus a proficiency model
which was a theme also in the literature by Dweck (2006). Participant Emory Taylor noted that
“all of a sudden, something flashes and [ELL students] go, ‘oh ok, now I understand how that’s
supposed to fit together.’” The researcher met giving individuals; each gave the researcher time
and shared perceptions and craft knowledge. The researcher entered into four schools, seven
classroom learning domains, and received a glimpse of each teacher’s professional practice. If
each participant approached the conversational element of the interview how they also
approached teaching, then students would be afforded the gift of being seen, heard, and valued.
Devyn Miller illustrated caring giving teachers with “I always kind [of] take those kids under my
wing and give [them] a little extra and…push [them] a little harder because…I know…that these
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 105
students are capable of more” In addition, sometimes the student “just needs somebody to
listen.”
Teacher perceptions included the mindset that learning is a partnership and that all
students can learn given enough time and support. Teachers included themselves, other staff
members, and parents to help extend and support learning for students. They shared they could
be most successful in removing the barrier of time by increasing academic language in the form
of vocabulary development and increased student talk mostly in small group settings where
teachers and students could have more time on explicit instruction. In addition, there was a
sentiment by several that more training could help.
A teacher who has a mindset to meet all students’ needs, through implementation of
training in skills and strategies, explicit instruction in a small group setting, and a determination
to extend learning beyond the time limits of the school day, may make strides in removing the
barrier of time toward ELL student achievement. In the final analysis of barrier removal toward
supporting student achievement the overarching theme of RQ2 was small group instruction. In
small groups, teachers removed time as a barrier, learned about what students could and could
not do, taught explicitly, and better made informed instructional decisions. Data are presented in
the following sections illuminating the synthesis of the answers to RQ2 in alignment with the
literature review. The use of explicit instruction in a small group setting is discussed next.
Small group for explicit instruction. Small groups helped remove the barrier of time.
Sixty-four instances of small group instruction were discovered in the data analysis. Emerson
Woods, who remembered the importance of lowering an affective filter, shared that, for a short
time during math instruction,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 106
There were four adults in here…there were not that many kids…and everybody was
working in small group, and it was like a dream because kids that could move on to
something else were moving on, you know, and then the kids that needed more support
were getting more support…It was like a dream, but it’s over now.
Within a small group setting, teachers perceived that giving explicit instruction to students
supported student learning. This relates to the research of Smith et al. (2016), which considered
the benefit there may be, for all students, when teachers design learning opportunities that
minimize distractions, explanations and guess work, and, instead, focus on guiding students in
exactly what they need to know. Eight teachers mentioned the practice of small group instruction
as a barrier removal practice. Emerson Woods gave the following account on personal perception
of the benefits of small group instruction:
When they’re whole group it’s so hard to know…where they are and if they’re actually
with the program…I think one thing that I do is meet with them in small group…I have
an aide…and I give him like very specific things to work on with the [students]…either
one-on-one or two-on-one.
This relates to the literature by Enriquez (2011) which supported the practice of taking the
opportunity to meet with students in a one-on-one setting to identify specific areas of academic
need.
Individual meetings. Teachers who took an opportunity to schedule one-on-one meeting
time with students understood that students’ needs were diverse and not always apparent in a
whole group or large group instructional configuration. Landry Brown explained that “there’s a
lot of the…help they need—you don’t notice unless you have them by themselves...”
Additionally, Emory Taylor, acknowledged that a couple of ELLs
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 107
this year that need such a high level of support…that…you have to sit with them and go
through point by point and very explicit clear direction…and we really need to cut down
these big classes so that we can get some time to spend individually with our kids.
This relates to research by Degener and Berne (2014) which highlighted both expected and
unexpected outcomes of one-on-one brief meetings between teacher and student. These one-on-
one meetings not only provided the teacher with valuable evidence on student reading skills and
strategies, but also was a time that students valued, enjoyed, and looked forward to. If small
groups better informed instruction than whole group, then, additionally, Degener and Berne
(2014) are aligned with one-on-one meetings as an invaluable practice in a real-time analysis of
student literacy ability and need.
Teachers who met one-on-one with students, in addition to small group configurations,
implemented an instructional practice that informed instruction, built trusting relationships, and
immediately addressed student need. Peyton Davis expressed, “to figure out how to break down
some of the barriers…it’s case by case.” Teachers found ways to connect with students on an
individual basis despite 10 out of 11 of them having large class sizes. Devyn Miller said that,
when a student was “doing a great job [in writing], I left her a note and she put it inside her
agenda book and she kept it!” Connecting with students on an individual, one-on-one basis, was
a practice that could be used to identify and break down barriers impeding student achievement.
The concept of increasing vocabulary knowledge is discussed next.
Increase vocabulary. Teacher participants agreed that vocabulary was both a barrier to
access and achievement and a tool for barrier removal toward success. Studies by Cummins
(2007), Degener and Berne (2014), Hattie (2015a, 2015b), and Hyland and Tse (2007) supported
the verdict that an increase in vocabulary may be important to ELL achievement. Across the
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 108
board, with 10 participants mentioning vocabulary as either a component of a barrier of time or
as a practice in removing the barrier of time, it was almost unanimous that vocabulary
development was important to ELL achievement. Vocabulary, on the one hand, could be a
barrier to accessing content and demonstrating proficiency on standardized testing, and, on the
other hand, could be the key to access and achievement and to assuage time constraints. Jamie
Anderson, an advocate for looking at student writing, identified how not knowing certain
vocabulary impedes access to word problems, “[students] need to be able to know what you’re
asking them to do.”
The concept of vocabulary development aligns to the literature on academic language by
Cummins (2007, 2008), ownership of literacy by Au (2004), and social agreement by Hyland
and Tse (2007). In addition, the literature on effect size noted that an implementation of a
vocabulary program had a large effect size of .67 toward supporting student achievement (Hattie,
2015a). Moreover, Zwiers (2007) identified vocabulary as important to making connections in
order to learn. Specific practices used in vocabulary development included the analysis of word
parts, roots, prefixes, and suffixes. Leighton Moore shared that, “just really look at the
word…and they …can make connections…and I think that’s important [because] that helps them
figure out the meaning of new vocabulary.”
Teachers who supported vocabulary development recognized the importance of
vocabulary to academic access and success. According to Zwiers (2007), a student’s ability to
accumulate and use vocabulary is akin to capital gain. Teachers who implemented instructional
practices that support vocabulary development were helping students make strides in social and
emotional growth (Zwiers, 2007). Elisha Wilson, who stressed the importance of making
learning experiential, shared, “I try to make sure that difficult academic vocabulary is well
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 109
explained.” In addition, Shawn Garcia reported using a visual representation to support student
knowledge: “I try to take the time to frontload any vocabulary that I think will be important that
both the EL students may not be familiar with, but any of my students may not be familiar with.”
Teachers were cognizant of vocabulary usage in student reading, writing, and speaking. Jessie
Clark, who stressed the importance of critical thinking skills, shared that, “vocabulary is my
focus.” Ideally, Jessie Clark would like “to be able to review vocabulary that’s necessary for a
lesson…and then going back to that same vocabulary [have] students explain how that word was
used and what [it] meant in the story.”
Leighton Moore, who promoted oral language development, communicated the following
which exemplifies the overlay of RQ1 and RQ2 as related to barrier and barrier removal toward
student achievement:
I think it would be awesome to have an ELD aide…They could be in my classroom and
pulling the [students] one-on-one and reading…I think that would be huge…where
they’re working on vocabulary and basic conversation. Just having someone read to them
and ask them questions about the text is golden and because of time constraints I can’t do
that.
The discussion of vocabulary development as part of the solution could be linked to tools,
skills, and strategies that teachers use to build student capacity for learning and at the same time
scaffolding students toward and beyond proficiency. An increase in student talk as a potential
barrier removal is discussed in the next subsection.
Increase student talk may increase confidence. Without the constraints of time or other
barriers mentioned in interviews, teachers were asked to ponder what ELL achievement would
look like. Landry Brown, who advocated for replacing worksheets with thinking, speaking, and
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 110
reasoning, shared “it would be a lot of speaking and writing. I would love to hear [students]
speaking all the time correctly [and] small small classes.” Roth (2009) expressed the notion of
learning theory as reasoning continually happens overtly and directed back to Vygotsky’s
sociocultural learning theory as well as learning in context, to link language and discussion as a
means of human beings to be responsible in the manner they learned and interacted in answer to
each other. Teachers who were interested in increasing student talk were aware that student talk
connects to community building and learning.
The concept of increasing student talk connects to research by Carrison and Ernst-Slavit
(2005), Cummins (2007, 2008). Zwiers (2007), and Keehn et al., (2008). Teachers acknowledged
the need for students to talk in small groups to build vocabulary, confidence, understanding, and
academic language. In addition, teachers then allowed for more student talk by meeting with
them in small groups, implementing instructional strategies that made teaching more explicit,
thus decreasing teacher talk, which ultimately worked toward the removal of time as a barrier to
student achievement. Leighton Moore stressed that, “I talk to my students all the time…‘make
sure you’re talking about this with your parents.’” In addition, Leighton Moore attributed success
in school to the ability of students to have conversations both at home with family and at school
with classmates sharing that it, goes “back to conversations” and expounding that “I feel
like…my students made the most growth…really diving into reading them a novel and stopping
and having them converse with each other.” According to Elisha Wilson, experiential learning
experience “sparks more interest and they’re more willing to learn the academic language,
they’re more willing to say, ‘Hey, I know this!’… it …inspires a little more confidence.”
Moreover, Peyton Davis shared the following account about student talk:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 111
If I just sit…up there and talk the whole time…they’re really not learning. I’m the one
learning…I’m the one talking and sharing and doing all the work for them…I really want
them to figure out how to talk, how to share…how to take what I’m doing and transfer it
over to…their table groups so that they can learn.
Increasing time for students to have more time to talk in small groups and overall was perceived
to remove barriers. Access as it relates to barrier removal is discussed in the next section.
Access. Ten teachers agreed that it was important for students to have access to
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, in order to reach proficiency and beyond. Peyton Davis
said, “As far as removing barriers…one would be…how to break down the information so
it’s…more accessible.” Elisha Wilson noted that a student just beginning to learn
English, “has trouble accessing the language.” The theme of access appeared in the literature as
both a barrier and a way to remove barriers. Au (2011) included the student as part of the barrier
removal process in noting that they may have a positive attitude toward their studies. Even with
the offer of access, students had a hand in being willing to show what they knew. Elisha Wilson
explained, “I can’t make them study it and I can’t study it for them, but I will give them the
tools.” Additional skills and strategies toward removing barriers impeding student achievement
follow.
Skills and strategies. Additional skills and strategies mentioned by participants and not
discussed in the above themes and subsets are included in this section. In addition, strategies
shared for vocabulary development included Masterpiece Sentences, an instructional practice in
growing a short sentence consisting of a noun and a verb into a complex sentence, and Graffiti
Text, an instructional practice where students collaborate on elements of a segment of a text by
collaboratively labeling textual elements, which were being implemented after district ELD
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 112
training. Professional development and teacher practices in vocabulary development and
working with ELLs also included county level support through the Tulare County Literacy
Symposium and a university support project known as the California Reading and Literature
Project (CRLP) developed by California Lutheran University. In addition, one association and
one foundation were mentioned: the California Association for Bilingual Educators (CABE) and
Multicultural Education for Resources Issues Threatening Oceans (MERITO). Professional
development reading and writing strategies and systems were Teaching Readers to Think by
Pamela J. Bernardo and Donna L. Dougherty and Notice and Note by Kilene Beers and Robert
Probst. In the classroom, teachers implemented Total Physical Response (TPR) during
instruction and helped students on Test Prep. Moreover, information gleaned from the CELDT
and A Developmental English Proficiency Test (ADEPT) were used to group students and drive
instruction. Shawn Garcia said, “We look at their CELDT scores and their ADEPT scores
and…we have just specific ELD instruction …for those students [who] need ELD…instruction.”
Tools, skills, and strategies may be as diverse as a teacher’s experience and their
students’ different needs. Peyton Davis summed up the idea of varying skills and strategies with,
“we just do different activities every day that help [ELLs]…with their listening and speaking and
using language.” A teacher’s training and mindset is discussed in the next subsection.
Training and mindset. Having training in and knowledge of what works with ELLs was
a positive step in removing barriers. Jamie Anderson said, “The district, is…right now I
think...doing a nice job with giving us…EL training and teaching how to read the ADEPT scores
and looking at their writing, but it is going to be a process.” Elisha Wilson concurred with “the
district is very good about training as in ELL techniques.” This is a concept of training as one
key characteristic of a quality teacher and aligns with the literature on the impact even just one
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 113
additional course in working with ELLs would make toward teacher preparedness in better
meeting learning needs (Lucas, et al., 2008). Because teachers were cognizant of the need to
know more about identifying and meeting ELL needs teachers were not only in support of
district provided training in ELD, but also looked for available opportunities for training on their
own. Jessie Clark commented that “a lot of my research has been in vocabulary.” There were
differing opinions on teacher training and professional development found in the analysis of
participant interviews. Two participants indicated agreement that additional training would be
advantageous.
The component of mindset refers to a teacher’s care toward supporting students and
belief that students could and would reach proficiency even if they were not at or beyond
proficient yet. This theme showed up while teachers shared their successes and also appeared in
mention of a growth versus a proficiency philosophy. Devyn Miller shared:
I have a student right now…who I think of…has been struggling…and all of a sudden
something has clicked instead and she is doing a lot of great work, great writing…she’s
doing such a great job and…just turning that corner…realizing that they can read more
and understand more…it’s just always a great thing.
Growth mindset is the concept of how teachers and students might view mistakes and challenges
as opportunities to learn and solve puzzles rather than as failure (Dweck, 2006). Because they
were aware of students’ academic needs teachers took measures to frame student lack of
independent proficiency as an ongoing progress toward standards rather than a failure on
standards. For example, Peyton Davis said, “I think, in general, the difficult part of not having
success teaching ELLs doesn’t have anything to do with the kids themselves, it has everything to
do with the curriculum we can provide them.” In addition, Peyton Davis approached teaching
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 114
and learning with a growth mindset, and let students know that “they are …capable of doing all
this work and…making the growth.” Training tools, skills, and strategies, implemented with a
growth mindset, were two avenues combined toward breaking the time barrier and supporting
student achievement. A potential practice in breaking the barrier of time is a teacher/school
partnership with parents and is discussed in the next segment.
Work with parents. Parents are poised to not only extend learning past the school day,
but to also partner with teachers and schools in building a community. Peyton Davis said, “I tell
the parents a lot, ‘you know, even if you speak [another language] you can help out your child
just as much’…I give [parents] strategies, things they can do to help out.” Peyton Davis
continued on the theme of working with parents: “I just spell things out for the parents like, ‘this
is what I’m seeing, this is what we’d like to see. How can we get there?’ and we…make a plan.”
Concurring with the potential importance of working with parents, Emerson Woods said, “If we
could educate the parents into ways of how to support their kids, I think [students] would be
more successful.” This is the concept of how increasing parent participation is selected as a
recommended practice by the CDE (2016), found in the LCAP at the district level, and found in
the APS as a Title I school level practice in identifying school site strengths and weaknesses. In
implementing a partnership with parents, student learning could increase. The literature on
learning theory noted that learning takes place within a dynamic interplay between personal,
environmental, and behavioral factors (Roth, 2009; Smagorinsky, 2011). Therefore, having home
and school both sharing a commitment in support of student achievement aligned to learning
theory as well as recommendation from the CDE (2016). As these teachers took measures to
communicate with parents and allowed for a parent partnership towards increasing ELL
achievement. Resources toward supporting student achievement are found next.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 115
Resources. Anything that may be implemented toward removing the barrier of time
toward student achievement could be a resource for teachers. Resources may range from what
may be daily utilized, as in paper and pencils, to what is utilized once, as in a website. Resources
may include after-school programs run by the school or provided by or ran by community
businesses. Shawn Garcia shared that “we have some great after-school programs.” Moreover,
resources may be technological as Shawn Garcia continued in the following account:
What we have now, which we didn’t have when I first started teaching, which is fantastic,
is just the access to have the technology…so I stop [instruction] all the time to just clarify
what something is, by showing them a picture of it, and I think that helps them so much. I
can just…Google…[what] we were talking about…
Resources that directly facilitated classroom instruction to be presented in small groups
was particularly important and appreciated by the participants. For example, one theme in
supporting a teacher toward the ability to meet with students in small groups was the practice of
having more than one adult staff member in a classroom for at least part of the school day, if not
the entire day. In this way, staff members could be an additional resource as well as the money
used as means to provide additional personnel, either full- or part-time or certificated or
classified. Having the ability to rely on additional staff toward meeting student needs in a small
group instructional setting was a practice that participants utilized when possible and hoped
would be expanded in the future. Leighton Moore shared, “We don’t have the money to have an
ELD aide in every class reading to kids.”
Resources could utilize materials on hand, as in keeping math notes as Emerson Woods
recommended, and could be the daily flow of information from other school personnel like
school counselors or literacy coaches who help teachers review data and support student
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 116
achievement. Additional school personal may be defined as an important resource for supporting
teachers with information regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Emerson Woods
explained about hearing information from a literacy coach that “we got CELDT scores and a lot
of [students] moved up a level and …that was good good news.” This is a concept of teachers
utilizing resources as part of their professional practice. This ties back to the literature from the
CDE (2016, 2017c). CSTP (2009), and Odden and Picus (2014) as it relates to an educational
system providing resources that may support teachers in their professional practice facilitating
student learning. Teachers who utilized a variety of resources in supporting student achievement
acknowledged that diverse needs may require a diverse set of tools. Policy in place for barriers
and barrier removal supporting student achievement is identified in the final section on barrier
removal, which is found in the next section.
Keep an eye on policy change. Possibly beyond a teachers control is the number of
students in the classroom. Upper grade teachers mentioned class size as a barrier and, therefore,
to remove the barrier of time toward supporting ELL achievement, grade 4-6 teachers might all
agree that a smaller classes would increase time for learning. Educational law, state and district
funding, and student enrollment are factors that not only go into class size ratios, but also dictate
the tone of educational practice from the White House and the ESSA (2015) to the state LCFF, to
the LCAP, to school site plans. Federal and state policy will drive parameters for curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Emory Taylor, commented that, “I know there are states where their
funding is so much better that they don’t have 35 and 36 kids in a classroom.” Eight participants
in 64 instances mentioned small group instruction as a way to remove barriers to student
achievement and all would agree that they were interested in ways to support all of their students
toward proficiency and beyond. Navigating through systemic policy barriers, such as class size,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 117
and personal and professional perceptions, such as a student-centered growth mindset, teachers
break through the perceived time barrier by implementing a multi-faced approach.
In summary of RQ2, all avenues for breaking the time barrier could be best supported by
configuring classes into small groups. Table 6 shows the number of participants who mentioned
each subset of the theme of breaking the barrier of time toward ELL achievement as well as a
listing of literature connections.
Table 6

A summary of RQ2’s Barrier Removal Subsets, Participants Identifying the Strategy, and
Literature Connections

Barrier Removal
Strategy
# of participants # of Instances Literature Connection
Small Group
Instruction
8 64 Degener and Berne (2014);
Smith, Sáez, and Doabler
(2016)

Vocabulary 7 12 Hattie (2015a); Hyland and Tse
(2007); Zwiers (2007

Increase student talk 3 6 Carrison and Ernst-Slavit
(2005)

Student Confidence 8 15 Genesee et al. (2005)

Access 10 25 CDE (2016); Hahnel et al.
(2014)

Training 2 6 Lucas, Villegas and Freedson-
Gonzalez, (2008)

Mindset 4 10 Dweck (2006)

Work with parents 9 20 CDE (2016)

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 118
Table 6, continued
Barrier Removal
Strategy
# of participants # of Instances Literature Connection
Skills & Strategies 13 32 Damber (2009); Enriquez
(2011); Martin (1993);
McCallumore and Sparapani
(2010)

Resources 4 10 Knoester (2009); CDE (2016);
CST (2009); Odden and Picus
(2014)

Other Policy Changes 10 26 CDE (2016)

The relationship between ELL achievement and instructional practices is further examined
during the discussion for RQ2 in Chapter Five. A summary of RQ1 and RQ2 follows.
Summary of RQ1 and RQ2
In summary of the results pertaining to both RQ1 and RQ2, the main overarching barrier
to ELL achievement was identified as time. The removal of time as a barrier included
configuring a class into small groups. Moreover, drawing upon training, mindset, partnership
with parents, explicit instruction to build vocabulary and increase student talk, teachers crafted a
multi-faceted dynamic approach to breaking the time barrier. In addition, teachers drew upon
skills, strategies, resources and kept an eye on policy change in order to seek in depth
understanding of the complex problem of time as a barrier to student achievement and in order to
implement a fluid practice toward supporting all students’ learning needs. At the heart of the
results for RQ2 was optimizing instruction time to meet with students in small groups and one-
on-one for teaching and re-teaching of tools and strategies toward comprehension and
vocabulary so that they could access standards, directions, and test questions. Emory Taylor
explained that, in an ideal situation, there would be “time to spend a little time every single day
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 119
with a small group …time for me to work with them and there would be time for them to
practice and learn and work with each other.” Survey and document review follow for the
purpose of triangulation.
Triangulation of Survey and Document Review
Survey and document review were planned as a practice in triangulating with the
interview data. The pinnacle of the study is the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers. The teachers
navigate in a practice framed by the documents reviewed, which included teaching standards,
district LCAPs, and school plans. The survey was initially thought to be important for participant
recruitment. Findings from survey and document review are found subsequently.
Survey Results
The survey data were helpful for triangulation purposes. Since survey responses were not
linked to a specific respondent, it was hoped this would facilitate participation. This was not the
case. Three teachers left contact information at the end of the survey and nine responses were
logged on the survey form (Appendix D). Survey responses were received from eight
respondents who indicated they were teachers. Five selected that they had been teaching 10 years
or fewer and four selected that they had been teaching or had taught more than 10 years but not
more than 20. Responses indicated a current grade level of 4-6 for seven responses, one response
was K-3, and one response was N/A. For survey questions 2 through 9, participants could select
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree, or N/A. In response to being trained to
implement new state standards, five participants indicated they Agree and four indicated
Strongly Agree. Table 7 tallies the survey responses for questions 2 through 9. Question 1
demographics did not follow the same response format as questions 2 through 9 and, therefore,
are not included in Table 7.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 120
Table 7

Survey Responses

Survey # Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
N/A
#2 I am trained to implement new state standards

5 4
#3 I am trained to implement the new California
English Language Arts (ELA)/English Language
Development (ELD) framework

4 5
#4 I am trained to work with English Language
Learners (ELLs)

3 6
#5 Barriers impede English Language Learner
(ELL) achievement

5 4
#6 The work I do helps remove barriers to ELL
achievement

1 5 3
#7 I am a part of a schoolwide focus on effective
English Language Development (ELD) strategies

7 2
#8 My school is effective in preparing ELLs to be
college and/or career ready

3 6
#9 I am willing to have a follow up interview 6 3

Survey indicated that teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that they are trained and
that there are barriers to ELL achievement. In only two areas was there disagreement. One
respondent indicated that they disagreed that the work that they do helps remove barriers to ELL
achievement. Three participants disagreed that the school is effective in preparing ELLs to be
college and/or career ready. All nine responses indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed on
a willingness to have a follow up interview.
The survey, interview, and document review all aligned to the perception by most
participants, nine out of eleven, who would agree that they had received adequate professional
development training and districts supported and/or provided sufficient training in the area of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 121
ELL/ELD. College and/or career readiness and barrier removal may be two areas in which to
provide more information, training, and research. Information gleaned from document review
follows.
Document Review Findings
The follow documents were reviewed.
 ELA/ELD Framework ELL policy
 CSTP ELL policy
 California Continuum for Teaching Practice ELL policy
 SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP
 The SPSA documents of Elementary Campuses located within SoCal Unified and
Anywhere Unified School District boundaries
ELA/ELD framework ELL policy. A diverse value-added mindset was espoused in
trumpeting bilingualism as a state treasure. However, the ELA/ELD framework published in
2015 by the CDE did not mention the time it would take districts, schools, and teachers to
support all students’ language needs. The connectedness of CCSS and ELD was mentioned as
new and innovative by the framework and by Landry Brown. The overlaying of ELD and CCSS
standards was deemed important for ELL academic learning. As with the teacher interview,
Eurocentricity and monolingualism were not present. Assessment reform was not present either
which was an important element of the interviews. The ELA/ELD framework set a policy for
meeting the needs of all students toward literary independence. The CDE may agree that this
goal was one necessary toward students’ readiness for college and/or career within the context of
a 21st century society. One disconnect noted was that collaboration and communication were
stressed where literacy was considered an independent activity void of scaffolds. Instruction is
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 122
expected to scaffold student learning while vocabulary was acquired. Yet, proficiency could be
demonstrated if scaffolds were in place. A proficiency model, rather than a growth model, was
present. In addition, the ELA/ELD framework echoed the banner of balance by mentioning
closing a gap rather than remaining focused on equity of access. With the repeal of Proposition
227 through Proposition 58, some of the barriers to access of dual language emersion programs,
which were already promoted by the ELA/ELD framework in 2015, were removed.
In summary, the ELA/ELD framework triangulated the absence of Eurocentricity and
monolingualism in the interviews. The framework did not address the barrier of time, but did
support the finding of the importance of vocabulary development. Addressing growth versus
proficiency may be found necessary in an equity of access issue for ELLs.
CSTP ELL policy. In 2009, the CSTP was published by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing. This document was a growth model for teaching proficiency. According to the
CSTP document, excellent instruction is the most important factor towards pupil achievement.
This lent credibility to the qualitative research data collected for this study through the interview
of teachers. In reading the CSTP, the terms English learners and ELD were found in Standard 3.6
as follows:
3.6 Addressing the needs of English learners and students with special needs to provide
equitable access to the content. As teachers develop, they may ask, “How do I…” or “Why
do I…”
• address the English Language Development (ELD) standards as they relate to my
English learners’ levels of language acquisition?
• address the Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals and objectives of my students with
special needs?
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 123
• select materials, resources, and technologies to support subject matter instruction of my
English learners and students with special needs?
• ensure access to the critical concepts and themes in the academic content standards
and state curriculum frameworks for students at various levels of English proficiency and for
students with special needs? (p. 11)
Teacher reflection was encouraged as they strived toward meeting the needs of all
students. The CSTP acknowledged the presence of intrinsic and external barriers to addressing
student learning needs. It established a vision for learning. Eurocentricity and monolingualism
were not present. Time was mentioned in a variety of instances. For example, teachers are to
share data with parents in a timely manner. However, the parameters of what timely meant were
left open to interpretation. Teachers were tasked with supporting the “learning, growth, and
development of diverse students” and partnering with families and community. Acknowledging
that instructional minutes are precious and finite, the CSTP, in Standard 2 emphasized that
teacher practice must make strides toward deliberately “use instructional time to optimize
learning” (p. 7). It was noted that there is not one practice that will work for every teacher. Each
teacher must implement what works for their teaching style and their class of learners.
California continuum for teaching practice ELL policy. This was a document of
teacher professional practice and growth published in 2012. As with CSTP, with which it was
aligned, this continuum focused on serving the needs of all students. Teacher practice ranges
from emerging, to exploring, then applying, integrating, and, lastly, the most proficient
innovating. An innovating level of “using instructional time to optimize learning” was sampled
as the teacher “paces, adjusts, and fluidly facilitates instruction and daily activities” and the
“students monitor their own time, are engaged in accomplishing learning goals, and participate in
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 124
reflection, self-assessment, and goal setting” (p. 20). Addressing CSTP Standard 3.6, the
continuum offered the following in an innovating teacher practice:
 Engages English learners in assessment of their progress in English language
development and in meeting content standards. Supports students to establish and
monitor language and content goals.
 Is resourceful and flexible in the design, adjustment and elimination of scaffolds
based on English learners’ proficiencies, knowledge and skills in content (p.26).
The CSTP document was to be used in the honing of a teacher’s professional practice and
not as an evaluative element. The document acknowledges time and effort that went into refining
and innovating teacher craft. However, this document did not address the inequity of a student
who may have teachers only aware of standards and practices and not yet implementing or
innovating at a level which enhances learning. An ELL has only so many years in which to
demonstrate English proficiency whereas a teacher has an entire career to practice toward
advancing on the teaching continuum. Teachers and schools are supported by the measures
districts take to support student achievement and site specific needs. Information on LCAP
accountability documents follow.
SoCal Unified and Anywhere Unified School District’s LCAP. According to the CDE
(2016), the LCAP was a requirement of LCFF to identify goals and progress of subgroups across
multiple measures. The LCAP was a 3-year plan that districts must update annually. At the time
of this study, districts were in the 2016–2017 school year.
SoCal Unified School District LCAP. SoCal Unified had a lengthy LCAP available
online. SoCal Unified had approximately one-fifth of its student population designated as ELs.
EL programs and progress were included in the LCAP. Parent committees were consulted for
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 125
input into EL programs and progress. Support for struggling student groups and success for ELs
were part of the input as top priorities for LCAP goals. Practices to support EL achievement
included designated and integrated ELD, homework help, Rosetta Stone, summer school,
professional development, and a Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA). In addition, goals for:
increasing academic achievement, engaging families, and safety amidst a 21st learning
environment were in place to serve all learners. Eurocentrism and monolingualism were not
present. Efforts to extend learning beyond the bell schedule were present along with the
acknowledgement of diverse student and school site specific needs. Biliteracy was encouraged
through a high school…. Time as a barrier was circumnavigated by help and/or enrichment
available before, during, and after school including over the summer. Goals were set as an
increase of proficient students on standardized tests. Both the ideas of growth and proficiency
were found in the SoCal Unified School District LCAP.
Anywhere Unified School District LCAP. Anywhere Unified School’s District’s LCAP
was a lengthy document. Goals included implementation of standards and programs to improve
student achievement. Practices included seeking parent input, implementing TOSAs, responding
to students not meeting standards, and providing professional development. Eurocentrism and
monolingualism were not present. Meeting all students’ needs was a theme. CABE was
supported. Most response to improve student achievement appeared to happen during the school
day with limited information on an extension of the school day or summer offerings. Growth and
proficiency were evident in the Anywhere Unified School District LCAP.
SPSA. The CDE (2017i) gives the following explanation regarding school plans:
The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is a plan of actions to raise the
academic performance of all students. California Education Code sections 41507, 41572,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 126
and 64001 and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require each
school to consolidate all school plans for programs funded through the ConApp and
ESEA Program Improvement into the SPSA. (SPSA template p. 2)
SPSAs were received from all four school sites. Table 8 highlights information on ELLs, Barrier
Removal, and additional information gleaned from the document review of school SPSA
documents.
Table 8

Information Included from SPSA as Related to ELLs, Barrier Removal, and Additional School
Site Information

ELLs Barrier Removal Additional Information
SPSA
#1
Emphasis on
improving written
skills
-Increase use of technology
-Increase mathematical
reasoning
-Increase parent involvement
-4C’s: creativity,
communication,
collaboration, critical
thinking
-Diverse, safe, nurturing,
caring, environment

SPSA
#2
Increase English
Proficiency by at
least one level
-provide meaningful
curriculum
-Increase student
achievement
-Increase parent involvement

-healthy, safe, nurturing
environment
-Data drives instruction

SPSA
#3
Increase
percentage of
ELLs showing one
year’s growth and
reaching English
proficiency
-analyze data
-flexible grouping
-ELD training
-enriching learning
experiences

SPSA
#4
Embedded ELD
instruction
-analyze data
-implement state standards

-emphasis on respect

Information gathered from a review of SPSA included the alignment of school, district,
and state goals for the support of all learners and increase of parent involvement. At the SPSA
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 127
level of planning for student achievement a specific focus on supporting ELL learning was
evident (SPSA #1, SPSA #2, SPSA #3, SPSA #4).
Summary of Survey and Document Review
For RQ1, common themes were the need for time for vocabulary development to access
communication, comprehension, classroom directions, and test questions. For RQ2, common
themes were instruction in small groups and time spent on vocabulary development. Small
groups were the common practice toward removing the barrier of time constraints. Survey data
indicated participants either agreed or strongly agreed on training and a potential need for further
information, training, or research into college and/or career readiness or barrier removal.
Documents corroborated that having time and taking time to hone teacher craft toward student
achievement and extending time for student learning were practices acknowledged at the state
and district level. The theme of time as a barrier was undeniable in the interview analysis. Taking
time to meet with students in small groups to assuage the limits of time and optimize learning,
especially vocabulary development, was at the heart of the analysis.
Chapter Four addressed research findings and presented in answer to RQ1 and RQ2.
Chapter Five discussed findings, noted implications for people, and addressed avenues for
further research and follows next.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 128
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study was designed to research the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on pedagogical
practices towards the potential academic success of ELLs amidst the historic failure of ELLs on
standardized testing. Two research questions were asked and answered. This study focused on
the inequity of access of ELLs to curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Mays, 2008). ELLs
have a disparity of access as evidenced by tests showing zero sum results (Hahnel, 2014). Since
teachers have first-hand knowledge of ELL curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and are
directly responsible for implementing measures toward meeting their learning needs, they were
the stakeholder identified for this study. Moreover, the field of research has not been saturated on
teacher perceptions, so this study was designed to explore them (Téllez &Manthey, 2015; Tran,
2015). The importance is that, by solving equity of access of ELLs, and better honing
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, all students may be helped (UDL, 2016). This study was
guided by two research questions:
RQ1: What barriers do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California public school
districts perceive impede ELL achievement?
RQ2: What pedagogical practices do grade 4-6 teachers in two Southern California
public school districts perceive as having potential to remove perceived barriers in
support of ELL achievement?
Literature pointed to the importance of equitable access to curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Results revealed that teachers perceived time as a barrier that impeded ELL access
and achievement at the time of this study. Moreover, the removal of time as a barrier is a multi-
faceted solution with small group instruction as the potential solution participants mentioned
most often. The following section presents a summary of findings.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 129
Summary of Findings
ELL access to language and content promoting student achievement in navigating
curriculum, instruction, and assessment was investigated. Ten teachers perceived that students
needed to be able to know vocabulary within a context of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
in order to comprehend what a question was asking and to produce an oral or written answer
(Hyland & Tse, 2007). Teachers’ perceptions of barriers and barrier removal toward ELL
achievement aligned with sociocultural theory, learning in context, and social cognitive theory,
learning with triadic reciprocity between, personal, environmental, and behavioral dynamics
which were embraced in tandem for this study.
Duff (2007) and Hyland and Tse (2007) noted that learning vocabulary happens within a
shared context and, therefore, bridged sociocultural theory with social cognitive theory.
Participants’ emphasis on acquiring academic vocabulary was linked to learning theory in that
vocabulary is unique to context and reliant on shared community accord (Hyland &Tse, 2007).
Moreover, UDL was present as teachers acknowledged that more time, small group instruction,
and vocabulary development were practices from which all students may benefit. Teachers’
emphasis on helping all students and increasing learning beyond the school day aligned to a
student-centered growth mindset (Dweck, 2006). Furthermore, participant perceptions included a
belief that, given more time, all students could achieve. Damber (2009) promoted resistance to
viewing ELL students with a deficiency lens. In this study, teachers believed in their students’
potential, and where there could have been a lens of deficit pointed at the ELL students, instead,
there was an emphasis on serving their learning needs in spite of a barrier of time. Teachers
recognized that all students needed explicit instruction (taking all guess work out of instruction)
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 130
to build vocabulary necessary to access curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A multi-faceted
approach was taken to removing time constraints as a barrier to achievement.
Barriers and Barrier Removal
The main overarching barrier to ELL achievement was identified as time. The removal of
time as a barrier included training, mindset, partnership, and small group explicit instruction to
build vocabulary and increase student talk. In addition, teachers drew upon skills, strategies, and
resources and kept an eye on policy change. At the heart of the findings was optimizing
instruction time to meet with students in small groups and one-on-one for teaching and re-
teaching of tools and strategies toward comprehension and vocabulary, so that students could
access standards, directions, and test questions.
Discussion of Removing the Barrier of Time
A visual representation of removing the barrier of time is presented metaphorically as a
dodecagon clock and not as a unit of measurement (Figure 5). If time is the barrier, then
implementing a multifaceted approach may be a solution. Imagine the hands on a clock
representing a teacher’s choice in pedagogical practices. The clock hands for hours, minutes, and
seconds represents the complex shifts and decision making in implementing curriculum and
instruction toward ELL achievement. The clock represents both the finite handling of hours,
minutes, and seconds available and the multi-tasking of practices which may break through the
barriers of time and support students toward achievement.
RQ2 identified 12 avenues toward removing barriers impeding ELL achievement. Going
back to the dodecagon now, imagine that the hour hand on a clock represents a teacher’s choice
of one avenue of barrier removal in need of in-depth work. Furthermore, imagine that the minute
hand on a clock represents an additional avenue of barrier removal that a teacher determines just
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 131

Figure 5. Breaking the Time Barrier. This figure is presented as a metaphorical visual
representation of the removal of time as a barrier to ELL instruction and not as a unit of
measurement. It is recommended that this figure be read with the lens that the teacher may
choose any configuration or mix in a fluid dynamic way disregarding a linear progression of time
with no restriction to a clockwise direction—thus breaking the constraints of time and the
expected formatting of a clock. Please note that there is no regard for a numerical placement of
hours. Therefore, a traditional one o’clock position is not to be assumed as greater than or less
than a 12 o’clock position.

needs to be addressed briefly. Moreover, imagine that the second hand on a clock represents the
minute by minute, second by second, sweep of the classroom that a teacher does to determine,
which student or students, need more or less scaffolding in support of achievement. In direct
disregard for the linear progress of time and expected clockwise direction of hour, minute, and
second hands, a teacher would implement as many or as few avenues toward student
achievement as necessary while involving students in whole group, small group, or individual
learning opportunities. Figure 5, Breaking the Time Barrier, is a visual metaphor highlighting
pedagogical practices implemented in teacher-determined order to remove time as a barrier to
student achievement. The configuration of pedagogical practices on the dodecagon clock is not
to be considered fixed units of measurements and is not to imply that any of the 12 positions on
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 132
the dodecagon clock are more or less important than others. Instead, look to Figure 5 as dynamic,
fluid, and flexible. The findings as they related to barrier and barrier removal framed within
curriculum, instruction, and assessment are discussed next.
Discussion of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Although teachers were aware of limits to the control they perceived having, personally
and professionally, over curriculum and assessment, all 11 participants expressed that they did
have direct control over instruction. In making professional decisions on implementation of
instructional skills, strategies, and practices, participants directly supported student learning and
hoped for evidence of achievement. Landry Brown perceived the correlation to curriculum and
instruction in the following account:
What’s interesting…the shift is kind [of] changing, instead of having just like an ELD
curriculum [standards cross] over into ELA and so there’s a lot of good teaching practices
in ELA that you can use specifically with your ELD group…One time…I did a lesson on
contractions with the whole class and it went amazing…one student had a card that said
[do] and the other had a card that said not and they had to go find each other and then
they had to go find the student who had the card that said [don’t]…and they had to go put
it on the board…totally fine. Then I did it with only [ELLs] and they stood there and they
had no idea what to do. They were so dependent on the English-speaking students for
help that it made it look like they knew exactly what they were doing…So…a lot of the
help [ELLs] need…you don’t notice unless you have them by themselves…unless you
have just one-on-one.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 133
Overwhelmingly, curriculum was perceived as letting down the teachers and letting down
the students. Jamie Anderson perceived writing as important to curriculum, instruction, and
assessment and gave the following account.
I can still see [ELL] writing is still not strong because I can see it in the
grammar…endings and articles are always missing and plurals…It’s a challenge because,
with the state testing, there’s a lot of writing…almost every component has writing. Math
has writing…language has writing. There’s a writing component in science. You have to
write, everything is writing. So, I think the challenge is we need a stronger writing
program to help the teachers make that more accessible for all kids in every content.
Overwhelmingly, participants perceived small group instruction as a practice to not only get to
know students better and build trust, but also as a way to make up for time constraints and meet
students’ individual needs within a diverse setting. Teachers saw value in assessment when it
could drive instruction and inform small grouping configurations. Otherwise assessment was
perceived as too much, too hard, and raised student and classroom concern. Landry Brown
shared a noteworthy perception on standardized assessment, “I just feel like [state testing]…does
not measure what [ELLs] are capable of.” Some of the classroom instruction became how to
teach students to navigate a standardized test instead of how to teach students to navigate
classroom expectations. Some teachers helped students make direct connections to everyday life
with a focus on what questions and answers students knew, did not know, and wanted to know,
while, at times, a focus was on how to navigate the questions that might be on a standardized test
and some ways that may support students to read and respond to test questions.
If participants perceived a test needed students to read and write in challenging ways,
they looked to provide curriculum and instruction to meet the need of students to read and write
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 134
in a way a test creator or rater expected them to be able to show what they knew. Ultimately, the
sentiment was that curriculum was unable to meet instructional or student learning needs.
Curriculum was perceived to be lacking reading, writing, and instructional practices, and,
instead, teachers relied on standards, what students need to know, and their own instructional
prowess and expertise to support student learning, and hopefully, support students’ ability to
show what they knew on a standardized test. Shawn Garcia shared the following account
regarding disconnect between curriculum and instruction:
I was…in the process of trying…a new language arts…curriculum and I was trying to
use…what came with the new adoption and it was…just disjointed and very hard for the
students to follow…so I tried it for a few days and I was just like, “Oh this is not working
at all!” So, what I ended up doing was just taking from…what they were trying to get
across, but I ended up just doing it my own way and finding my own things to do with
that. So yeah, sometimes following the curriculum that’s made doesn’t always work for
the group of students you have. You have to make your own adaptations to it for sure.
There was not an alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment partially
because the teachers did not have control over the curriculum, standardized assessment or what
students know. Teachers focused on what they had control over: building trusting relationships,
getting to know students, imparting to students what they needed to know to work toward
personal goals, delivering visuals, and, in some cases, experiential learning for students in order
to build up CALP and self-confidence. Teachers perceived that, given enough instructional time,
they could facilitate students in setting goals, making connections, and building confidence. For
most participants, small group instruction was the answer. In addition, they wanted to extend
student learning beyond the school day by teaching and educating parents as well.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 135
With time as an identified perceived barrier to ELL achievement, removing a barrier of
time in a small group instructional designed setting was the perceived solution. Solutions for
barriers and barrier removal in support of ELL achievement is found in the following section.
Solutions
Addressing ELL access to standards, directions, and test questions needs to happen soon.
The literature painted a grim picture that ELLs face a disparity of outcomes including missing
on-time graduation, which may affect their livelihood, career, and/or college preparedness
(Hahnel et al., 2014). The problem of ELL access, as evidenced by standardized assessment
failing to allow ELLs to show what they know, is a complex issue with a complex solution.
Recommendations for Practice
Going back to the dodecagon clock illustrated in Figure 5, Breaking the Time Barrier,
imagine that the hour hand on a clock represents in-depth work, the minute hand is something to
be addressed briefly, and the second hand represents the second by second, sweep of the
classroom to determine which student or students need more or less scaffolding. In direct
disregard for the linear progress of time and expected clockwise direction of hour, minute, and
second hands, a teacher would implement as many or as few of the identified 12 avenues as
necessary. Chapter Four identified the following 12 avenues for barrier removal on Figure 5,
Breaking the Time Barrier:
 Small Group Instruction
 Vocabulary
 Increased Student Talk
 Skills
 Strategies
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 136
 Resources
 Student Access
 Work with Parents
 Student Confidence
 Changes in Policy
 Training
 Mindset
A multi-faceted solution is as diverse and potentially individual as all stakeholders
involved (Rueda, 2011). Teachers look to build capacity in students for increased learning and
were tasked according to their own perceptions with removing a barrier of time with a multi-
faceted solution.
The results of the study indicated that removing a barrier of time required teachers to find
more time to work with students. Consequently, participants considered small group instruction
during the school day and imagined that, in partnering with parents, learning would continue
after school (CDE, 2016; Degener, 2014). Hyland and Tse’s (2007) research into academic
vocabulary was paramount in considering solutions and implications for ELL achievement.
Implications for people is discussed subsequently.
Implications
There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it's going to be a butterfly.
—R. Buckminster Fuller
The fact a student does not have the English language, background knowledge, or
vocabulary development for independently meeting or exceeding standards yet does not mean he
or she cannot or will not learn, for, participants believed, that given enough time, students could
and would progress. Embracing the premise that learning is contextual and reciprocal has
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 137
implications for the removal of time as a barrier to ELL achievement (Roth, 2009; Smagorinsky,
2011). Implications for a contextual reciprocal perspective on supporting student achievement
involve a diverse team of stakeholders ranging from the student at the school to parents and
administrators at all levels and vice a versa. Therefore, to better serve all students’ needs, 25% of
the country’s population poised to add value to our nation, the following implications were
considered (Cuban, 2013; Wattenberg, 1993; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).
Understand and Transform
This study analyzed teachers’ perceptions within the historic frame of an entire subgroup
of the student population, ELLs, being unable to access instruction, curriculum, and assessment
during their projected 5- to 7-year quest for English language proficiency (CDE, 2017e). The
need for knowledge, understanding, and new policy regarding ELL curriculum, instruction, and
assessment was at the heart of the literature review and came up in the analysis in the form of
teacher perceptions on the need to find more time and the practice of small group instruction to
initiate more time to support and build student capacity and achievement (Degener & Berne,
2014). Even though this study had a student-centered lens in presenting solutions, the following
section begins with administrators who can have the most influence on policy and practices,
most publicity on setting the tone in the educational landscape, and the power to recommend the
hiring and firing of key educational players such as principals. These implications and
considerations, therefore, begin with district administration and end with the student. However,
this order is presented with a student-centered growth mindset lens.
Administrators. Superintendents may be poised to support smaller class size staffing
ratios. In response to teacher requests for more time and small group instruction, a
superintendent may set a vision and tone for hiring more personnel, decreasing staffing ratios,
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 138
and utilizing resources such as technology to increase learning time during the school day and
potentially beyond the school bell (Odden & Picus, 2015). In addition, a superintendent may
seek out training including ELD from county offices of education for district and school
personnel. Even just one more course in ELD may better prepare teachers to meet a diverse
range of student need (Lucas et al., 2008). Moreover, a superintendent may influence and direct
district offices of education to be ready, willing, and able to assist schools in making strides to
student achievement as identified in SPSA plans. In an alignment of LCAP with SPSA, district
offices may assist schools with resources for parent involvement, community involvement, and
city and business partnerships (CDE, 2016). Emory Taylor considered, “If I could be in charge,
I’d put a cap of about 28 kids on the upper graders and 20, back to 20 on the lower grades…I
would hire teachers. I would get more teachers in the classrooms.”
School site administrators may be poised to address a parent education component and
connect parents to community programs that build capacity for parenting in support of student
achievement. By increasing parent involvement, principals may support a means to extending
learning beyond the school bell (CDE, 2016). Shawn Garcia said, “Getting the parents also
educated on what would be helpful to their students is really important to EL levels, not just what
we do in school.”
Teachers. In a balanced curriculum, according to Au (2011), teachers may support
students to understand that reading and writing help to communicate and achieve personal goals.
In this way students may be more motivated to read for fun and research personal interests
toward increased knowledge, vocabulary, and confidence. Peyton Davis explained one avenue of
supporting student achievement in the following account:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 139
For some of the kids, it’s just positive reinforcements. Kind of just easing them
along…especially through the first trimester, but, then, they get to the second trimester,
and I start kind of drawing a line in the sand a little bit more like, “Ok, now that you
know the routines, this is what’s going on and these are the …different ways that you can
get help, that I can help you, and now I need you to start pushing yourself more.”
Parents. Parents may be in a position to accept opportunities to be involved in their
child’s education. Whether it is attending school functions or meetings or simply talking to their
child, being interested and showing interest may support students in accepting a role in putting in
more time and effort toward reading, writing, listening, and speaking in English, which may
accelerate proficiency and beyond for access to a desired college and/or career (CDE, 2016).
Leighton Moore shared about parent involvement in the following account:
At our school, we’ve tried in the past…to have …math nights where the parents can
come, and they can play math games with the kids, so I think that would be one way that
schools can…at least break some barriers because then the parents can actually see what
the kids are doing and then say, “Hey, let’s try to play that game together”…and then we
also have reading night at our school and…the families come out…I think that’s really
important for the parents.
Community businesses. Community businesses may be in a position to partner with
districts and schools to provide resources toward student achievement and college and/or career
readiness (Brofenbrenner, 2005). Landry Brown explained that
Multicultural Education for Resources [Issues] Threatening Oceans (MERITO), [is an]
organization [that] provides teacher training in ocean science specifically for
multicultural ELD and low socio-economic classrooms. It also grants three field trips for
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 140
the students to participate in hands on ocean science, including a trip to Santa Cruz
Island.
Students. When a student can see the worth that reading and writing may have in their
own life and future, there may be more time and effort put in to increasing knowledge and
vocabulary (Au, 2011). In addition, students can seek new vocabulary for themselves by making
connections to their interests and strengths, then learning may be increased along with
motivation, self-confidence, and achievement. In this manner, students can increase their own
access to curriculum, instruction, and achievement (Hahnel, et al., 2014). Peyton Davis gave the
following account of the need to involve students in learning who may be unmotivated:
What I’m trying to do with them is paint like a more realistic…picture of why they’d be
doing certain things. What is it they want as they get older and…just [have to] be truthful
with them like, this is what you need and why…and have them try to come meet me half
way.
Stakeholders ranging from the student to parents to administrators at all levels may have
a role to play in the elusive, yet morally driven, goal of 100% of students testing at proficient or
beyond (NCLB, 2001). However, Dweck (2006) and four participants would agree that it may
serve students better to make the goal one of growth instead of proficiency. Emory Taylor
expressed,
I hope [ELLs will make a year’s growth], which is what we can expect. Where you start
from, you should have a year’s growth, not meeting [grade level] standards at the end of
[a] grade, but where you’re starting from, and you can make a year’s growth in that year.
The purpose of education from a historical perspective, as presented in Chapter Two, of a more
moral society, shifted to presently providing for a more proficient and prepared populace as
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 141
evidenced by a focus on all students on a path toward college and/or career readiness (CDE,
2016).
College/Career Readiness
Within a student-centered mindset, there may be opportunities to support school culture
and practices to encourage student achievement toward individual college and career goals.
Schools may take field trips to colleges and universities, and have a school counselor onsite
sharing information on college and career readiness with students, staff, and parents. Potentially,
a variety of institutional agents may help build students’ background knowledge regarding a
multiplicity of college and career options. It may be important for educators to envision
themselves as institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Educators may have exactly the
information that a student, who does not know anyone outside of a school setting who has
attended college, needs to begin to believe that college could be a future goal. Building the
background knowledge for college prep classes, admissions requirements, entrance exams, fees,
applications, transportation, and living arrangements, may be important so that students can
make connections to college being a possibility.
Au (2011) would agree that having students connect their interests and career aspirations
with reading and writing is one way to support and promote literacy skills. In addition, Sleeter
(2012) would agree that allowing for students to read and learn about their culture and chosen
avenues of leisure and livelihood is an important consideration while planning and implementing
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In tandem to supporting students toward a college
and/or career path, it is also necessary to support student needs by identifying and then removing
barriers to achievement.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 142
Supporting Student Needs
Determining barriers to student achievement and then selecting a multi-faceted approach
for removing barriers may be important to ELL future access to a college and career of their
choice. In any case, accelerating an ELL’s path to English proficiency becomes imperative as a
student progresses beyond elementary school. For example, an ELL who is age 13 or older no
longer has the luxury of relying on 5 to 7 years of ELD instruction to acquire English at the same
level as an English-only speaker. Reaching English proficiency prior to grade 12 with college
and career on the horizon may be important to an ELL’s livelihood (McCallumore & Sparapani,
2010). Furthermore, accelerating learning may need to occur for some ELLs for there to be an
opportunity for equity of access to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Therefore, part of the
multi-faceted approach to breaking the time barrier participants perceived as impeding ELL
achievement may need further study and/or reform for curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Further Study
Further study in the area of breaking the time barrier may be important in solving an
equity of access issue. With teacher perceptions as an unsaturated topic, further study could
continue to investigate them (Téllez &Manthey, 2015; Tran, 2015). In addition, in solving the
problem of ELL historic failure on standardized testing, further study may look into assessment
reform (Gándara et al., 2003). Also, professional development that prepares teachers for ELLs
and small group instruction may be further researched (Lucas, et al., 2008). Moreover, the
instructional strategy of explicit instruction on how the brain learns implicitly in context may be
an area of interest to future researchers (Hyland & Tse, 2007; Tadlock, 2005). What is more,
further study may take one or more of the following elements to identify and remove barriers to
student achievement:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 143
 A lens of pragmatism may be used to identify, understand, and elicit policy and practice
changes in barrier and barrier removal for ELLs (CDE, 2017e; ESSA, 2015).
 A lens of learning theory and culture may meet at a crossroads in the acknowledgement
and understanding of possible covert cultural constraints as a barrier to supporting,
motivating, and engaging an ELL in a classroom of diverse learners (Sleeter, 2012).
 A lens of finding and identifying where a student-centered focus and a belief in the
growth mindset support student achievement (Dweck, 2006; UDL, 2016).
For example, researchers may be interested in how the president of the United States can set the
tone for the country in resisting a deficit model and lead in embracing English and other
languages rather than the alternative of English-only or else formerly perpetuated under
Proposition 227 (Jacobson, 2006). In addition, the president can drive educational policy and
practices toward defining what equity of access may look like in practice (ESSA, 2015). What is
more, researchers may be interested in how legislators may support test reform and legislation
that addresses curriculum, instruction, and assessment best practices, yet allow states to make
decisions that provide for educational improvement based on their unique needs and priorities.
States may need more freedom in directing money at the school and student level than at the
accountability testing, district, county, or state level (ESSA, 2015; Odden & Picus, 2014).
If less money were spent on testing and more on educating students, there may be a shift
in what proficiency and beyond may look like to students, teachers, and parents (Hahnel et al.,
2014). Furthermore, a researcher may be interested in how the U.S. Department of Education
may streamline information and be a hub of data that states’ governments may draw upon as
each municipality initiates educational policies and procedures as afforded under the Tenth
Amendment (Owings et al., 2015; U.S. Const. amend. X). Additionally, a researcher may be
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 144
interested in how a state department of education may work toward answering grade 4-6
teachers’ plea for smaller class size. Money for this endeavor may be found by spending less on
standardized assessments, freeing up more money at the district level for smaller class sizes,
more full and part-time teachers and assistants (CDE, 2016; LCFF, 2015; Odden & Picus, 2014).
In answer to barriers and barrier removal for an ELL equity of access issue, there are other
questions researchers may want to answer:
 What if there are classroom activities for accelerating vocabulary development?
 What if there is a best use of classroom time for accelerating English language
acquisition?
 What if there is a best way to manage small group instruction?
 What if there is an established program that is having success accelerating English
language development in 3-5 years or less rather than in the expected 5-7 years?
There is room for curriculum, instruction, and assessment research and reform that may help all
students not just ELLs (UDL, 2016). After all, what if standardized assessments are failing our
students and not the other way around?
Conclusion
This study was designed to answer two research questions to add the yet-to-be-saturated
topic of teacher perceptions on ELLs to the knowledge base. The purpose of this study was to
answer two interrelated research questions on the perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on barrier
and barrier removal toward solving the problem of an equity of access issue in relation to a
distinction of standardized assessments failing to allow ELLs to show what they know. Chapter
One presented an overview for the study and addressed the history of education at the national,
state, and local level. Chapter Two reviewed relevant literature and found the categories of
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 145
curriculum, instruction, and assessment as interwoven factors in the quest to solve the problem of
equity of access for ELLs. Chapter Three explained the qualitative methodology of the study.
Chapter Four answered the research questions and Chapter Five discussed possible solutions and
implications towards solving equity of access for ELLs.
To close, teachers perceived time constraints as a barrier to ELL achievement. A barrier
removal model illustrated an equity of access issue has a multi-faceted solution. In solving a
disparity of access for ELLs, all learners may experience a more abundant life and livelihood.
Alice: This is impossible. The Mad Hatter: Only if you believe it is. —Lewis Carrol

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 146
References
Au, K. H. (2011). Literacy achievement and diversity: Keys to success for students, teachers, and
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome the
greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39–43.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.
Bowman-Perrott, L., Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2010). Reading difficulties and grade retention:
What's the connection for English language learners? Reading & Writing Quarterly,
26(1), 91–107.
Brofenbrenner, U. (2005). Ecological Framework for Human Development Model. Retrieved
from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3SurBGS0qU/TyrHOsEStuI/AAAAAAAAABo/
VZTdzsIyNMY/s1600/ecological+systems+theory.jpg
California Commission on Credentialing. (2013). California Teachers of English Learners
(CTEL). Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/EPPS-
Handbook-CTEL.pdf
California Commission on Credentialing. (2009). California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP). Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/
standards/CSTP-2009.pdf
California Commission on Credentialing (2015). Serving English Learners. Leaflet. Retrieved
from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl622.pdf
California’s Continuum of Teaching Practice (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/resources-files/Final-Continuum-of-Teaching-Practice.pdf
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 147
California Department of Education. (2010). “CELDT 101:” Overview and requirements
Retrieved From http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdt101.pdf
California Department of Education. (2011). A blueprint for great schools: transition team
advisory report. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/documents/
yr11bp0709.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). State Testing and Reporting (STAR) California
State Test (CST) results. Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2013/index.aspx
California Department of Education. (2015a). Accountability progress reporting. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/
California Department of Education. (2015b). ELA/ELD Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp
California Department of Education. (2016). Information on Implementation timelines and
finance regarding LCFF/LCAP. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp
California Department of Education. (2017a). Information on the Academic Performance Index.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2017bInformation on the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.caaspp.org/administration/about/testing/index.html
California Department of Education. (2017c). Information on California English language
proficiency testing. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ep/
California Department of Education. (2017d). Information on Common Core State Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 148
California Department of Education. (2017e). Information on English Language Learners.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2017f). Information on two Southern California public
school districts. Identifying information is not disclosed.
California Department of Education. (2017g). SDAIE: in the glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp
California Department of Education. (2017h). Selected Education Codes. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/psaffedcode.asp
California Department of Education. (2017i). SPSA template. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2013). An Overview of the Local Control Funding
Formula. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2015, November). California’s Fiscal Outlook.
PowerPoint presented to the California Association of school business Officials, CBO
Symposium, November 19, 2015. Monterey, California
Carrison, C., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2005). From silence to a whisper to active participation: Using
literature circles with ELL students. Reading Horizons, 46(2), 93-113.
Collin, R. (2012). Genre in discourse, discourse in genre: A new approach to the study of literate
practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(1), 76–96.
Christensen, C. M., Dyer, J. & Gregersen, H. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 149
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In
Encyclopedia of language and education, Second Edition, Volume 2: Literacy. (pp.71-
83). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Cummins, J., & Yee-Fun, E. M. (2007). Academic language. Boston, MA: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_53
Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching
practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109-125.
Damber, U., Institutionen för beteendevetenskap och lärande, Linköpings universitet, &
Utbildningsvetenskap. (2009). Using inclusion, high demands and high expectations to
resist the deficit syndrome: A study of eight grade three classes overachieving in reading.
Literacy, 43(1), 43-49. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00503.x
Darder, A. (2013). Rewriting the world: Literacy, inequality, and the brain. New England
Reading Association Journal, 49(1), 22-32,104.
Datnow, A., Park, V. & Wohlstetter. (2007). Achieving with data. Retrieved from
http://newschools.org/about/publications/achieving-with-data
Degener, S., & Berne, J. (2014). Speaking and listening during small-group reading instruction.
Voices from the Middle, 22(1), 43–48.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues.
Language Teaching, 40(4), 309–319.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (p. 5). Random House Publishing
Group. Kindle Edition
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 150
Enriquez, G. (2011). Embodying exclusion: The daily melancholia and performative politics of
struggling early adolescent readers. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(3), 90–
112.
Freeman, Y. (2008). Specially designed academic instruction in English. In J. M. González (Ed.).
Encyclopedia of bilingual education (Vol. 2, pp. 793–796). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
doi: 10.4135/9781412963985.n303
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Chapter 1 and chapter 2 (pp. 25-67).
Fowler, F.C. (2009). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-year
retrospective (WCER Working Paper No. 2006-9). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for
Education Research. from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/
papers.php
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36). Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa.VII36/
Gee, J. P. (2008). Discourses and Literacies. In J. P. Gee. Social linguistics and literacies:
Ideology in Discourses (pp. 150-181). New York, NY: Routledge.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Journal Subscription Department, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-
2262.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 151
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon,
Inc
Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9(4), 321-339.
Guler, N. (2013). Success with ELLs: Assessing ELL students in mainstream classes: A new
dilemma for the teachers. English Journal, 102(3), 126–129.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Orellana, M. F. (2006). At last: The "problem" of English learners:
Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English,502–507.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Han, W., & Bridglall, B. L. (2009). Assessing school supports for ELL students using the ECLS-
K. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 445–462.
Hahnel, C., Wolf, L., Banks, A. & LaFors, J. (2014) The language of reform: English learners in
California’s shifting education landscape. Oakland, CA. Ed Trust-West. Retrieved from
https://west.edtrust.org/resource/the-language-of-reform-english-learners-in-californias-
shifting-education-landscape/
Hattie, J. (2015a). Hattie ranking of effect sizes – Interactive Visualization. Retrieved from
https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/
Hattie, J. (2015b). High-impact leadership. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 36-40. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
697497762?accountid=14749
Holt, S. B., & O'Tuel, F. S. (1989). The effect of sustained silent reading and writing on
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 152
achievement and attitudes of seventh and eighth grade students reading two years below
grade level. Reading Improvement, 26(4), 290–297.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–
253.
Jacobson, L. (2006). As Prop. 227 Seen as Focusing on ‘Wrong Issue’ Education Week Vol. 25,
Issue 25, Pages 18, 20 Published in Print: March 1, 2006,
Jongsma, K. (2004). Action strategies for deepening comprehension. The Reading
Teacher, 57(8), 794-794.
Keehn, S., Harmon, J., & Shoho, A. (2008). A study of readers theater in eighth grade: Issues of
fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(4), 335–362.
Knoester, M. (2009). Inquiry into urban adolescent independent reading habits: Can gee's theory
of discourses provide insight? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 676–685.
Lesaux, N. K. (2006). Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language
learners at risk for learning difficulties. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2406–2438.
Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher
education: preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
Machin, S., & McNally, S. (2005). The English experiment: An hour a day keeps illiteracy at
bay. Education Next, 5(3), 70–76.
Martin, T. (1993). "Turning points" revisited: How effective middle-grades schools address
developmental needs of young adolescent students. Journal of Health Education, 24(6), 1.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 153
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Mays, L. (2008). The cultural divide of discourse: Understanding how English-language learners'
primary discourse influences acquisition of literacy. Reading Teacher, 61(5), 415–418.
McCallumore, K. M., & Sparapani, E. F. (2010). The importance of the ninth grade on high
school graduation rates and student success. The Education Digest, 76(2), 60–64.
Mead, S., & Rotherham, A. J. (2008). Changing the game: The federal role in supporting 21st
century educational innovation. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation / sharan B. merriam, elizabeth J. tisdell (Fourth;CSZA; ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013a). 2013 reading assessment report card:
Summary data tables for national and state sample sizes, participation rates, and
proportions of SD and ELL students identified. technical appendix. [NCES 2014-451].
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544346.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013b). The nation's report card: Mega-states--an
analysis of student performance in the five most heavily populated states in the nation.
NCES 2013-450 (2013). Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Information about the National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/about/
National Center for Education Statics. (2017b). Information about the National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 154
National Center for Education Statistic. (2017c). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
Nelson-Royes, A. M., & Reglin, G. L. (2011). After-school turoring for reading achievement and
urban middle school students. Reading Improvement, 48(3), 105–117.
Nickols, F. (2016). Lessons in bad management: Felix the Flying Frog. Retrieved from
https://www.smartdraw.com/solutions/bad-management-felix-the-frog.htm
Oakes, J. (2003). Education inadequacy, inequality, and failed state policy: A synthesis of expert
reports prepared for Williams v. State of California.Retrieved from
http://decentschools.org/expert_reports/oakes_report.pdf
Odden, A.R., Picus, L.O., & Goetz, M.E. (2009). A 50-state strategy to achieve school finance
adequacy. Educational Policy, 24(4), 628-654. doi:10.1177/0895904809335107
Odden, A. R. & Picus, L.O. (2014). School Finance: A Policy Perspective (5
th
Ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What
Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Washington,
DC: Author.
Olsen, L. (2010). Changing course for long term English learners. Leadership, 40(2), 30–33.
Owings, W. A., Kaplan, L. S., & Volman, M. (2015). Education in the U.S. and the Netherlands:
An equity comparison and a few big questions. Journal of Education Finance, 41(2),
145–163.
Proctor, P. C., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction
and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 155
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Project GRAD. what works clearinghouse intervention
report. (2007). Rockville, MD: Author.
Reschly, A. L. (2010). Reading and school completion: Critical connections and matthew effects.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 67–90.
Rodriguez, D., Manner, J., & Darcy, S. (2010). Evolution of teacher perceptions regarding
effective instruction for English language learners. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 9(2), 130–144.
Roth, W. (2009). Realizing Vygotsky’s program concerning language and thought: Tracking
knowing (ideas, conceptions, beliefs) in real time. Language and Education,23(4), 295–
311. doi:10.1080/0950078090295424
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.).
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Shapiro, E. S. (2008). From research to practice: Promoting academic competence for
underserved students. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 46–51.
Singh, K. (2008). Affective filter. In J. M. González (Ed.). Encyclopedia of bilingual education
(Vol. 2, pp. 18-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781412963985.n8
Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1) 1–40.
Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban
Education, 47(3), 562–584. doi:10.1177/0042085911431472
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 156
Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky and literacy research: A methodological framework.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Smith, J. L. M., Sáez, L., & Doabler, C. T. (2016). Using explicit and systematic instruction to
support working memory. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(6), 275–281.
doi:10.1177/0040059916650633
Starr, K. (1973). Americans and the California Dream, 1850-1915. Retrieved from
http://www.eblib.com
St. Clair, R., & Phipps, A. (2008). Ludic literacies at the intersections of cultures: An interview
with James Paul Gee. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(2), 91–100.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised Ed). New York,
NY: Norton.
Tadlock, D. (2005). Read right! Coaching your child to excellence in reading. McGraw-Hill.
Téllez, K., & Manthey, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and
strategies for English language learners. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 111–
127. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9173-6
Tran, Y. (2015). ESL pedagogy and certification: Teacher perceptions and efficacy. Journal of
Education and Learning, 4(2), 28.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL, 2016). Information on supporting expert teaching and
learning. Retrieved from udlseries.udlcenter.org
4 USC Sec. 4. 2010. Print
U.S. Const. amend. X.
U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 157
U.S. Department of Education (2001) No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Mega States Report: An Analysis of Student
Performance in the Five Most Heavily Populated States in the Nation. NCES 2013-450.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/megastates
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). The Nation's Report Card: The official site for the
results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Top Stories in NAEP
Reading, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2013/
Vaughn, W., Leroux, R., Denton, B., & Fletcher, J. (2011). Effects of intensive reading
intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to
intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525.
doi:10.1177/0022219411402692
Wattenberg, B. (1993). “100 percent of our future”, Baltimore Sun, December 3, available at:
http:// articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-12-03/news/1993337098_1_international-
spectrumstandards-of-excellence-medium.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-
quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The Political Dynamics of American Education (3rd ed.).
Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers' roles and pedagogies on the
positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522. doi:10.3102/0002831208316200
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 158
Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93–116. doi:10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2007.00135.x

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 159
Appendix A
Table A1
ELL Data Average scale scores for reading literary experience scale, grade 4 by status as
English Language Learner, 2 categories [LEP], year and jurisdiction: 2013, 2011, 2009, and
2007 (NCES, 2013)

ELL Not ELL
Year Jurisdiction Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

2013 Nation 190 227
CA 185 226
2011 Nation 192 226
CA 190 226
2009 Nation 190 225
CA 186 223
2007 Nation 191 226
CA 188 223
______________________________________________________________________________

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 160
Appendix B
Table B1
ELL Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Compared to White Growth API Spanning
2008-2013 (CDE, 2013)

Sub Group Year
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

ELL Growth API 717 716 706 692 677 662
White Growth API 852 852 845 838 828 816

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 161
Appendix C
Table C1
California English Language Development Test - Percent of Students at Each Overall
Performance Level from 2005-2014 (CDE, 2014)

Performance Level Year
2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/9 2007/8 2006/7 2005/6

Advanced 9 9 9 8 9 9 7 7 12
Early Advanced 28 27 29 26 27 26 25 22 29
Intermediate 34 34 35 36 35 34 35 35 32
Early Intermediate 15 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 14
Beginning 14 13 12 14 14 14 16 18 12

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 162
Appendix D
Sample Home Language Survey from the CDE
Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/documents/hlsformeng.doc
HOME LANGUAGE SURVEY

Name of Student: _____________________________________________________________________________
(Surname / Family Name) (First Given Name) (Second Given Name)

Age of Student: ______ Grade Level: _______ Teacher Name: ________________________________

Directions to Parents and Guardians:

The California Education Code contains legal requirements which direct schools to assess the English language
proficiency of students. The process begins with determining the language(s) spoken in the home of each student.
The responses to the home language survey will assist in determining if a student’s proficiency in English should be
tested. This information is essential in order for the school to provide adequate instructional programs and services.
As parents or guardians, your cooperation is requested in complying with these requirements. Please respond to each
of the four questions listed below as accurately as possible. For each question, write the name(s) of the language(s)
that apply in the space provided. Please do not leave any question unanswered. If an error is made completing this
home language survey, you may request correction before your student’s English proficiency is assessed.

1. Which language did your child learn when he/she first began to talk?
2. Which language does your child most frequently speak at home?
3. Which language do you (the parents or guardians) most frequently use
when speaking with your child?
4. Which language is most often spoken by adults in the home?
(parents, guardians, grandparents, or any other adults)

Please sign and date this form in the spaces provided below, then return this form to your child’s teacher. Thank you
for your cooperation.

Signature of Parent or Guardian Date

Form HLS, Revised December 2016
California Department of Education

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 163
Appendix E
Survey and Interview Protocols
Item 1

Survey Questions
1. Demographics:
I am a (Select One): Teacher, school site administrator, district office administrator.
Years teaching (Select One): 1-3, 4-6, 7-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50+
My current grade level is: K-1, 2-3, 4-6, 7-12, N/A
Grade levels I have previous taught: K-1, 2-3, 4-6, 7-12, N/A

2. I am trained to implement the new state standards (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
3. I am trained to implement the new California ELA/ELD framework (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
4. I am trained to work with ELLs (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
5. Barriers impede ELL achievement (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
6. The work I do helps remove barriers to ELL achievement (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
7. I am a part of a schoolwide focus on effective English Language Development (ELD)
strategies (Select One): 1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
8. My school is effective in preparing ELLs to be college and/or career ready (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
9. I am willing to have a follow up interview (Select One):
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree 3-agree 4-strongly agree
Thank you for your response.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 164
Item 2
Interview Protocol
Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity, Consent to
Participate, Permission to Record
District:________________
School: #_____of #_____
Interviewee: Teacher #_____of # _____ Date: __________ Time: _________________
Interviewer: Brenda Montaine
Introductory Protocol:

To facilitate my note-taking, I would like to audio tape our conversations today. Please
sign the release form. For your information, only researchers on the project will be privy to the
tapes which will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. In addition, you must sign a
form devised to meet our human subject requirements. Essentially, this document states that: (1)
all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at
any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for
your agreeing to participate. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer some of my
questions. The interview should take about an hour, does that work for you?
During this time, I have several questions that I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it
may be necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. This is a perceptions study and there
are no right or wrong answers.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 165
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have
any (more) questions, I would like to have your permission to begin the interview.
Setting the Stage
There is no right or wrong answer - this is a perception study. I am hoping we could start with
you telling me a little bit about your class this year. What you are teaching…students that you
are serving…. How this might be “typical” for you…
Heart of the Interview
1. What are the barriers to ELL achievement, if any?
2. What training have you had in removing barriers to ELL achievement, if any?
3. What do you do to remove the barriers to ELL achievement, if any?
4. What strategies for ELD are implemented schoolwide, if any?
5. What might be some of the challenges you face in preparing ELLs for state testing in
your classroom (at your school), if any?
6. What might be some of the challenges you face in your classroom (at your school) in
preparing ELLs for college and/or career readiness, if any?
7. A. Could you please describe a time for me when you felt like you were really successful
teaching ELLs, if any …
B. Could you please describe a time for me when you felt like you weren’t successful
teaching ELLs, if any…
8. In an ideal situation, without constraints of time and money (or you just mentioned xyz),
what would ELL achievement in the classroom (in the school) look like? (Ideal Position)
Closing Question
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 166
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I
might not have covered…
Closing
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my
study. If I find myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact
you, and if so, is email ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you,
please take _____________________.
Special Considerations and Probing
Transitions.
 So, we have spent most of our time talking about…
 Now I would like to change gears a little bit and ask about…
 Is there anything else you would like to add before we transition?
Probing statements/questions.
 That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about…
 I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean
by…
 I am wondering how you were feeling in that moment…
 It would be great if you could walk me though…
Additional Comments/notes:
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 167
Item 3
Survey and Interview Questions Table
Table E1 was included to show alignment between survey and interview questions and
guiding research questions for this dissertation (See Appendix F for the Research Matrix).
Table E1
Alignment of Survey Questions and Interview Questions to Research Questions

RQs Survey Questions Interview Questions
Directly informs/Indirectly informs Directly informs/Indirectly informs
RQ1 5 / none 1 / 5, 6, 7B
RQ2 6 / 7, 8 2, 3 / 4, 7A, 8
Since the survey collects demographic information, as well as information necessary to
determine if a follow up interview will be scheduled, only four out of the nine survey questions
inform the RQs. One survey question directly informs RQ1 which is survey question #5. In
addition, one survey question directly informs RQ2 which is survey question #6 with an
additional two survey questions indirectly informing RQ2 which are #7 and #8. All of the eight
interview questions inform the RQs. Interview question #1 directly informs RQ1 with three
additional interview questions indirectly informing RQ1 which are #5, #6, and #7B. Interview
questions #2 and #3 directly inform RQ2 with three additional interview questions indirectly
informing RQ2 which are #4, #7A, and #8.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 168
Item 4
Recruitment Email
Dear Participant,
My name is Brenda Montaine and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of
my dissertation to explore grade 4-6 teacher perceptions on the historic failure of English
Language Learners on Standardized Assessment. You are eligible to participate in this study
because you are a teacher in grade 4-6. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your
responses will remain confidential.
The study procedures include an online survey and an interview. The survey is designed to
take 10 minutes or less with nine questions beginning with demographic information and ending
with an optional link for your contact information. The link for the survey is included at the end
of the consent document (labeled Information/Facts Sheet in this email). At the end of the survey
you will have an opportunity to select a link to include your contact information in order for the
researcher to contact you for the interview. The interview will be conducted at a time and
location convenient to you and the researcher; is designed not to exceed one hour with eight
questions and will be audio taped with your permission.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at montaine@usc.edu or by cell
at 818-645-8780.
Thank you for your contribution to the field of education.
Most Sincerely,
Brenda Montaine
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
At the end of the consent document, found below, you will be able to complete the survey, if
you agree to participate in the study.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 169
Item 5
Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Perceptions of Grade 4-6 Teachers on Historic Failure of English Language Learners on
Standardized Assessment
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The aim of this study is to identify, and potentially remove,
barriers impeding ELL achievement. The research questions guiding this study are what barriers
do grade 4-6 teachers perceive impede ELL achievement, and what pedagogical practices do
grade 4-6 teachers perceive works as having potential to remove perceived barriers in support of
ELL achievement?
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to
complete an online survey which is anticipated to take no more than 10 minutes to complete and
to participate in an interview, anticipated to take no more than an hour. You do not have to
answer any questions you don’t want to, click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next
question. The interview will be audio-taped with your permission.
At the end of the survey, you will be given the opportunity to leave your contact information in
order to allow the researcher to contact you. Follow-up questions to the interview may be
required.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION Your alternative is to not participate. Your
relationship with your employer will not be affected whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will
remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and
maintained separately from any identifiable information. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once
the transcriptions have been verified.
The data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
The members of the research team Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 170
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION Brenda Montaine via email
at montaine@usc.edu or by cell at 818-645-8780; or the Faculty Advisor, Patricia Tobey, via
email at tobey@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720
South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
Click Here to participate in the Survey. Thank you!
(Or copy and paste this link )

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 171
Appendix F
Codebook
Predetermined Apriori Codes for Survey, Interview, and Document Review
Barriers to ELL achievement

Barrier removal toward supporting ELL achievement

Emergent Codes for Interview
Barriers.
Training
Range (of student ability)
Time for Small Group Instruction
Student Background Knowledge
Lack of Vocabulary
Access
Parent
Time
Class Size
Barrier Removal.
Training would help
Small Group Instruction
Vocabulary Development
Increase Student Talk
Access
Mindset
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 172
Skills
Strategies
Resources
Student Self-Confidence
Other Policies out of the teacher hands
Work with parents
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 173
Appendix G
Matrix of Research
RQ Methodology Variables of
Interest
Analysis Item Type of
Analysis

Literature (Not an exhaustive list)

RQ I – What
barriers do
grade 4-6
teachers in
two Southern
California
public school
districts
perceive
impede ELL
achievement?

-Survey
(question 5)
-Interview
(questions
1,5,6,7B)
-Document
Review

-ELL
achievement
(dependent
variable)
-Barriers to
ELL
achievement
(independent
variable)
-Teacher
Perception
(independent
variable)
Survey
#5-Barriers impede
ELL achievement
Interview
#1 What are the
barriers to ELL
achievement, if any?
#5 What might be
some of the
challenges you face
in preparing ELLs
for state testing in
your classroom (at
your school), if any?
#6 What might be
some of the
challenges you face
in your classroom (at
your school) in
preparing ELLs for
college and/or career
readiness, if any?
#7B Could you
please describe a
Survey
Analysis

Interview
Coding
Barriers
Bennett, 2001 - Equity
Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010 -
Equity
McCallumore and Sparapani, 2010 – Reading
CDE 2011, 2015 – Data reports,
recommendations
Collin, 2012 - ELL
Darder, 2013 - ELL
Freire, 1993 – Disparity
Gamoran & Long, 2006 - Equity
Gee 2008 – ELL
Genesee et al., 2005 - ELL
Good, Masewicz & Vogel, 2010 - Equity
Hahnel, Keehn, Harmon, & Shoho, 2008 –
Middle School
Lee & Buxton, 2013 – Equity
Lesaux, 2006 - ELL
Mays 2008 -ELL
McCallumore and Sparapani, 2010
Mead & Rotherham, 2008 – Funding
Oakes, 2003 -Equity
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 174
time for me when
you felt like you
weren’t successful
teaching ELLs, if
any…
Owings, Kaplan & Volman, 2015 – Funding
Reschly, 2010 – Reading issues
Rueda, 2011 – Student Achievement
Shein, 2004 -Culture
Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – Equity
Stone, 2002 – Equity
Wolf, Banks, & LaFors, 2014 -ELL

RQ2- What
pedagogical
practices do
grade 4-6
teachers in
two Southern
California
public school
districts
perceive as
having
potential to
remove
perceived
barriers in
support of
ELL
achievement?
-Survey
(question
6,7,8)
-Interview
(questions
2,3,4,7A,8)
-Document
Review

-ELL
achievement
(dependent
variable)
-Pedagogical
Practices to
barrier
removal
toward ELL
achievement
(independent
variable)
-Teacher
Perception
(independent
variable)
Survey
#6- The work I do
helps remove
barriers to ELL
achievement
#7- I am part of a
schoolwide focus on
effective ELD
strategies
#8- My school is
effective in
preparing ELLs to
be college and/or
career ready
Interview
#2 What training
have you had in
removing barriers to
ELL achievement, if
any?
#3 What do you do
to remove the
Survey
Analysis

Interview
Coding
Barrier Removal
Au, 2011 – Knowledge and vocabulary
Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010 –
ELL
Brofenbrenner, 2001 - Multicultural
CDE 2011, 2015 – Data reports,
recommendations
CLA – Funding
Cummins, 2007, 2008 – Academic Language
Damber, 2009 – Literacy
Datnow et al., 2007 – Conceptual Framework
Degener & Berne, 2014 – Small group
instruction
Dr. David Rose, 2011 – UDL
Dweck, 2006 – Growth Mindset
Elmore, 2002 – Student Centered
Enriquez, 2011 – Student Centered
Freire, 1993 – Advocacy
Gemesee et al, 2005 – Instructional strategies
Gee, 2005 – ELL
Guler, 2013 – Assessment
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 175
barriers to ELL
achievement, if any?
#4 What strategies
for ELD are
implemented
schoolwide, if any?
#7A Could you
please describe a
time for me when
you felt like you
were really
successful teaching
ELLs, if any…
#8 In an ideal
situation, without
constraints of time
and money (or your
just mentioned xyz),
what would ELL
achievement in the
classroom (in the
school) look like?

Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003 - Culture
Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006 – Culture
Hattie, 2015a – Pedagogical practices
Han & Bidglall, 2009 – Bilingual Education
Herrera & Murray, 2010 - ELL
Holt & O’Tuel, 1989 – Reading
Hyland & Tse, 2007 - Vocabulary
Jongsma, 2004 – Action Strategies
Knoester, 2009 - Multicultural
Keehn et al., 2008 – Reading
LAO, 2013 – Funding
Lee & Buxton, 2013 – Quality Teachers
Lucas et al., 2008 – Teacher Training
Martin, 1993 – Student Centered
Machin & McNally, 2005 – Literacy
Mays, 2008 - ELL
Nelson-Royos & Reglin, 2011 – Reading
OCED, 2013 - Adequacy
Oden & Picus, 2009, 2014 – Adequacy
Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007 – ELL
Project GRAD, 2007 – Summer School
Rueda, 2011 – Student Achievement
Shapiro, 2008 – Quality Teachers
Sleeter, 2012 - Culture
St. Clair & Phipps, 2008 – Teacher/Student
Partnerships
Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – Advocacy
Vaughn et al, 2011 – Middle School
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 176
Wolf, Banks, & Laors, 2014 – Quality
Teachers
Yoon, 2008 – ELL
Zwiers, 2007 – Vocabulary

Research Design
Christensen, Dyer, & Gregersen, 2011 -
Innovation
Creswell, 2013 – Qualitative
Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2014-Sociol
Cognitive Theory
Duff, 2007 – Socialization of Language
Acquisition
Maxwell, 2013 – Limitations and delimitations
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 – Limitations and
delimitations
Roth, 2008 – Sociocultural Theory
Smagorinsky, 2011 – Sociocultural Theory

Teacher Perception
Batt, 2008 – Teacher Preparation
California Commission on Teaching, 2012 –
Teaching
Rodriguez, Manner and Darcy, 2010 –
Professional Dev.
Téllez and Manthey, 2015 – ELD
Tran, 2015 – Teacher Perception

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 177
Current Practices
CDE, 2011, 2105, 2016 – Data,
recommendations
NCES, 2013 – Data
U.S. Dept. of Ed, 2016 – Funding

Education History
Fowler, 2009 – Policy
U.S. Dept. of Ed, 2016 – History
Wirt & Kirst, 2005 – Policy

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 178
Appendix H
Table H1
Side-By-Side Comparison of Potential And Mandated Practices Toward Student Achievement
LCAP (8 areas)

Evidence-Based Model
(13 areas)
Title I Program
Improvement
Academic Program
Survey
(9 Essential
Components)
School Plan
Components
(4 goals)
Title I Elementary
School in Anywhere
(Pseudonym)
Hattie Effect Size (2015a)

CA generated
100 pages
(approx.)
District Level
Research generated
Student centered
District Level
Federally Generated
32 page survey
School site level
School Site Council
School Site Generated -
aligned to district
LCAP
.2 small
.4 medium
.6 large
student
achievement
-“extra help” strategies: a.
1-to-1 tutoring b. extended
day c. summer school d.
additional FTE per 100
ELL e. 1 FTE and .5 aide
per 150 spec ed
Student Achievement
Monitoring System
-Improve student
performance
Peer Tutoring - .55

Summer School - .23
student
engagement
-Funding of $25 per pupil
to provide extra strategies
for gifted and talented
students.

-provide safe nurturing,
caring environment
Gifted Accelerated
Instruction - .30
other student
outcomes
- Specialized teachers 20%
elem. 33% mid.; 90 min.
blocks high school
-fiscal support -4 C’s: creativity,
communication,
collaboration,
critical thinking
Teacher expectations -.43
Teacher estimates of
achievement – 1.62

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 179
parental
involvement

-increase parent
involvement
Home environment - .52
course access

-Instructional Program -
Instructional Time
-increase use of technology

Vocabulary Program - .62
Comprehension Program -.53
implementation
of Common
Core State
Standards
-Funds for instructional
materials, formative
assessments, and supplies
($165 per pupil for
elementary and middle
schools and $200 per pupil
for high schools); $250 per
pupil for technology and
equipment; and $250 per
pupil for student activities
(sports, clubs, etc.).
-Lesson Pacing Guide
-PD for School
Administrators
-Credentialed teacher
PD
- implement rich varied
curriculum
Professional Development –
.45
basic services -full day K -Instructional Program -
Instructional Time
-provide safe nurturing,
caring environment

school climate

- provide safe nurturing,
caring environment
Teacher credibility in eyes of
student - .9
Self-concept - .47
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 180
Not placed in
an LCAP
component
-class sizes of 15 in Grades
K-3; class sizes of 25 in
Grades 4-12
-60 min. prep per day
elem, mid., high school
- mid., high school
counselors and social
workers, nurses family
liaison personnel (per
250/100 students)
- Full time librarian,
principal. two secretaries
elem. and mid.; three
secretaries. high school
- instr. coach (per 100
students) 10 pupil free
days for PD $100 per
student for PD expenses
-Supervisory aides for
recess lunch halls busses
- Substitute teacher
resources at 10 days for
each teacher and
instructional facilitator
position.
- central office staff
-Ongoing instructional
Assistance and support
for teachers
-Monthly Collaboration
by grade level or
program level for
teachers facilitated by
principal
-Title I federal compliance Class size - .21

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Focused on an equity of educational access issue, this qualitative study identified grade 4-6 teacher perceptions of English language learning in Southern California. The historic failure of English language learners (ELLs) on standardized tests in Southern California was presented as an important problem to solve. The literature review for this paper linked ELL failure on standardized tests to a lack of equitable curriculum, lack of teacher training, lack of quality instruction, and lack of comprehensive assessments. In addition, the lens of grade 4-6 teachers within the scope of the problem was explored and subsequent solutions of ELL failure on standardized tests was examined. This qualitative research paper reviewed relevant research on ELL literacy and language needs, and researched teacher perceptions. The purpose of this paper was to answer two research questions. Both questions are interrelated in that they focused on grade 4 through 6 teacher perceptions of barriers and barrier removal in support of ELL achievement. In the analysis, time was determined to be the barrier and a variety of practices, skills, and strategies were recommended by participants to remove the barrier of time toward ELL achievement. The most mentioned practice was small group instruction. Moreover, within small group instruction, teachers worked to build vocabulary and increase student talk. A multifaceted barrier removal process was revealed. Possible solutions toward facilitating ELL academic achievement were discussed, and areas in need of further research were presented. Ultimately, solving the problem of ELL failure on standardized tests in California, which the researcher would like to present nuanced, instead, as a problem of standardized testing failing California ELLs, is important to solve. In turn, helping ELLs may help all students, in due course, succeed in academics and livelihood.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Montaine, Brenda R. (author)

Core Title Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/29/2017

Defense Date 04/12/2017

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

Tag barriers and barrier removal,comprehensive assessment,ELL,ELL achievement,English language learners,equitable curriculum,equity of educational access,help all students,helping ELLs,literacy and language,livelihood,multifaceted barrier removal process,OAI-PMH Harvest,quality instruction,remove the barrier of time,small group instruction,standardized testing failing California ELLs,student talk,succeed in academics,support of ELL achievement,teacher perceptions,Teacher Training,time barrier,vocabulary

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Carbone, Paula (committee member), Crispen, Patrick (committee member)

Creator Email brenda.montaine@pacbell.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-392949

Unique identifier UC11265324

Identifier etd-MontaineBr-5466.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-392949 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MontaineBr-5466.pdf

Dmrecord 392949

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Montaine, Brenda R.

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA