University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Policies, procedures, and beliefs that affect English learner reclassification

(USC Thesis Other)

Policies, procedures, and beliefs that affect English learner reclassification

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 1

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND BELIEFS THAT AFFECT ENGLISH LEARNER
RECLASSIFICATION.

by

Anthony W. Contreras

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

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Anthony Contreras

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Problem of Practice 7
Background 9
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the study 12
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Limitations and Delimitations 13
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Reclassification Process 21
Common Core and English Learners 28
Language Acquisition 32
Educational Policies 34
Long-Term English Learners 40
Social Capital, Organizational Culture, and Reclassification 43
Chapter Three: Methodology 47
Sample and Population 48
Instrumentation 49
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis 53
Limitations and Delimitations 54
Chapter Four: Findings 56
Research Questions 57
Participants 57
Data Collection 58
Results for Research Question One. 59
Board of Education 59
Subjectivity 61
Manipulation 64
Results for Research Question Two. 66
Program Implementation 66
Human Resources 69
Data Analysis 72
Results for Research Question Three 74
College Acceptance 74
Parent Knowledge 75
Shared Responsibility 77
Equity 79

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 3
Chapter Five: Conclusion 83
Findings for Research Question One 84
Findings for Research Question Two 85
Findings for Research Question Three 87
Implications for Practice 90
Future Research 93
Conclusion 93
References 95
Appendix A: Sample Notification Letter 107
Appendix B: Interview Questions 108
Appendix C: Informed Consent: School Personnel Participant 110

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 4
List of Tables
Table 1: Research and Interview Question Alignment 50
Table 2: Participants by Position 58
Table 3: Research Questions, Findings, and Literature 84

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework. 51
Figure 2: An example of title slide presented to parents teaching about procedures to reclassify
ELs (Anonymous, 2017). 63

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 6
Abstract
Among California’s student population, 1.3 million English learners (EL) make up 22.7%, but
only 11.2% demonstrate English proficiency. This study employed how organizational cultures
foster English learner’s social capital by investigating reclassification process and rates. The
purpose of the study was to look at how decisions of administrators or those in power affect
reclassification of English learners. Through the study, the effects of decision-making
administration were compared with reclassification rates of English learners. The qualitative
study began with analysis of local educational agency’s reclassification rates on the state
department of education site. Requests for interviews were sent to district administrators
identified on websites as in charge of English learners and have at least a 10% EL population and
a minimum of 8000 students. LEA documents were collected to corroborate assertions within
interviews. Through interviews and document analysis a constant comparative approach was
utilized to create themes. Each research question was answered implementing Creswell’s six
steps to data analysis. Who’s supporting our English learners and what implications does this
have for California among other states with rising EL needs?
Key words: English learners, administrators, social capital, reclassification, organizational
culture

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Ricky is a 16-year old student-athlete. He is the oldest child, born in the United States to
immigrant parents who have dreams of a better life for their children filled with possibility and
potential. His parents are supportive of the school system and see education as a means for their
son to further his opportunities in the United States. Ricky is classified as an English Language
Learner (EL) because a language other than English is spoken in the home. This was determined
by a survey his parents filled out when they enrolled him in school at the beginning his
educational journey. What his parents did not understand was that by filling out that survey, the
state would now require Ricky to demonstrate he has academic command of the English
language. Each of the last 10 years, he has failed to meet a portion of the criteria to exit, or
reclassify, his EL status. Currently, Ricky has Sophomore English and an English language
development class on his schedule. He dreams of going to college, but he does not realize he
will not qualify for a 4-year university without taking and passing the correct classes, known in
California as the A-G requirements. He believes a high school diploma allows him to apply to
anywhere he wants; after all, that what he’s been told to graduate from high school so he can go
to college. Dreams can be dashed, delayed, or averted when barriers arise. Therefore, questions
arise as to what role school leadership plays in creating viable paths for student success.
Problem of Practice
The United States is known as the melting pot because of the diversity found in the
people. Immigration is a cornerstone of America; however, a community of various people
brings challenges when trying to educate the children. Currently, there are nearly 4.4 million
ELs in the United States school system (Kena et al., 2015). In California, 1.5 million or
approximately 22% of students are ELL students. This fact alone makes it critical to address the
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 8
needs of this subgroup within the state of California. Meeting the needs of immigrant students is
not a new public-school problem. In the early 1900’s students attended monolingual schools
where languages such as German were spoken to address their language and learning needs
(Menken, 2008). Recently, Olsen (2010) coined the phenomenon of Long-term English learners
(LTELs), which has come to the forefront of teaching ELs. LTELs are students who have been
in the United States educational system more than 5 years and have not demonstrated English
proficiency to be reclassified. Many of these students were born in the United States to non-
English speaking parents and have attended school in the United States since Kindergarten.
Language development research showed that it takes 5-7 years for students to develop academic
proficiency in a second language (Cummings, 1991; Hakuta, 2000; Krashen, 1982). When
students are still classified EL, their class choices are restricted. EL students are required, by
law, to take classes designed to especially assist them in English acquisition. Since the class is
mandated, they must give up other academic options. In elementary school, this may be music
or enrichment. While in secondary school, ELs may lose options to take college preparatory
classes or enter career modules. High school ELs can graduate, but their status may limit their
potential to enter universities or career programs.
Prolonged time to attain proficiency has been the detrimental to many ELs. There is a
negative correlation between lack of reclassification by middle school and academic
performance (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Flores 2009; Umansky et al., 2015). As a group, English
learners have consistently performed below their native speaking counterparts in standardized
testing (Menken, 2008).

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 9
Background
The United States’ population is expected to increase from 319 million to 417 million
between 2014 to 2060, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Colby
and Ortman (2015) estimated one in five residents will be foreign-born and over half will
identify as members of a minority group. Public school enrollment is expected to increase from
50 million to 51.4 million and continue rising at a rate of 3% for next 10 years. There are
approximately 4.5 million ELs in the United States (National Center, 2015). In California, there
are 1.5 million ELs or 25% of the California student body (Hill, 2012; Parrish et al., 2006). Of
the 25 districts with the highest concentration of ELs, eight are located in California (Ruiz,
Hooker, & Batalova, 2015). The Los Angeles Unified School District leads the nation in the
number of ELs served (RuizSoto & Batalova, 2015). The proliferation of language learners in
the United States is projected to continue and increase over several decades. The country’s
ability to service our most needy students makes the United States a model society.
Ernest L. Boyer stated “To push for excellence today without continuing to push for
access for less privileged students is to undermine the crucial but incomplete gains that have
been made. Equity and excellence cannot be divided” (p. 35). Minority and second language
learners are less privileged when access is the focal point (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Moje 2004; Ogbu, 1987; Stanton-Salazar 1997). A monolinguistic society is not
comprehensible with the great diversity found in the United States. Historically, second
language learners have performed below native English speakers on all standardized testing.
This gap persists regardless of laws, policies, money, program, time, and magnification. Further
study about linguistic barriers from the administration level and perspective is warranted. Many
studies have looked at outcomes, programs, and efficacy (August, Shannahan, & Escamilla,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 10
2009; Chularut & Debacker, 2004; Hakuta, 2000; Magogwe & Oliver,2007; Valdez, 2001), but
there is little research focused on local educational agency administration and the beliefs,
policies, and procedures that guide decisions about ELs.
Statement of the Problem
The educational problem addressed herein is the lack of access to core curriculum and
college and career resources because of language designation. Students designated English
learners (ELs) receive modified curriculum and are pulled out of regular classroom time to take
English development classes. Students are designated as ELs by taking a language test, but they
must prove language proficiency by both language and academic measures (Menken, 2008). It is
problematic because students do not receive the same curriculum or opportunities as their native
English-speaking peers. Language proficiency is as important as student’s navigational
knowledge to access school system resources, college requirements, and career possibilities.
The problem of language acquisition was focused on by analyzing the reclassification
process. Reclassification is the process for ELs to demonstrate English proficiency according to
federal, state, and district criteria. This study begins with a short history of ELs in the United
States followed by an examination of laws and regulations. Next, language acquisition and
access to Common Core curriculum was reviewed. Finally, a look at LTELs reviewed the
recently acknowledged phenomena when students fail to reclassify after 5 years enrolled in the
U.S. educational system. Scope of this research took into account a social capitalistic
perspective embedded in the organizational culture.
Purpose of the Study
The study analyzed the reclassification process for ELs from the perspective of mid- to
high-level administrators. Data has shown that multilingual and reclassified fluent English-
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 11
proficient students score at or above grade level (Parrish et al., 2006; Robinson, 2011; Saunders
& Marcelletti, 2012;). An achievement gap has persisted over time regardless of changes in
policy, practice, or funding. The purpose of this study was to look at the decisions made by
district personnel and to analyze perceptions about ELs, the processes of language acquisition,
and institutional systems set in place to assist ELs to acquire the social capital needed to navigate
schools and resources.
Together, California state data, administrative interviews, and documents were analyzed
to create a basis for decisions made regarding EL reclassification. State data began the analysis
by comparing reclassification rates by districts throughout the county. Next, administrators from
local educational agencies (LEA)s were invited to participate in an interview regarding
reclassification, EL’s perceptions, and procedures in curriculum delivery. NVivo software was
used to compile, organize, and suggest patterns in the interviews. Comparisons were made using
constant comparative analysis (Corbin and Strauss, 2014). Constant comparisons served to break
down documents, and data into themes. Three areas were used to create open, axial, and
selective codes. Open coding identified any recurring themes, topics, or words, the broadest
categories. Next, axial codes narrowed the topics of reclassification and ELs to general areas by
connecting themes. Lastly, selective codes were established magnifying possible rationale and
reasons for EL’s limited access to core curriculum and inability to reclassify. A principal reason
for this study was to determine if policies, procedures, and perceptions regarding ELs affect
reclassification rates and access to core curriculum.
The study sought to answer the following questions bringing light to the plight of ELs:
1. How is the issue of EL reclassification managed by a local educational agency (LEA) in
Southern California with at least 800 English learners?
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 12
2. What organizational structures in Southern California LEAs, with at least 800 English
learners, exists that affect reclassification?
3. How do LEA officials in Southern California with at least 800 English learners describe
equity and access for English Learners?
Stanton-Salazar (2011) presented social capital as an adolescent’s ability to navigate multiple
networks and the role of non-familial adult agents who further educational opportunities and
social development. Schein (2010) brought the lens of leadership in organizations as systematic
in what is important, then a powerful tool to communicate a message to the rest of the
establishment was created. Research described the findings in terms of how organizational
cultures affect reclassification and, in turn, a student’s social capital and access to services that
help navigate both school and society.
Significance of the study
Educational literature was rich with in achievement gaps by subgroups, student efficacy,
and special needs. One major subgroup identified was ELs. Problematic educational
environments and instruction has been the focus of many studies. This study contributed the
administrators’ perspectives as decision makers in their districts. Administrative personnel are
the decision-makers regarding how and which language programs are used, emphasis placed on
school sites regarding language acquisition, and criteria selected for ELs to progress and meet
not only district graduation requirements but also fulfill the goal and mission statements of states
and districts. Furthermore, the study shed light on why ELs do not reclassify at higher rates and
what barriers to educational and societal access exist without the reclassification. The outcome
in comprehensive education is LTELs do not demonstrate English proficiency in less 6 years in
the school system. This recognized phenomenon in California is Assembly Bill 2193. AB 2193
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 13
states districts must identify both current LTELs and students at-risk of becoming LTELs (State
of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2012).
Through this study, thoughts, perceptions, beliefs about ELs and their access to full
curriculum and navigate educational and societal pathways were developed. The study
optimistically proposed that by looking at this subgroup from the top down provided more
insight to foster this growing population. Although this study focused on California, the growing
trend of immigration across the country provided possible insight to other states as they develop
programs to assist ELs.
Organizational Context and Mission
Los Angeles County is in Southern California. It is the largest county in the nation with
over 10 million people residing in its’ boundaries (Statistica, 2015). Los Angeles County is also
one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse educational systems. The county serves
over 1.5 million students in 2,228 public schools (Public School Review). Over 90 languages are
documented in California, but 94% of students speak one of the following ten languages:
Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Arabic, Tagalog, Cantonese, Korean, Hmong, Punjabi, and
Russian (California Department of Education, 2016a).
Limitations and Delimitations
Even though the research is built to garner as much information regarding ELs it still had
limitations in terms of time, participants, and size. Time was an issue because each interview
took place during the 2016-17 school year and was not influenced by changing legislation. The
sample size consisted of only local educational agencies (LEA)s in southern California with EL
populations greater than 10% totaling at least 800 ELs. If a random sample was used it would be
easier to generalize any findings. Lastly, the study was conducted only in eastern Los Angeles
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 14
County, an area with a high concentration of ELs. Finally, because of the sensitive nature of
several questions, administrators may have felt uncomfortable conveying candid answers even
with anonymity.
The research was constrained by several factors. First, only LEAs that have a substantial
(greater than 10%) EL population were considered. Also, the study only involved interviews
with administrators involved in the decision-making process. Students, teachers, and parents
were not solicited for their perspective. Lastly, the study did not include surveys. The researcher
noted changes in vocal tone or body language given sensitive questions. Noting physical
reactions is not feasible in a survey format.
Definition of Terms
Definitions are those of Bardack (2010) unless otherwise noted.
1st (first) generation - Foreign ‐born and often foreign ‐educated ELLs.
2nd (second) generation - United States–born children of immigrants.
Annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) - AMAOs are state requirements or
indicators for measuring ELL progress in learning English, the attainment of English language
proficiency, and ELL annual yearly progress (AYP) in meeting state standards. Local education
agencies that receive Title III funding (the English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act) under the Elementary and Secondary
1 The term accommodation has historically been used to discuss strategies to accommodate
testing or teaching procedures for students who have special needs and has recently been used to
refer to accommodations for English language learners. Education Act (ESEA) for ELL
programming are held accountable for the achievement of ELLs; AMAOs help support state
accountability efforts.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 15
Basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) - BICS are often referred to as “playground
English” and are typically learned in 3 to 5 years. These language skills include basic, everyday
speech that can be supported contextually by gestures. This concept was introduced by Jim
Cummins in 1979 to distinguish between fundamental conversational speech and cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP).
Bilingual education - Bilingual education involves providing academic content instruction in a
student’s native and secondary languages. The most common bilingual education models include
the following: Early ‐Exit Transitional, Late ‐Exit Transitional Developmental or Maintenance,
Bilingual Immersion, Integrated Transitional Bilingual Education, and Dual Language
Immersion.
Bilingualism - The ability to communicate successfully in two languages, with the same relative
degree of proficiency. It is important to note that bilinguals are rarely perfectly balanced in their
use of two languages; one language is usually dominant (Baker, 2000).
Biliteracy - The ability to communicate and comprehend thoughts and ideas using grammatical
systems and vocabulary from two languages, as well as to write both languages.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) - The CAASPP
Portal Web site is a source for access to test administration systems, training resources and
materials, the latest CAASPP news, and important dates regarding administering the CAASPP
tests. CAASPP is the portal that students and teachers log into when administering or taking
standardized state test covering SBAC standards. School personnel use SBAC and CAASPP
interchangeably when discussing state testing. (CAASPP, 2017)
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) - The CELDT measures limited
English proficient students’ achievement of California English Language Development (ELD)
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 16
Standards in kindergarten through grade twelve. Three purposes for the CELDT are specified in
state law, including: (1) identifying students as limited English proficient, (2) determining the
level of English language proficiency (ELP) for students who are limited English proficient, and
(3) assessing the progress of limited English proficient students in acquiring the skills of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English. (California Department of Education, 2010)
Cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) - The level of proficiency required by an
ELL to understand academically challenging subject matter in a classroom setting (Cummins,
1979). This refers to language that is often abstract, and is not accompanied by any contextual
supports such as gestures or visual signals. It may take an ELL about 4 to 7 years to reach this
level of fluency (Hakuta, 2000).
English Language Learner (EL) - An individual who is in the process of actively acquiring
English, and whose primary language is one other than English. This student often benefits from
language support programs to improve academic performance in English due to challenges with
reading, comprehension, speaking, and/or writing skills in English. Other terms that are
commonly used to refer to ELs are language minority students, English as a Second Language
(ESL) students, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD students, and limited English
proficient (LEP) students.
English as a Second Language (ESL) - A term often used to designate students whose first
language is not English; this term has become less common than the term ELL. Currently, ESL is
more likely to refer to an educational approach designed to support ELLs.
English language proficiency (ELP) assessment - A test that measures the English language
(oral, reading, and writing) skills of students with limited English proficiency. Such a test is
required by Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized as the No
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 17
Child Left Behind Act of 2001) for all schools served by the state educational agency in every
state.
English Proficiency (ELP) standards - Principles designed to identify and describe the
language skills (oral, reading, and writing) that ELLs need for successful communication and
school participation. The ELP standards also specify the English language skills that are needed
to perform the tasks across content areas.
English ‐Only (EO) - Mainstream classes for native English speakers or ELLs who have been
designated “fluent English proficient” (FEP) or “redesignated fluent English proficient” (RFEP).
Depending on the state and the model used, all instruction is provided in English, and there may
be little or no accommodation or special assistance for LEP students First (1st) generation.
Foreign ‐born and often foreign ‐educated ELLs.
Fluent English Proficient (FEP) - Applies to “primary or home language other than English”
students who have demonstrated full or fluent proficiency in English. They are able to speak,
read, write, and understand English at levels that are on a par with those of their grade ‐level
classmates, and consequently do not need any additional language accommodation in a
mainstream English classroom.
First language, primary language, or home language - These terms have several possible
meanings for ELLs: the first language learned the stronger language, the native language, and/or
the language most frequently used.
L1 - An ELL’s first language or native language. This term may be used to refer to persons who
are speaking in their native language.
L2 - An ELL’s second language, often used in the context of “L2 student” to designate students
who are nonnative speakers of a language.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 18
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) - A term used by the U.S. Department of Education to refer
to ELLs who are enrolled or getting ready to enroll in elementary or secondary school and who
have an insufficient level of English to meet a state’s English expertise requirements. However,
the expression English language learner (ELL) has started to replace LEP, to avoid the
implication that nonnative ‐English ‐speaking students are deficient (National Council of Teachers
of English, 2008). The former term for LEP was limited English speaking (LES), and was used in
the first authorization of the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of ESEA, prior to NCLB), in
1968.
Local Education Agency (LEA) - An LEA is a government agency which supervises local
public primary and secondary schools in the delivery of instructional and educational services.
LEAs include school districts, county offices of education, special state schools, and independent
public charter schools. (California Department of Education, 2010)
Multilingualism - The ability to speak more than two languages, with possible proficiency in
many languages.
Reclassification - Reclassification is the local process used by LEAs to determine if a student
has acquired sufficient English language fluency to perform successfully in academic subjects
without ELD support. EC Section 313(d) specifies the four criteria that must be used when
making reclassification decisions locally. (California Department of Education, 2010)
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) - Each English Learner (EL) who meets the
established multiple redesignation criteria is reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).
Each former English Learner who has been redesignated as RFEP has demonstrated English
language proficiency comparable to that of the average native English speakers and can
participate equally with them in the school's regular instructional program. (Herr, 2007)
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 19
Sheltered English Instruction (SEI) - A teaching strategy that uses language and context to
make academic subject matter more comprehensible to ELLs.
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) - A research ‐based, explicit model of
sheltered instruction, in which the language and context for academic subject matter are adapted
for ELLs. A national research project sponsored by the Center for Research on Education,
Diversity & Excellence (CRDE) developed the SIOP model on the basis of a literature review of
best practices. Teachers and researchers also collaborated in developing and refining the model
over several years of field testing.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) - SBAC is the consortium, but also the
common acronym used by practitioners to denote the testing system. The Smart Balanced
Assessment System utilizes computer-adaptive tests and performance tasks that allow students to
show what they know and are able to do. This system is based on the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) for English language arts/literacy (ELA) and mathematics. The Smarter
Balanced Assessment System has three components designed to support teaching and learning
throughout the year: Summative Assessments, Interim Assessments, and the Digital Library. The
SBAC graphic and video display the relationship between these components, the CCSS, and
college and career readiness. (California Department of Education, 2016b)
Title III - Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is a part of the legislation
enacted to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) students, including immigrant children
and youth, develop English proficiency and meet the same academic content and achievement
standards that other children are expected to meet.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 20
Organization of the Study
This first chapter was a summary of the research. The chapter began with sections on
background, statement of the problem, and purpose of the study. Next stated was significance of
the study, followed by limitations and delimitations, and finally definition of terms.
Chapter Two presents a review pertinent literature regarding English learners and
reclassification. This chapter was divided into categories: reclassification, language acquisition,
educational policies, access to Common Core, LTELs, and social capital. Each section alludes to
the plight of ELs and connected to research questions.
Chapter Three presents the methodology of the study. A qualitative approach was
selected to gather rich and personal beliefs from administrators. Research began with an analysis
of LEA state data regarding ELs before starting the interviews of administrators and a document
review. Constant comparative analysis (Corbin & Straus, 2014) was utilized to create themes
and narrow analysis. NVivo software was employed to aggregate and organize interviews.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Stakes are high for English learners (EL)s to move from EL status to Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient (RFEP). English proficiency is vital for full participation, societally, in the
United States (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). There is a major concern with redesignating ELs
too early or too late (Parrish et al., 2006; Robinson, 2011). Once ELs are redesignated, they
should be monitored to ensure they no longer need services to meet academic proficiency. If
they are held back they may not receive full access to challenging, career preparing, or college
entering curriculum (Parrish et al., 2006)
Redesignated students are afforded a more open schedule and time with diverse student
populations (Flores et al 2009; Linquati, 2001; Umansky et al., 2015). Research has shown that
RFEPs often outperform their grade-level peers on standardized assessments (Robinson, 2011;
Rubenstein-Avila & Fink, 2013). However, Thompson et al. (2012) warns that the RFEP label
itself may not be the sole determinant for higher test scores.
Reclassification Process
The reclassification process is diversified by districts and states, and often not
emphasized with students, parents, and other stakeholders (Linquati & Cook, 2013; Umansky &
Reardon, 2014). Also, districts may add a district English proficiency test as part of the exit
criteria (Abedi, 2008). Various unspecified requirements for reclassification make it difficult to
compare districts (Hill, Weston & Hayes, 2014). Even though length of time to reclassification
has been correlated to a student’s educational background, there is still a vast amount of
unexplained or explored variance possibly due to unidentified characteristics unique to students,
schools, or districts (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). Deconstructing the reclassification process
must be completed one district at a time. Student benefits in reclassification such as expanded
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 22
schedules, access to college curriculum, and exposure to a diversified student population can
only be attempted once processes are explicit to students and staff (Umansky & Reardon, 2014;
Umansky et al., 2015). Reclassified students have historically shown to outperform most other
subgroups on standardized tests (Hill, 2012; Robinson, 2011). We need to begin with how
students are classified as EL and then reclassified as RFEP.
When students are enrolled in school, the first point of language identification is a home
language survey. However, the survey is not standard and varies in verbiage, content, and
delivery (Linquati & Cook, 2013). If the survey is filled out as another language is spoken in the
home, the student must then take a test to demonstrate English proficiency (California
Department of Education, 2016c; Mahoney and McSwan, 2005). If the student does not meet
proficiency, which is minimally labeled as Early Advanced in California, then a letter is sent
home stating the next steps (Appendix A). Once a student is labeled an EL, they may only exit
the label and all intervention programs by meeting the reclassification criteria (California
Department of Education, 2016d). The California Department of Education website lists the
reclassification criteria as follows:
For the 2015-16 school year, the reclassification criteria, pursuant to California Education
Code Section 313, remain unchanged:
1. Assessment of English language proficiency, using an objective assessment instrument,
including, but not limited to, the state test of English language development; and
2. Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the student’s curriculum
mastery; and
3. Parent opinion and consultation; and
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 23
4. Comparison of student performance in basic skills against an empirically established
range of performance in basic skills based on the performance of English proficient
students of the same age.
Every student identified must take an English language proficiency (ELP) test. In
California, the ELP is titled California English Language Development Test (CELDT). The
CELDT measures a child’s English ability in reading, listening, speaking, and writing (CDE,
2016e). The CELDT is used to identify ELs and their level in English and monitor their progress
towards English proficiency (Parrish et al., 2006). Student CELDT levels are beginner, early
intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and advanced. CELDT is given once a year in the
fall with results available by winter quarter. Most criterion-referenced English proficiency
exams are given in springtime. Currently, California is consorted with other states in using the
smarter balanced assessment consortium (SBAC) and administers the test through the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) site. Both CELDT and SBAC vary
by grade level, CELDT is separated by grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 (Umansky & Reardon,
2014). Reclassification guidelines are similarly general across the country leaving interpretation
up to each district how and which assessments will quantify reclassification (Olsen, 2010;
Robinson, 2011; Rubenstein-Avila & Fink, 2013). All four of the California’s guidelines must
be met to meet the reclassification criteria. When and how reclassification criteria are met can
be greatly influenced by administration (Linquati, 2001). ELP tests are generally administered
the first 2 months of the year. Teacher evaluations are grades or district criterion benchmark
tests, and the timetable is set by district administrators. Item 4 is usually a standardized test
administered in the spring such as the SBAC (Robinson, 2011). The timing of evaluations
differs, and students may have to wait an entire school year before receiving results or
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 24
notification that they attained reclassification status. Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) expressed
that ELLs should be assessed frequently and reassigned to a level where their language needs are
at maximum potential. Additionally, having numerous criteria may create an organizational or
structural barrier for reclassification (Umansky et al., 2015). Barriers to reclassification mean
ELs will continue to be linguistically segregated, and students will go another school year
without receiving the same high-quality curriculum as their peers (Gandara & Orfield, 2010).
Barriers to language acquisition for ELs have been the focus of program advocates.
Currently, ELs are placed in a wide range of programs. The four most popular instructional
language programs are English immersion, dual immersion, maintenance, and transitional
bilingual education (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). While each program has basis in research,
each contains strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses have been played out in board rooms
and courtrooms to foster a competing ideology or program. Students in English immersion
programs plateau in fifth grade where students in bilingual education programs overtake and
continue to improve into high school (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). This is consistent with
English immersion advocates that state total immersion is fastest method to English proficiency.
Collier and Thomas (1989) pointed out academic language differs from basic language skills
used in everyday school life. As this discussion moves forward, the focus will be on the
students’ academic English needs. Dual immersion programs offer a biliteracy focus and long
term academic benefits; however, students in these programs take longer to achieve RFEP status.
Students in dual immersion programs take an average of one semester longer to reclassify, but
test 10 percentage points higher academically by 9
th
grade meeting grade-level requirements
(Umansky & Reardon, 2014). All these programs have their positive sides. Regardless of
program choice, EL reclassification has remained constant. According to research,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 25
approximately 40% of all ELs will reclassify to RFEP after 10 years. There is a wide discrepancy
among schools, districts, and states with regards to redesignation policies and practices (Parrish
et al., 2006). Barriers have been manifested in other domains aside from program of instruction.
English language learners must demonstrate a mastery of English and academics to prove
English proficiency. Academic criterion appears the largest blockade in reclassification of ELs.
This is particularly true from middle school onward (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). The academic
criterion has been debated as part of the reclassification process, but remains part of the exit
requirement. The California Department of Education lists that ELs must show proficiency on
an empirically established test and teacher evaluation, usually a grade or performance on a
district created academic assessment (California Department of Education, 2016f). Of the four
criteria for reclassification, two thresholds are academic in nature. Teacher evaluation can be
subjective depending on the cut points set by districts and the assessments used to demonstrate
proficiency. There is a need to look at teacher certification in reclassification of ELs and the
discrepancy between eligible for reclassification and actual reclassification (Umansky &
Reardon, 2014).
The classification criteria and exit criteria for EL designation are different (Parrish et al.,
2006). Hence, the measure used to place a student into a subgroup is not the same used to
release them to a full curriculum and English status. Historically, reclassified students perform
better than most of their counterparts. Thompson et al. (2012) noted to reclassify, students must
meet various language and academic demands, so RFEPs should be higher-scoring academic
performers. Academic barriers are not alone in preventing reclassification.
Barriers fall into two categories: manageable and fixed. Manageable items that may
influence the reclassification and academic performance of ELs are high stakes accountability
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 26
system, class size, and specific ELD standards (Parrish et al., 2006). These barriers are
influenced by legislation and administration and can be changed. Goldenberg and Coleman
(2010) found that students with culturally relevant curriculum perform better than diverse
students who only receive the majority-culture prescribed program. However, the academic
performance effect of having a teacher of similar culture to the majority students is not clear.
Research is not conclusive that having a culturally compatible teacher in the classroom increases
performance for ELs (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Some fixed items that are not controlled
by school personnel include attributes such as parental income, parent education, race, ethnicity,
and disabilities. All these attributes have shown to have an influence on the rate of second
language acquisition (Conger, 2009). Another fixed item that has shown to affect second
language acquisition is language proficiency in primary language upon entering school. Initial
proficiency in English or primary language are stronger determinates of reclassification than
language of instruction (Thompson et al., 2012). Barriers are present in the reclassification
process, research has not had time to discover how new requirements and implementation of
common core standards will affect ELs.
Reclassification is a major issue for ELs in access and equity of educational experiences.
Even though Thompson et al. (2012) warns that the designation RFEP itself may not lead to
higher academic achievement, it does not address the access issue. Recent studies have begun
addressing the issue of ELs who enter high school without establishing English proficiency
(Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Olsen, 2010; Robinson-Cimpian & Thompson, 2015).
Students who take 6 or more years to demonstrate English proficiency in accordance with
established district criteria are known as LTELs (Olsen, 2010). The phenomenon of LTELs has
been accentuated by the requirements of No Child Left Behind (Hakuta, 2014). Hakuta further
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 27
mentioned that tracking requirements and sanctions placed on ELs as a reportable subgroup
brought their plight to the forefront of school districts across the nation. As legislation and
programs changed, the positive effect for the EL population appears negated by equally
advanced scores by the dominant culture group. The performance gap between ELs and native
English speakers has remained relatively constant regardless of program or legislative act
(Parrish et al., 2006). Parrish et al (2006) adds to be cautious of comparing district redesignation
rates because they are attached to high-stakes accountability measures and variance in criteria for
redesignation. Although no one solution was found to benefit ELs succeed, these were some
school features noted by principals that support their success:
1. staff capacity to address EL needs;
2. schoolwide focus on English Language Development and standards-based instruction;
3. shared priorities and expectations in regard to educating ELs; and
4. systematic, ongoing assessment and data-driven decision-making.
These characteristics are important to keep in mind as the country has moved to common
standards. Common Core standards bring about an emphasis in problem-solving, collaboration,
communication, and critical-thinking skills (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016).
Language requirements for students to demonstrate academic proficiency have increased
(Hakuta, 2014). Collaboration mandates students exchange ideas and thoughts to solve problems
or discuss topics. ELs could benefit greatly by participating in language rich discussions. If ELs
are separated from native English speakers and scheduled low academic classes they may
continue to not meet the English proficiency criteria for reclassification (Umansky & Reardon,
2014). Common Core may become a barrier or a bridge to language acquisition and language
reclassification.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 28
Common Core and English Learners
Educational standards are the learning goals for what students should know and be able to
do at each grade level (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016). On the other hand,
curriculum is the methodology of instruction. Common Core is a set of educational goals for each
grade level. Common Core is the what will be taught in school, but not the how it will be delivered.
English-only policies have made promises of social acceptance and social mobility only to have
children segregated to inferior schools and classrooms with less opportunity (Wiley, 1998). The
latest implementation to challenge students, specifically language minority students, is Common
Core’s standards. Common Core standards were designed by parents, teachers, and experts to
prepare students for college and career (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016). The
standards were adopted by 48 states to ensure consistency in expectations from state to state and
grade level to grade level (Frequently asked, 2016). Hence, a third grader in Colorado would be
learning the same concepts as a third grader in Oregon. The standards apply to every student
regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, or special needs (Chief Council of
States, 2016; van Lier & Walqui, 2012). ELs and special needs students may need additional
supports in to access the content and assessments.
A significant aspect of Common Core State Standards is the integration of language
throughout all content areas. The mandate makes reading and writing a communal responsibility
within school projects, and teachers of all disciplines will be expected to participate in the
literacy development of their students (NCTE, 2011). Hakuta (2014) echoes this statement when
he expresses there must be recognition that Common Core standards assessment has increased
language demands for all students, especially second language learners. Linguistic demands of
ELs are vital to address since their status in school and society is dependent upon their
acquisition of the dominant language. Although ELs are identified as second language learners
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 29
by a language assessment, they are designated English proficient by both language and academic
assessments (Menken, 2008; Parrish et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2012).
Literature advocates that ELs participate in the full curriculum of school with support
while establishing English proficiency (Gandara & Orfield, 2010; Goldenberg, 2013; Goldenberg
& Coleman, 2010; Rubenstein-Avila & Fink, 2013; Umansky et al., 2015). EL status need not
be a barrier to full access of regular rigorous content, instruction, and interaction with English-
speaking peers (Olsen, 2010; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). ELs need opportunities to engage in
the content to challenge them both cognitively and linguistically (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
Common Core standards are the full rigorous content by which students are measured. Even
though this is what students need to be taught, Common Core does not prescribe how it should
be taught. States should focus monitoring to include that language does not exclude access to the
full comprehensible curriculum (Parrish et al., 2006). Access to full curriculum, opportunities to
practice literacy skills, and monitored progress are essential for ELs as they progress in the 21
st

century.
Access to the full curriculum was a highlight in the 1974 case Lau v Nichols. The court
stated that schools should teach ELs so that they have “a meaningful opportunity to participate in
the public educational program” (Lau v Nichols, 1974). The court furthered that placing students
in a room with the same textbooks was not equitable since the students did not understand the
language. The CCSS imply practice with academic vocabulary and informational text, and ELs
are currently not prepared due to the impoverished curriculum (Olson, Scarcella & Matuchniak,
2015). As CCSS implementation progresses, there appears a need to mitigate and define the
academic vocabulary needs of ELs.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 30
A key component of CCSS is the academic rigor students need to demonstrate on exams.
Academic vocabulary can isolate language learners from native speakers. Academic language
differs from basic language skills used in everyday school life (Collier & Thomas, 1989).
Academic English is described by Collier and Thomas (1989) as the “complex network of
language and cognitive skills and knowledge required across all content areas for eventual
successful academic performance at secondary and university levels of instruction” (p. 27).
Scholars are recognizing the academic language needs of non-native speakers. Standardized
assessments are designed to measure the academic progress of students, but, in turn, also
measure students’ academic language proficiency of (Menken, 2008). Language requirements
for students being evaluated have progressed from grammar and rules to a complex array of
synthesis and application. Language needs have migrated or added rules about grammar usage
along with discourse within content areas of schooling. (Hakuta, 2014; van Lier & Walqui,
2012). Daily language arts programs and national evaluations now require application of literacy
skills throughout all academic core content areas. The SBAC is one of two assessment consortia
adopted by Common Core states. The other program is Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers. The types of questions students are required to answer are dissimilar to
traditional multiple choice standardized tests. (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium) lists
the following types of question asked:
•
Selected-response items prompt students to select one or more responses for a
set of options.
•
Non-traditional response questions take advantage of computer-based
administration to assess a deeper understanding of content and skills than
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 31
would otherwise be possible with traditional item types. These kinds of
questions might include drag-and-drop, editing text, or drawing an object.
•

Constructed-response questions prompt students to produce a text or
numerical response in order to collect evidence about their knowledge or
understanding of a given assessment target.
•

Performance tasks measure a student’s ability to demonstrate critical-
thinking and problem-solving skills. Performance tasks challenge students
to apply their knowledge and skills to respond to complex real-world
problems. They can be best described as collections of questions and
activities that are coherently connected to a single theme or scenario.
These activities are meant to measure capacities such as depth of
understanding, writing and research skills, and complex analysis, which
cannot be adequately assessed with traditional assessment questions. The
performance tasks are taken on a computer (but are not computer
adaptive) and will take one to two class periods to complete.
The SBAC requires students to apply knowledge, think critically, collect evidence, show
deeper understanding, and select more than one solution to a problem. These skills require an
application of literacy that pose a problem to non-native speakers. Goldenberg and Coleman
(2010) shared that academic language should be emphasized and ELD instruction should help in
developing those opportunities for ELs. SBAC is the assessment tool for Common Core
standards in 14 states. Students who demonstrate proficiency at or above grade level mastered
the standards for their grade level. All students need English literacy to navigate and demonstrate
their knowledge on the SBAC. For ELs’ access to the full curriculum and opportunities to
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 32
practice vital skills and use academic vocabulary as part of the regular curriculum is vital to
demonstrating success on SBAC. The Council of Chief State School Officers (2016) suggested
that ELs may require additional time, instructional support, and aligned assessments as they
acquire both English language proficiency and content area knowledge. Time is relevant for ELs
to bridge acquiring English and learning content. By focusing on quality instruction and full
access, EL students could achieve higher linguistically and academically by the end of high
school (Umansky & Reardon, 2014).
Common Core is the curriculum, the what should be taught, but how to teach it is up to
LEAs. Most research and reports suggest a variety of scaffolding, primary language support, and
secondary language support to meet ELs academic needs (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2016; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Hill et al., 2014; Parrish et al., 2006). Common
Core calls for these language skills to be utilized in all content areas. Literacy is no longer
regulated to the English or ESL classroom. Language acquisition becomes a vital consideration
when discussing reclassification and its implications with Common core.
Language Acquisition
Reclassification of ELs is the process of language acquisition. Language acquisition
theory became prominent feature in bilingual education in the 1970’s with Cummings (1979;
1991) differentiating basic versus cognitive language and Krashen’s (1981) monitor model. The
basis of both models includes length of time to acquire a second language (L2) and approaches
that support language acquisition. Prominently, both authors expose a difference between
learning L2 to communicate orally for daily interaction and academic literacy. A key feature in
reclassification or English proficiency is demonstration of language ability in reading, writing,
comprehension, and speaking. Full English proficiency means being able to compete
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 33
academically with native English speakers (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Language acquisition
theories are not discussed in conjunction with language proficiency in state regulations in
reclassification of ELs.
Cummins (1979) distinguishes between academic and conversational language
proficiency into two categories: cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic
interpersonal communication skills (BICS). BICS is language in daily life, the playground, or
out and about the community. CALP is what is needed to interact academically with native
speaking peers. Krashen (1981) echoes that there are separate stages in language acquisition.
Krashen (1981) defines language learning as the result of being able to correct grammar and use
language for academics and language acquisition as the stage where the learner acquires enough
language naturally to communicate effectively in facets of life.
When learning a second language L2 oral abilities are demonstrated before writing or
reading. Thompson et al. (2012) found that most students attain speaking and listening
proficiency in 2 to 3 years. Oral proficiency was acquired in 2 to 5 years per Conger (2009) and
Hakuta (2000). Speaking and listening appear to be the first stages of language acquisition’s two-
part process. Language acquisition is a developmental process that can take between 5 and 10
years for the most advanced second language learners (Collier & Thomas, 1989). It appears to
be difficult to narrow down an exact time for language acquisition because of the multiple
affective variables contained by individual students. Conger (2009) found that there was no
definitive time line for full language acquisition in English.
Collier and Thomas (1989) found that it took more than 5 years for students to
demonstrate proficiency in reading exams. This follows Cummings (1979, 1991) assertion that
CALP is achieved in 5 to 7 years. Hakuta et al. (2000) reported academic language acquisition
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 34
takes 4 to 7 years. The earliest report shows students achieving proficiency on the CELDT in an
average of 3 years (Thompson et al., 2012). Reports and research confirm a time differential
demonstrating oral and academic language proficiency (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Conger, 2009;
Hakuta (2000); Hakuta et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 2012)
Second language proficiency arrives in stages. First, speaking and listening skills
mentioned in BICS or language acquisition are achieved. Next, language learners begin
developing comprehension, reading, and writing skills or CALPs and language learning. Many
variables exist when attempting to predict the length of time towards second language
proficiency, including time in country, age of entry, student education level, and fidelity of
program to mention a few (Conger, 2009; Gandara & Orfield, 2010; Thompson et al., 2012).
Fillmore (2014) noted that current reclassification policies seem to not coincide with language
acquisition theories.
Educational Policies
The Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 was constructed under
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s tenure to address the inequities in public education (ESEA, 1965;
Gandara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004; Thomas & Brady, 2005). The act’s goal was to service
disadvantaged and poor students and built the foundation for bilingual education. ESEA
identified the need of a group of students that did not have English as their first language.
Financial support was given to states and districts to address the needs of second language
learners. This need became formalized with the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. The Bilingual
Education Act, also known as Title VII of ESEA, was the first time the federal government
recognized that ELs required specialized instruction in order to access a full curriculum and that
could require primary language instruction (Gandara et al., 2004; Stewner-Manzanares, 1988)
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 35
In 1974, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau v Nichols furthered the plight of ELs. In
Lau v Nichols, a class-action lawsuit representing 1800 Chinese student was brought against the
San Francisco School District. The suit alleged students were not achieving academically since
they could not understand their English-speaking teachers (Brua, 2009; Lau v. Nichols, 1974).
Lau decision stated, “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the
same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum, for students who do not understand English
are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (p. 414) The Supreme Court’s
decision acknowledged the struggle of ELs in public educational settings and began legal
justification for mutlilingual education. Although LEAs knew they needed to address the needs
of ELs, Lau did not have any specific requirements identified to ensure LEAs adhered to the law.
Lau remained the litmus test until a 1981 ruling on Castaneda v Pickard by the Fifth District
Court of Appeals expanded the Lau rulings. The court created three guidelines for funds of EL
programs: a program must be based on sound educational theory, theory must be effectively
implemented, and it must produce results that it is working (Parrish et al., 2006).
The EL programing road was ever-developing and was criticized at various junctures
depending on political party and presidency. In the 1980’s, President Reagan called for an end to
bilingual education and stated it was a root cause of the country’s educational issues. Several
states tried to pass anti-bilingual education laws many were unsuccessful until California passed
proposition 227 in 1998 backed by multimillionaire Ron Unz who promoted an English-only
policy for schools citing that bilingual education failed due to the achievement gap and low EL
reclassification rates. Data on bilingual programs were misleading and, at times, evaluated
without an adequate time to truly analyze student outcomes (Gandara et al., 2004). Arizona later
followed suit by passing Proposition 203 which nearly mimics California’s proposition’s
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 36
language. The restrictions in the two propositions inherently eliminate bilingual education by
placing a 1-year reclassification goal and few exemptions.
The perils of ELs in the U.S. educational system continue. Arizona’s Proposition 203
and California’s Proposition 227 led to policies which eliminate bilingual education and
financially support English-only programs (Brua, 2009; Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Gandara &
Orfield, 2010; Rubenstein & Fink, 2013). There is no evidence that one approach is most
beneficial to helping ELs gain access to grade-level content (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
English-only advocates have been using reclassification data and standardized English test
performance as fodder to ignite multilingual education.
Arizona’s proposition places students in 4 hours of learning English classes. The last 2
hours are spent in other classes; however, master class scheduling dictates there are few options
for ELs at this point in the day, so many of them are placed in the same elective classes (Gandara
& Orfield, 2010). Anti-immigration sentiments in the country have promoted the English-
immersion philosophy. It is a distraction from actual instructional issues in dealing with second
language learners (Hakuta, 2014). Legislative debates often detract from the real issue of what is
working and how to best serve ELs (Parrish et al., 2006)
California’s Proposition 227 requires that students receive all instruction in English
(California Education Code, 1998). The exception is that newly arrived immigrant children or
beginning ELs are allotted 1 year to receive instruction in their primary language, after which
they should transition to receiving their content in English-only environments. Challenges with
immigrant educational policy continue to arise when research-based studies regarding language
acquisition, academic language, and conversational language are not integrated into educational
policies regarding immigrant students (Slama, 2012b). Most language acquisition theories
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 37
differentiate between the time it takes an individual to converse or think in a second language
(Cummins, 1991; Krashen, 1981; Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Hakuta, 2000). Because Proposition
227’s prescriptive approach failed to calculate the need of qualified teachers, appropriate
materials, and training it struggled to have the systematic effect for which it was written
(Gandara et al, 2000; Garcia, 2009). Gandara et al. (2000) stated that informed policy would
address the varying nature of implementation before handing out mandates.
Bilingual Education stood its ground when President Clinton renewed the Bilingual
Education Act as part of his Improving America’s School Plan (Mavrogordato, 2012). Language
became a covert casualty when George Bush renewed the ESEA in 2001 and implemented the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In 1994, Title VII goal reads “to help students develop
proficiency in English and to extent possible their native language” (Gandara et al., 2004, p.40).
President Bush’s 2001 Act devalues primary language by omitting the phrase “and to the extent
possible their native language”. Focus is placed on the acquisition of English as the primary and
only goal. NCLB regulations place high-stakes testing in English as the measure of school and
student success with steep yearly accountability measures culminating at 100% for all subgroups
and demographics. In effect, NCLB uses testing to enforce language policy (Menken, 2008).
NCLB highlighted and authenticated the needs of English language learners by identifying them
as a major subgroup when evaluating school and district proficiency (Parrish et al., 2006). ELs
are identified in two categories, Title I and Title III, to demonstrate academic and language
proficiency and progress. Title I involves meeting the academic needs of at-risk students to meet
state proficiencies, and Title III specifically addresses ELs and their needs in meeting state
academic proficiencies (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Barometers were labeled as
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Annual Provider Index (API). AYP is set by the state but
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 38
regulated by the federal government. Federal law says LEAs and states should set goals to meet
the needs of all students served under Title I, especially economically disadvantaged students
and ELs, ensuring they meet standards of proficiency. As part of AYP, California has annual
measurable achievement objectives (AMAO) which identify thresholds. One objective states
ELs must progress one level on the CELDT (Parrish et al., 2006). Title III API is a single
number between 200 and 1000 based on spring standardized testing. Scores are assigned to both
schools and districts and significant subgroups such as ELs and special education (Ed Data
Partnership, 2015). Between the AMAO requirements and emphasized reclassification
requirements of NCLB, redesignated students are often grouped with academically advanced
students (Thompson et al., 2012). AMAOs have also been used as the data points for program
evaluations and policies. AMAOs under Title III may show bias in favor of immersion programs
because it only measures growth for a year not over time (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). United
States Department of Education (2004) Title III defines section 3102 as follows:
SEC. 3102. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this part are —

(1) to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient, including
immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency, develop high levels of
academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic
content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected
to meet;
(2) to assist all limited English proficient children, including immigrant children
and youth, to achieve at high levels in the core academic subjects so that those
children can meet the same challenging State academic content and student
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 39
academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet, consistent
with section 1111(b)(1);
Immersion programs have shown to accelerate English oral acquisition in the first few
years, but have diminishing academic returns (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). Language programs
may continue to be debated but using English acquisition data continues to be a focus of federal
educational policies. As of September 16, 2016, a new system to replace API is in process but a
factor of the revised system still includes ELs’ progress as a portion of the evaluation system
(California Department of Education, 2016g; CCSSO, 2016).
On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed renewal of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and replaced NCLB with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The
Chief Council State School Officers (2016) issued a summary of effects regarding ESSA and
ELs. A major difference in new legislation is the transfer of Title III requirement to Title I.
Furthermore, AMAOs will be absorbed into a state accountability system that must include EL
progress in language acquisition. Once ELs reclassify to RFEP, their scores will continue to
count for the EL subgroup for 4 years and their progress tracked to ensure proper placement in
English-only classes without support. The CCSSO (2016) report questions ESSA lack of
percentage requirements to determine a subgroup or proficiency. ESSA says each state may
determine their barometer of proficiency and weight assigned each subgroup. Another facet of
ESSA is the creation of uniform reclassification process in each state (Department of Education,
2015). This will ensure every district is using the same criteria for ELs to reclassify to RFEP,
however state to state may vary. Exactly, what measures must be used were not stipulated, and
were to be determined by each state, yet English language proficiencies must still include
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 40
reading, writing, comprehension, and speaking as previously used in NCLB and be aligned to
English language arts content standards.
English Proficiency standards and subsequent assessments for reclassification continue to
be used for student scheduling, district and school accountability, educational policies, and
political platforms. Parrish et al (2006) cautions that, because of variable criteria, district
emphasis, and attached to accountability measures it is prudent to be cautious when comparing
districts or states. The performance gap between ELs and native English speakers has remained
relatively constant regardless of program or legislative act (Parrish et al., 2006). ELs have
become the focus of many interest groups and their plight or lack of academic success the basis
for legislation. One subgroup that has drawn attention is designated ELs who have been in the
United States educational system six years or more, known as LTELs (Olsen, 2010).
Long-Term English Learners
English learners have faced many adversities navigating the U.S. school system from
language barriers to social acceptance. A subgroup recently identified are students who have
been in the U.S. school system for 6 or more years yet fail to meet English language proficiency
criteria. This population of students has become known as LTELs (Olsen, 2010).
Reclassification allows ELs to change their label from EL to RFEP. These labels carry
both positive and negative effects for the student (Thompson, 2015). Thompson (2015)
additionally discovered that the labels had the greatest negative connotation in higher grades.
Elementary school ELD classes provided a positive experience as compared to a high school
setting. There was also a difference in ELD class designation versus sheltered class where
students were in mixed language groups. In secondary schools sheltered classes were seen in a
positive light versus ELD classes were homogeneous groupings occurred (Thompson, 2015).
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 41
LTELs are not students who lack language. Rather, they have multi language ability and learned
the skills necessary to simultaneously navigate various environments (Flores, Kleyn, & Menken,
2015). This perception does not yet seem to be the main viewpoint in K-12 school settings.
With the passage of ESSA (2015), the focus on ELs and, specifically, LTELs, has been
brought to the forefront of accountability systems, including the new LCAP which is tied to
funding distribution. The poor performance by second language learners on standardized tests
has perpetuated a need for specific data collection. Poor performance has been linked to a
variety of issues from socioeconomics to school conditions. Historically, research has shown
designated ELs receive inferior curriculum as compared to their English-only classmates (Kanno
& Kangas, 2014; Valdez, 2001). In school systems, general connotation of LTELs is their
linguistic deficiencies prohibit them from achieving at grade level standards (Flores et al., 2015).
This is relevant to notate as teacher recommendation is common criteria in LEA’s
reclassification process. Thompson et al. (2012) suggests that students identified as LTEL may
not only be stigmatized by external forces, but also by their own self-worth and ability.
School settings dictate much of a young person’s life, establishing social structures and
highlighting mores and folkways of society. Schools have created a vision of how to navigate
society and achieve the American Dream. Linguistically, after years of schooling that
accentuates English, students cannot see the wealth in their home language with the world of
academia (Flores et al., 2015). One idea to combat the negative perception of bilingualism is to
acknowledge multilingual literacy on diplomas and transcripts adding value to a student’s next
chapter whether career or college (Robles, 2010).
To facilitate changes with the school system, the decision-making entities need to agree,
construct, implement, and support such endeavors. Schools and district leadership provide the
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 42
conduit for stakeholders to address the needs of ELs (Robles, 2010). Robles (2010) furthered
that a cohesive plan should address the needs and fill the gaps of EL educational outcomes, and
all stakeholders from Kindergarten through adult school should be included. Building a cohesive
system is the objective within the educational community; however, LEAs often are obligated to
follow the direction of federal mandates and laws. The notion that the United States needs one
language to be united has fostered monolingualism (Flores et al., 2015). At times, society and
education have philosophical differences in the academic approaches used in schools. This
appears to project when discussing how to best educate multilingual students and is manifested
when politicians use reclassification data and standardized tests to foster their perspective and
solutions.
The brunt of ridicule hurled at LTELs is their inability to perform on standardized tests,
however, a language-deficient approach dominates classroom academic instruction and programs
(Flores et al., 2015). Current practices dictate that ELs be pulled from a general class to attend a
homogeneous class with similar language abilities using an isolated curriculum focused on
grammar and structure. Fillmore (2014) found that, for ELs to make language gains, they must
interact with text in academic contexts. Without these experiences, it cheapens academics and
furthers the achievement gap. At the secondary level, LTELs may have absorbed the epistemic
view that monoligualism and hard work dictates success in school (Flores et al., 2015).
However, it does not seem that language acquisition or learning theory were a dominant part
when EL policies were created (Fillmore, 2014). Only the negatives of bilingualism appear
academically while positives remain covertly tucked away. Socially, bilingualism is used as a
benefit to communicate thoughts, feelings, and points of view, but, in schools, it is viewed from
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 43
a deficit perspective (Flores et al., 2015). They further that students did not perceive the
importance of biliteracy because of its deficit nature in school settings.
LTELs embody the language-deficit thought process and lack of bilingual positivism.
The LTEL label may stigmatize students and contribute to their perpetual failure in
reclassification. Link and Phelan (2001) quantify stigma exists when people distinguish and
label human difference, dominant culture links group with undesirable characteristics, group is
placed in distinct category to separate us from them, and a group experiences status loss and
discrimination that leads to unequal outcomes. LTELs were originally labeled as LEP, which,
according the established school system, is not acceptable. After designation, students must
attend classes in accordance with their language ability. LTEL students are not allowed to attend
full course offerings compared to English-only students. Time interacting with dominant
language students is decreased and social status loss increases each year in the educational
system after year six as a designated EL. They are often excluded from the full curricular
schedule and opportunities to develop social capital with dominant culture classmates.
Social Capital, Organizational Culture, and Reclassification
Reclassification of English learners (EL)s can be observed from the social capital and
access perspective. Stanton-Salazar (1997) applies Bourdieu’s (1977, 1990) ideas by inserting
them to a school setting. Capital in economics can be exchanged for services, product, or
entrance to networks. Social Capital is cumulative, contains power to produce profit or benefits
in world, is convertible to other capital, and can be reproduced or expanded (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Social capital includes student relationships with school personnel, referred as
institutional agents, and networks that allow students to navigate policies and provide
opportunities for upward mobility in the social structures of society. The longer a student
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 44
remains classified as an EL past 5 years the greater a detrimental perception does that
designation weigh down a student (Hakuta et al., 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Organizational culture is defined as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was
learned by a group as it solved internal or external problems and was successful enough for the
group to continue this practice and teach new members (Schein, 2004). While looking at school
agency, it was imperative to add the lens of organizational culture. If the group valued agency,
then it would be evidenced in their speech, actions, mission, agendas. Schein (2006) calls for a
substantial amount of time in a group to fully understand its’ culture. Although this study did not
allow for the substantial amount of time it begins the process of gathering reasoning behind
decisions and looking at the organization of educational administration. Schein states that
leaders embed and promote culture in five criteria: What is payed attention to, measured, and
controlled; response in crisis; deliberate role-modeling, teaching, and coaching; criteria for
rewards and status; criteria for recruitment, retention, advancement, retirement, and
excommunication.
Borders and barriers splatter the educational life of an EL. Borders can be neutral or
obstructive. Borders exist to identify the justifications of participation in a place or setting
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Borders for ELs include being separated from English-only students
and classes that are rigorous and college-or career-preparatory. Whether these challenges are
being payed attention to and measured becomes an attribute of an LEA’s culture. Institutional
agents could discover passports to help alleviate and navigate the exclusivity in school.
School success is dependent on chances to interact with peers and educational agents
(Stanton-Salazar, 2011). ELs separated from their peers for extensive times without
opportunities to develop both peer and agent relationships are at a disadvantage. Structuring
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 45
master class schedules, creating district graduation requirements, and state laws and regulations
all contribute to barriers, bridges, and borders of EL education. Understanding how these are
emphasized in each LEA brings about a better perspective of success and failure to educate
minority students. Schein (2004) included that notion when he stated it is important to observe
how problems are solved and crises responded to. Stanton-Salazar (1997) contended that
unresolved organizational quirks are not fully resolved to manufacture social status quo and
school failure. Hence, the policies and procedures created at the national, state, and local levels
merit further investigation in how these policies and procedures help or hinder the development
of social structures. These structures were discussed by the terms inclusion and exclusion. How
leader’s beliefs and values lead to success or failure determine whether group members will
continue following the leadership (Schein, 2004). Investigating how structures are emphasized
by LEAs, and what goals each LEA hopes to achieve by enforcing said procedures, is imperative
in fostering social capital with minority students.
Cultural and linguistic knowledge could validate a student’s background; however
linguistic barometers are set to the dominant middle-class White community (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Leadership can directly model the expectations they wish to see within their
organizations to reinforce their values (Schein, 2006). Reclassification and English proficiency
dominate an ELs academic career while multilingualism holds a prominent position in society,
Multilanguage abilities are not held in the same regard within the school system. Menken (2008)
states how testing is used to mitigate language policy and ensure that native English is the
dominant force within schools and society.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) describes institutional support in terms of funds of knowledge.
These funds of knowledge include provision of funds of knowledge, bridging opportunities or
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 46
social networking, advocacy, role models, emotional and moral support, and feedback, advice,
and guidance. Schein (2004) and Stanton-Salazar (2010) find common ground with how
organizational support would look like to achieve outcomes of leadership. Ability grouping and
tracking may ensure that students never receive these supports because of their limited access to
grade-level curriculum, social interaction time with English speaking peers, and lack of efficacy
by school staff. Schein furthers the organizational aspect when in emphasizing that explicit
factors do not define the culture of an organization; it is also defined by phenomena below the
surface and within the subconscious of its members. Administration has rarely been asked their
perceptions and beliefs, and this lens adds a viewpoint to interview responses how quickly they
reply to the questions, what answers are quick and coming from the subconscious and which are
well thought out standard replies.
English learners are stigmatized as outsiders by their exclusion in general education
classes and language shaming. Linguistic capital includes the ability to decode advantageous
behaviors and exchanges with institutional agents that allow students to gain access to funds of
knowledge. Leadership is instrumental in creating positive cultures that value what second
language learners bring to learning environments. Social capital for ELs is necessitated to
navigate not only the school system but society as well. Entrance to careers and colleges require
not only academic knowledge but knowledge of the resources, including agents, to achieve these
goals. Institutional agent relationships become vital to the academic and social success of ELs.
Every outcome will be influenced by the degree to which leadership models, teaches, and
coaches others in developing these structures on school sites and throughout LEAs.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
English learners (EL)s have a long history in comprehensive public education. Language
can be both a barrier and a bridge in school and society. Certain languages can possess positive
capital in society, but English has dominated the U.S. educational system since its inception.
This study investigated the structures that guard access to the full curriculum for ELs. Once a
student is designated an EL, they must pass a series of language and academic assessments or
checkpoints re-designating them RFEP. Attaining language proficiency allows students to both
attain access to the full curriculum, socializing with English speaking peers, establishing
relationships, and building agency. The study added to the body of literature by investigating
what processes promoted or hindered reclassification and the perceptions of administrators who
govern policies and procedures for ELs regarding access and equity. This study answered three
questions:
1. How is the issue of ELL reclassification managed by an LEA in Southern California with
at least 800 English learners?
2. What organizational structures in Southern California LEAs, with at least 800 English
learners, exists that affect reclassification?
3. How do LEA officials in Southern California with at least 800 English learners describe
equity and access for ELs?
California has the highest rate of ELs in the nation at 22.7% (NCES, 2016). Los Angeles
County’s student population was noted at 22.6% ELs (Ed data, 2016). This was a qualitative
study began with an analysis of EL percentages and reclassification rates of LEAs from the state
of California Department of Education database. A quantitative approach was considered but
negated because it would provide only an analysis of who performs well per barometers set by
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 48
LEAs but leave room for deeper understanding of why decisions, choices, or philosophy led to
outcomes. A qualitative approach allowed the study to dig deeper into the whys but leave a hole
of how to measure what was a successful LEA or correlate reclassification rates to LEA
attributes. Many studies have looked at the success and failures of ELs (Goldenberg, 2013;
Hakuta, 2000; Linquati, 200; Slama, 2012a), but the factors or ideology of what supports or
prohibits EL success is minimal. The monumental effect is students who remain ELs after 5
years become known as LTELs (Olsen, 2010). Once a student is designated an LTEL, their
academic performance remains marginal compared to that of their reclassified peers and native
English-speaking classmates (Goldenberg, 2013; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Hill et al.,
2014). Studies have also looked at teacher and student perspectives but few have studied district
officials who often make the decisions. Reclassification is the passport that allows an EL access
to a full and rigorous curriculum. Additionally, this study shed light on aspects of student life
that are omitted without a reclassified status.
Sample and Population
Purposeful snowball sampling was used to create an optimal area to gather data regarding
ELs. The researcher continued seeking interviews until saturation was reached. Local education
agencies from Los Angeles County were selected based on an overall EL population of at least
800. Choosing LEAs with a larger EL population increased the credibility of LEA responses as
a problem of practice for that LEA. LEAs with a small percentage of ELs may not have brought
a broad policy, procedural, or philosophical need to address equity issues for ELs. We
understood that LEAs are charged with selecting reclassification criteria after the initial
assessment. Also, a district administrator must sign off that all criteria is met for reclassification
to occur. This study focused on the perspective of administrators charged with EL
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 49
reclassification. Most studies have focused on academic achievement or self-efficacy. This study
investigated the organization and those in charge of the reclassification process, solicited their
perceptions regarding ELs. The focus was how organizations and leadership affect
reclassification of ELs and access to curriculum and agency.
Instrumentation
The study began with an analysis of EL data available on the California Department of
Education website. Reclassification rates, percentage of LTELs, and total population were
investigated to determine any emerging patterns or questions to add to interview questions.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to both compare results between LEAs and
investigate phenomena regarding policies, procedures, and beliefs about ELs. The goal was to
gather specific comparable data from each LEA and lead into more open-ended questions
regarding procedures and beliefs. Most of the interview was a non-sequential list of flexible
questions to be explored (Merriam, 2009). LEA documents regarding EL reclassification and
course placement were reviewed to corroborate information gathered across multiple LEAs.
Social capital is the collective value of all social networks and the amount of reciprocity,
engagement, and interaction that is involved in maintaining them (Hanifan, 1916). Stanton-
Salazar (2011) furthered the concept of social capital by adding social capital has resources and
key forms of institutional support embedded in hierarchical structures found in formal
institutions such as schools. Social capital dispersed by decision-making institutional agents
such as administrators will be a focus of this research.
Organizational culture was described as the climate and practices that organizations
develop around their handling of people, or to the espoused values and credo of an organization
(Schein, 2006). Values of administrators charged with the guarding the education vulnerable
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 50
populations such as ELs was focused through interview questions. A major component of
deciphering culture comes by investigating what or who receives attention and gets ignored.
These are clear signals that the interview hopes to uncover shedding light on ELs journey.
Table 1
Research and Interview Question Alignment
Research Question Protocol Significance Interview Question
How is the issue of
ELL reclassification
managed by an LEA in
Southern California
with at least 800
English learners?
State document
review
Local Document
review
Interviews
Establish base lines and
criteria to compare and
contrast
LEA/reclassification
1, 2
What organizational
structures in Southern
California LEAs, with
at least 800 English
learners, exists that
affect reclassification?
Local Document
Review
Interviews
Identify processes and
procedures
administrators perceive
to affect ELs.
Triangulate findings with
documents.
3, 4, 5, 8
How do district
officials in Southern
California with at least
800 English learners
describe equity and
access for ELs?
Interviews
LEA Document
Review
Develop rich and
thorough understanding
of institutional agent
perspective of equity and
access in their LEA. This
includes access to full
curriculum, common
core.
4, 6, 7, 8

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 51

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Federal Laws
Every Student Succeeds Act
State Legislation
Propositions, Ed Code
Local Education Agencies
Board Policies, Programs,
Agendas, District Coordinator
Site Administration
EL Administrator
Demonstrated English
Language Proficiency
Access to full curriculum,
college, and career courses
Reclassification
Criteria:
CELDT
Plus 3 data
points
Modified
Curriculum; ELD
Conceptual Framework
Policy, Procedures, Belief and Access for English Learners
Not Passed
Passed
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 52
Data Collection
Data collected came from state EL data, interviews with district administrators, site
administrators or other personnel identified by initial administrator during the first round of
interviews, and board policies, district documents, and local meeting agendas. Interview
questions varied between perceptions of ELs and policies within agencies. Beginning questions
were constructed to develop rapport and acquire factual data regarding the LEAs specific
population.
Calls and emails were sent out to LEA administrators charged with EL responsibilities
via recommendations of another administrator. These agencies were purposefully selected
because the percentage of ELs was greater than ten and they had average to above average
reclassification rates. Interviews were conducted in person and by phone, recorded, and
transcribed for analysis over an 8-week window. During the interview, documents were
requested when it helped corroborate an item brought up during the interviews. Questions were
grouped by categories. Questions began with basic information such as title of position, length
of employment, and reclassification procedures. Next group of questions asks about
reclassification and ELs. This set began with procedures then lead to perceptions of successful
ELs. It concluded with questions regarding administrators’ expectations and the availability of
agency. The question set then shifted to organizational structures that support ELs and asks
specifically about LTELs. Additional open-ended questions were asked ending with
recommendations of another individual to be interviewed because of their knowledge or
involvement with ELs.
All subjects were made aware of the anonymity involved by their participation in this
study. Additionally, they were allotted an opportunity to stop the interview or remove
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 53
themselves from the study at any point. Each gave permission for the interview to be recorded
for future transcription and analysis.
Data Analysis
Three questions guided this research:
1. How is the issue of ELL reclassification managed by an LEA in Southern California with
at least 800 English learners?
2. What organizational structures in Southern California LEAs, with at least 800 English
learners, exists that affect reclassification?
3. How do LEA officials in Southern California with at least 800 English learners describe
equity and access for ELs?
Beginning analysis was conducted on available California data regarding ELs. Common
data points for all LEAs was overall reclassification rates for the last three years, percentage of
ELs, and total number of ELs.
Data was analyzed using Creswell’s (2014) six steps for data analysis in research. First,
all interviews were transcribed, documents gathered, and state data downloaded. Second, all
data and interviews were read while notating emerging ideas. Notations were made regarding
credibility of information and a notebook was created to track impressions. Next, interviews
were transcribed using Rev.com and stored and searched using the NVivo software program.
Fourth, coding was completed using constant comparative analysis (Corbin and Strauss, 2014) of
open coding, axial coding, and, finally selective coding. Then, themes were developed using the
findings in narrative form. Lastly, results were expressed from both an organizational and social
capital perspective. The story of ELs is an important one. Findings were explicit to further their
story and develop institutional supports and expose identified barriers.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 54
Limitations and Delimitations
Even though the research is built to garner as much information regarding ELs it still had
limitations including time, participants, and size. Time was an issue, as each interview took
place during the 2016-17 school year and was not influenced by changing legislation such as
Proposition 58. Had the study spanned multiple consecutive years, conclusions might have been
more robust. The sample size was only LEAs in Southern California with EL populations
greater than 10% or more than 800 ELs, and average or greater reclassification rates. A random
sample would have made generalizing findings easier. The study was only conducted in a high
EL region of east Los Angeles County. A larger sample size may allow for richer information
and a greater number of themes. By omitting surveys, the volume of contacts was diminished.
Interviews were interpreted by researcher and was self-reported data, limiting the findings to the
researcher’s perspective. The researcher was raised by English learning parents who shared their
experiences of reclassification and second language acquisition in schools. These stories may
have influenced the findings and answers given during analysis. Finally, even with the shield of
anonymity, the sensitive nature of assisting students and possible language biases may have been
too uncomfortable for administrators to answer truthfully.
Despite the researcher’s high aspirations, the study was constrained by several factors.
First, only LEAs with a substantial (greater than 10%) EL population, greater than 800 ELs, were
considered. In search of policies, procedures, borders, and barriers the researcher contended that
unless an LEA had a vested interest in a subgroup, administration may not invest more than
minimally required resources. Therefore, LEAs with less than 800 ELs in their system were not
interviewed. Also, participants were only administrators involved in the decision-making
process. Students, teachers, and parents are the recipients of decisions made regarding language
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 55
acquisition and ELs, but they were not solicited for their perspective. Literature is robust with
outcome (student achievement) perspective but rarely looks at the input (policies) component.
Lastly, the study did not include surveys. Since the research questions asked about reasons
behind policies and procedures, interviews were the only method that allowed for depth of
questioning depending on the response. The researcher noted changes in tone or body language
given certain questions. Noting physical reactions is not feasible in a survey format.
The qualitative study looked at the policies, perceptions, and beliefs of seven LEA
administrators in east Los Angeles county with more than 10 percent ELs in their organizations.
Over an 8-week window, semi-structured interviews were conducted and corresponding
documents and policies were added to the data collection. Member checks were conducted to
clarify responses and confirm themes. Data was analyzed by coding and creating themes using
Cresswell’s (2007) six steps to data analysis. NVivo software was used to organize data and
verify themes. The study is limited by time, number of participants, type of instrumentation,
geographic region, and researcher’s personal bias. The study did not address LEAs with less
than 10 percent ELs or solicit the viewpoints of parents, teachers, or students. The next chapter
will discuss the research study findings.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 56
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitative study was to garner the perceptions and beliefs that guide
Local Educational Agencies (LEA) and the treatment of English learners (EL)s reclassifying to
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). Two theories emerged as research began; both
social capital and organizational culture became prominent factors when discussing the
complexities of agencies and a marginalized group such as ELs. The power invested in school-
based agents is their capacity to initiate and foster the development of proper dispositions and
motivational dynamics (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). All participants were district administrative
officials charged with supervising EL policies and implementation. Although officials may be
advisory in some capacities, it is often their committees that influence local boards of education
decision and policy. Thus, the organizational component arose from those beginnings. Within
the interviews, it became apparent that decisions were often guided by state funding, board
priorities. Schein (2006) states other powerful signals that subordinates interpret for evidence of
the leader's assumptions are what they observe as eliciting a reaction.
The qualitative method was used to investigate the perceptions of district administrators
who supervise the policies of ELs within their local agencies. In addition to reclassification
criteria, administrators were interviewed to observe their vocal tones and body language when
asked about personal beliefs. Additionally, every LEA has a district English learner advisory
committee (DELAC) designed to advise district officials on issues regarding ELs. DELAC has
formal meetings and minutes. The minutes were used to corroborate said beliefs and policies
within districts. All documentation was uploaded to the NVivo software program to organize
and help identify patterns. Themes were developed and used to answer the research questions.
Rich descriptions were provided by using quotes from participants and documents.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 57
Research Questions
This study was designed to garner the policies, perceptions, and beliefs that guide local
educational agencies with at least 800 ELs. Three research questions were addressed to further
understand the policies, procedures, and beliefs that affect EL reclassification:
1. How is the issue of ELL reclassification managed by an LEA in Southern California with
at least 800 English learners?
2. What organizational structures in Southern California LEAs, with at least 800 English
learners, exists that affect reclassification?
3. How do LEA officials in Southern California with at least 800 English learners describe
equity and access for ELs?
Proceeding all the data collected and analyzed, structural and observational elements
aided in identifying common themes among participants and corresponding documentation. Data
analysis proceeded as described in Chapter Three.
The research pertained to the policies, procedures, and beliefs of LEAs and the
administrators who supervise the area and its implementation. To fully understand their points
of view, rich descriptions were noted when analyzing interviews and documents.
Participants
Seven district administrators volunteered to be interviewed and participate in the study.
The first administrator started the interview process. Permission was secured from the district
superintendent and subsequent administrator. The first administrator suggested several other
area personnel to interview, which allowed for participant recruitment through snowball
sampling. Each subsequent administrator referred the next administrator or school district until
resources were exhausted and data saturated.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 58
Table 2
Participants by Position
Name Position EL in Job Title
Mr. Bravo Director
Mr. Charles Director
Mr. Davis Program Administrator X
Mr. Edwards Director
Mr. Fuller Assistant Superintendent
Mr. Graham Curriculum Coordinator
Mr. Murphy Director X
X denotes English learner in job title
Data Collection
The research began by researching all districts in east Los Angeles County. Afterwards,
district data at the California Department of Education website were reviewed by running a
query of EL populations. Next, each of those districts was listed on a spreadsheet noting the
percentage of ELs in the district, total population of ELs, total population of students, and
reclassification rate the last 3 years. A phone call was made to the first district asking for
institutional review board approval to begin the research in the district. There was no
institutional review board for that district, and the decision was that of the superintendent. An
email was sent to the superintendent requesting permission to begin the study in that district.
After a personal meeting and review of the proposal permission was granted. I met with the
director responsible for EL reclassification and conducted the first semi-structured interview. At
the end of the interview a request was made for referrals to other directors responsible for
English language acquisition. The responses during the interview were transcribed, and rich
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 59
notations were added to identify any change in vocal patterns or body language for difficult
questions. Two sets of documents were added per district, board policy and DELAC minutes.
These two entities were consistent across all districts. Data were then added to the NVivo
software program to organize and assist in queries and confirm trends and themes. All responses
were coded and themes were developed under each research question utilizing Cresswell’s
structures.
Results for Research Question One.
Research Question One was designed and determined how LEAs facilitated EL
reclassification. Upon completion of data analysis, three themes were apparent: board of
education, subjectivity, and manipulations.
Board of Education
Throughout each interview, the finality of the LEA’s board of education was a primary
response. In responding to who determines the reclassification criteria for your district, without
hesitation, many administrators pointed to the responsibility at the local board. Administrator
Charles stated, “It’s in our board policy and master plan”. Administrator Murphy added, “The
reclassification criteria is really determined by the board. There is board policy that is actually
establishing the reclassification criteria.”
While five administrators quickly pointed to the school board, two others began with a
collaborative effort but eventually deferred all the findings and recommendations to board
approval as well. Administrator Graham said,
that's taken to a committee and it is articulated through an EL plan, a master plan, and so
teachers give input as well as administrators. And then it does eventually go through to
cabinet, and through to our board to be approved.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 60
Even the most collaborative of districts mentioned the finality of the board. Administrator
Fuller’s enthusiastic response given the amount of collaborative work that was begun the
previous year, was,
A committee ... This year we actually revised our reclassification criteria and I formed a
committee with all the stakeholders. We had representation from teachers, administrators,
special education. After we revised the criteria, I then took it to DELAC so we could
have their input. Then we moved forward from there [referring to board approval].
Each administrator mentioned at some point the need to consult state guidelines and
accountability measures when constructing reclassification criteria. How each district was being
graded was a prevalent concern amongst the administrators. Administrator Murphy mentioned,
“As the accountability rules have changed, some of the guidances have actually changed because
we've had different accountability measures that would determine whether a student is eligible
for reclassification”. Administrator Davis continued that sentiment in stating, “Reclassification
is a collaboration between departments. My office usually begins the process and base it on
what the state provides us and then what is our interpretation of those things.”
The state of California provided guidelines. These guidelines are what local educational
agencies use to create their requirements and boards of education approve. The guidelines are
direct with subjectivity available at each guideline. State of California education code states,
(f) The reclassification procedures developed by the department shall utilize multiple
criteria in determining whether to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English, including,
but not limited to, all of the following:
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 61
(1) Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument,
including, but not limited to, the English language development test that is developed or
acquired pursuant to Section 60810.
(2) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pupil’s curriculum
mastery.
(3) Parental opinion and consultation.
(4) Comparison of the performance of the pupil in basic skills against an empirically
established range of performance in basic skills based upon the performance of English
proficient pupils of the same age, that demonstrates whether the pupil is sufficiently
proficient in English to participate effectively in a curriculum designed for pupils of the
same age whose native language is English (Section 313).
LEAs are subject to and utilize state guidelines to create the reclassification criteria.
Individual districts may adopt any assessments as criteria that meets those guidelines. The
amount of stakeholder involvement in choosing data points also varies between agencies.
Subjectivity
State requirements guide the LEAs and provide a frame, but they also foster subjectivity
and variance found throughout the state, which were only recently addressed by lawmakers. In
meeting the reclassification criterion, local administrators mentioned this as a possible stumbling
block to both access and reclassification.
Requirement 1 has long been established as the CELDT. The cut points are consistent
across the state that ELs must score a minimum overall rating of Early Advanced with no sub
test score lower than an Intermediate. Requirement 2 is teacher evaluation. Evaluation of a
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 62
student is subjective to the criteria used to make classroom assessment. When asked which data
point was most difficult for ELs to attain Administrator Bravo said,
The criteria states that you have to have teacher input about English language arts
mastery, or mastery in English language arts. It doesn't say what kind of evidence, it just
says evidence. So, if you're looking at grades, what populated that grade?
Evidence used by teachers to recommend reclassification is not consistent even within a school.
Normal class categories such as participation, effort, and attendance do not attest to a student’s
language ability but are often used in calculating grades, which is the main evidence referred to
by classroom teachers.
Requirement 3 requires parental participation in the process of reclassification. What is
not explained is the extent at which parents are an integral part of the EL’s journey to English
proficiency. This requirement varied between agencies. Mr. Murphy’s district showed DELAC
minutes reporting what was going on in their school but no agenda items specifically set a
protocol of how parents should receive or participate in the reclassification process. One school
stated, “En la junta ELAC del día 20 de enero los padres recibieron información sobre el examen
CELDT” (In the ELAC meeting on January 20
th
, parents received information about the CELDT
test). Another site reported, “El día 4 de febrero se llevará a cabo la junta ELAC en la cual se
hablará sobre los reportes del examen CELDT y cómo entenderlos major” (On February 4
th
, an
ELAC meeting will take place in which the CELDT reports will be discussed and how to better
understand them). The components of reclassification were obvious and a parent knowledge of a
process existed.
The requirements to share information about reclassification criteria exists, but it is
unclear whether parents understand the importance of their involvement in the process. This is
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 63
contradicted in administrator Charles’ district where DELAC minutes pointed to a uniform
slideshow presentation of how students reclassify. The introduction can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. An example of title slide presented to parents teaching about procedures to reclassify
ELs (Anonymous, 2017).

It was unclear whether this presentation was mandatory within a time period, but the
specificity of requirements was also available on the district’s website if parents could not attend
a meeting. Parental knowledge was subjective to the district’s requirements and director’s
preference or time to disseminate information, as most administrators held multiple titles and
included ELs as part of their responsibilities.
Subjectivity bled into many aspects when discussing reclassification and the requirements
enforced by agencies only cities apart. The last requirement, empirical test to compare ELs with
English-only students created difficulty for several districts. Districts were challenged by the
implementation of a new state test SBAC or CAASPP. This new test is not given at every grade
level and only this year was validated with scores. Administrator Charles summed this point by
saying,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 64
Because of the fact that we have a new SBAC test, we've been very open for the past two
years in terms of establishing cut points... Because of SBAC and it not being
standardized, we're not standardizing yet what our reclassification criteria is.
Various districts were apt to create cut points and use the new standardized test while others
were more apprehensive at using a new criterion test without history. Both administrators
Edwards and Graham said, “Of course we use the CAASPP as well” when asked what data
points were used for reclassification. The fact that tests can be included or excluded led several
administrators to mention the possible manipulation of reclassification numbers.
Manipulation
Included and excluded criterion tests were mentioned at several junctions. The
manipulative possibilities were mentioned not only in reclassification criteria, but also as a
matter of equity to be discussed later in the results section. Basically, LEAs set their own cut
points, the point at which an EL establishes a reasonable level of proficiency in accordance with
state guidelines. When discussing cut points, data points, and reclassification, Administrator
Charles said, “If we were to go this route are we going to eliminate too many children, or are we
going to include some kids who aren't really ready? So, then we go through and sort it out.” The
number of ELs who will or will not reclassify will openly be discussed when LEAs are
negotiating cut points for criterion tests or district benchmarks. Administrator Fuller was explicit
with this point when he offered this factoid:
I've had the experience in the past in my former district. When we were using the CST
and we had a cut point of, I believe it was 330, and we lowered it to 300 one year and our
reclassification rate jumped from about 11% or 12% up to 16%. The board and everyone
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 65
commended us what a great job we're doing reclassifying students. We were just doing a
phenomenal job because look how much higher the reclassification rate is.
Scores and reclassification could be manipulated by LEAs. Administrators are aware of the
ramifications involved when criterion are manipulated. Many administrators adhere to research
practices that include evaluation of practices using data to evaluate changes in testing and how it
affects students in both the short and long term. Mr. Fuller offered this tidbit in light of his
earlier response:
What we did the following year, though, is we had a research evaluation department and
we did a study of all those reclassified ELs, the RFEPs and did a D and F analysis. The
point of looking at those who would have reclassified at 330 and above versus that group
that reclassified because we lowered it to 300. We saw that there was a preponderance of
Ds and Fs. So, we reclassified these students but we hadn't prepared them to be
successful.
Administrators are cognizant of changes that are made and that it has a both long lasting and
possible academic effects. They see the ramifications that come with early or delayed
reclassification. They are the guiding unit for many school boards to best policies and practices
for ELs. Schein (2010) stresses how deliberate modeling of procedures and how problems are
addressed demonstrate to subordinates and others the values being cherished by management.
By showing staff and boards that changing cut points or the use of data points will not be
arbitrarily in the student’s best interest. The organizational structures that need to change or be
supported are vital to the success of minority populations in schools. The decisions made at the
top levels affect staff and students.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 66
Results for Research Question Two.
Research Question Two was developed to measure how organizations were setting
themselves up to support ELs in their acquisition of English. After reading through all data
available three themes emerged: program implementation, human resources, and data analysis.
Program Implementation
When investigating how organizational structures were supporting ELs, all administrators
mentioned variation in program implementation as the first line and cornerstone of support for
ELs. This was heard in each interview and was apparent in district documents reviewed.
Program implementation was alluded to and found in board policy, as cited by several
administrators, as the rationale for beginning with this resource. A major component of title I
funds, ELD is the name of the expectant standard named by the state of California when
discussing language acquisition. School board policies reflect that requirement. For example,
one district’s board policy states,
English learners shall be provided English language development instruction targeted to
their English proficiency level and aligned with the state content standards and
curriculum framework. The district's program shall be based on sound instructional
theory, use standards-aligned instructional materials, and assist students in accessing the
full educational program.
ELD is the first support system referred by administrators. Programs were overwhelmingly the
topics when the question asked what support the district offered ELs. As administrator Charles
said, “The first thing, obviously, is ELD, but that's a requirement that we have to do regardless.
We have English Language Development classes by grade level and also by ELD level.”
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 67
Administrator Fuller said, “Obviously, with our English learners, we have our integrated and
designated ELD support.”
Program implementation was paramount in serving EL’s acquisition of English and
subsequent reclassification. Many district personnel mentioned adding computer-based software
as a method to maximize language acquisition time. The programs were prominent in each
district’s EL support master plan. Administrator Edwards talks about his district’s use of a
popular language software when he mentioned,
We also have Rosetta Stone and we use it not probably as good as we can. We're really
looking at that and are we utilizing it. I know that some schools will use it for after school
intervention and some just used it during the day.
Computerized programs seemed to bridge an instructional time gap during the school day for
ELs. Urgency to both expose ELs to the English language and reclassify them have districts
looking at minimally teacher dependent approaches. Categorical funding designated to assist
ELs in their journey are readily visible in all district LCAP funds. The comment was echoed
throughout several districts about the importance of these individualized programs.
Administrator Davis talked of how the software program helps students compete with
other students linguistically. He stated,
We say that English learners are a focused group of students and we've been working a
lot of different ways, and one of these things we brought in right when we got out of
LCAP was AVID Excel. So, it's hugely heavy on language coaching and language
demands that the students will face, and then the hope is that they will continue with
AVID as they get into the high school but with that process of saying you right now need
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 68
that language coaching, and then you can compete with everybody, so kind of building
that pathway to career and college ready.
Almost all district administrators mentioned having a computer software program as part of their
support for EL success. It was highlighted in Administrator Murphy’s statements when
discussing the fidelity to the computer program versus extracurricular activities students must
choose. Mr. Murphy said,
We have an after-school program that's being delivered. It's a computerized literacy
program, i-Ready. Yesterday I went to go visit one of the schools and of course track
season has begun. They're telling me, they're saying...They're getting four hours a week,
but they're telling me that the students cannot attend the entire period because they've got
to go to track. I'm saying, these are students that are two years or more below grade level.
I'm actually saying, "I think track is important. I'm not minimizing track. However, the
opportunity for them to get this program is going to close. They won't have this
opportunity. This window's going to close." I've said, "I think they're going to have to
make some choices.” I'm saying, “Okay, I think we're going to have to make some
choices here, in terms of time.”
Computer programs play a vital role in many district support systems for ELs. There is a time
game that is played in the organization as there are finite instructional minutes per day. Staff
members struggle with finding the right combination and allocation of resources to meet the
individual needs of second language learners. Staffing is another form of support. The people
side of education was mentioned when support systems were discussed.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 69
Human Resources
After the what was involved in organizational supports, it was the who that was answered
as bridges to EL academic success. Bridges were parents, paraprofessionals, and certificated
staff. Districts are battling for monetary resources to support many programs, but EL funding
has been around for decades and is rooted in many district and site-based programs. One staple
is the use of bilingual instructional aides. When asked about supports Administrator Fuller
added, “We also have English learner program aides that help us, throughout the district, who are
bilingual.” This appeared to happen in each district but with aides having varied responsibilities
such as translators, small group facilitators, and community liaisons. Stanton-Salazar (2011)
defined social capital as key resources embedded in organizational structures to further minority
populations in accessing equivalent opportunities. The amount and quality of interaction
between aides and students was not clearly stipulated in responses. The use of liaisons was
highlighted by Administrator Edwards when asked about LTEL supports. He said,
We work with an EL liaison team and we really focused the last couple of years on
instructional strategies, specifically two things. One, engagement to really kind of really
raise the level of engagement for EL specific LTELs. So, we brought in a consultant as
well worked with us, well, worked with me and our EL liaison committee. [The
consultant] did demo lessons at all levels, elementary middle and high. Walked through
classrooms with this committee, you know, really looking at the instructional practices
and how we can create more engagement with our ELs.
The EL liaison team was trained on instructional strategies designed to create engagement with
ELs. Teams of educators both paraprofessionals and certificated staff are currently being
brought together as part of the solution to EL language acquisition and academic proficiency.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 70
The efforts stretch beyond these broad structures when appropriate. Districts are becoming
explicit how they conduct trainings and workshops. Mr. Charles was excited when discussing the
differentiated trainings available to staff. He said,
District-wide at the secondary level from 7th through 12th grade, we meet regularly to do
training so this is all our ELD teachers in the district from 7th grade to 12th grade. We
meet regularly to provide training and then we monitor the students, how the students are
doing, through the ELD portfolio. We have a ELD portfolio with the standards that we
use.
All efforts have not stopped at the staff level as districts are also looking to parents to become
more involved in their children’s educational journey. The CELDT test will be transitioning to
the ELPAC in 2017-18 school year. This shift is major in respect that it is a new language
assessment key in the reclassification process. The test has also been described as more rigorous
by several EL administrators. In addressing this change Administrator Fuller gave as an example
this scenario:
For example, at each one of our schools, we do a parent education workshop on the
CELDT so they understand it. We will be doing workshops when we transition into the
ELPAC. All of the staff that works with English learners, for example went to the
ELPAC training in Palmdale a couple months ago.
The transmission of information and willingness to include all stakeholders in the process is
found in every site’s master plan and DELAC minutes and agendas. One district’s DELAC
minutes included the following items:
a. Elementary School 1 - more hours and/or support staff for English Learner program
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 71
b. Elementary School 2 - need dedicated space/rooms for Response to Intervention and
ELD
c. Elementary School 3 - needs to improve marketing of events, i.e. structured phone
bank
d. Elementary School 4 - shared concern about volunteers translating site newsletter if
sites have money for translation services
e. High School 1 - needs additional support staff for ELD students who have special
needs
f. Elementary School 5 - Immigrant parents need help understanding acclimation to the
USD and the types of programs to get involved in, and ways to donate. Need to know
how money is being used as that is not reported back to parents
g. All sites-more tech support, more computers
h. All sites-consider stipends for academic programs
iii. Parent/Community Survey ideas
Parent suggestions for survey:
1. What is your preferred communication style in receiving messages from school/district
to home?
a. We Chat
b. Text messaging
c. Phone messages/Teleparent
2. What extra-curriculum courses (i.e. swimming, vocational education) would you like
to see?
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 72
3. How can the site assist your senior with better awareness for college financial aid and
the personal statement?
The building blocks of communication are evident throughout minutes and agendas. Not evident
is how that information is received to influence meaningful instructional change. There is a
balance of school needs versus instructional practices and language fluency supports. However,
how that information gets disseminated to all parents is subjective to the policies of each school
district. Leadership plays an important role in what is valued. Schein (2010) writes that, by
forcing subordinates to focus on certain issues in a certain way, leaders can get across their own
view of how to look at problems. How deeply each of these parent focus groups will take the
information garnered and discussed at district level meetings was proportionate to the
requirements and accountability set forth by lead administrator.
Data Analysis
Conducting analysis and portraying the results to staff is a powerful way to convey
beliefs by what elicits a reaction and what does not receive attention (Schein, 2010). Many
districts showed signs of using data analysis as an instigator and motivator to push the plight of
ELs in their district. Some administrators used this method as their way to demonstrate to school
sites what needed to be done for ELs. This became apparent when asked about supports and how
any testing discrepancies for ELs were communicated to school sites and practitioners.
Administrator Murphy stated,
Basically, at a district level we don't handle any discrepancies by subgroups. My role is
basically that of an advisor to the principals. In the sense of providing them with data,
signaling the trends that their schools have. Guiding them through the evaluation of their
site plan, of their school plan so that they can see.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 73
Data can be motivation in conveying the priorities of the organization. Districts are empowering
sites to analyze student performance using a plethora of measures. Districts are still keeping tabs
on the type of analysis, data, and ramifications to address areas of need and challenge.
Administrator Davis says,
We do a lot of analysis district-wide and then they do their own site-wide analyses
because we're a big system. And then start to say, what is our data saying to us and then
do we have other pieces of data that support that same information?
When the data is being looked at by upper administration, then subordinates will begin to adhere
to the protocols valued by the top. Administrator Davis continued this by saying,
We don't say you can't do things, and we also don't say here's what you have to do unless
certain particular groups of students where we're saying, you know, you've got fourth
graders who are still reading at kindergarten level. Here's the things we're now saying you
need to do. You need to start implementing these things. So, we definitely do analyze
and come up with solutions.
Districts are beginning to lead school sites by making data tools and numbers available to them,
but with the understanding that if marginal groups academic deficiencies are not being addressed
you will be directed to find a solution and demonstrate progress. Data analysis has become a
mainstay in addressing special populations. Administrator Fuller brings this point by offering
this point about support for ELs, “The other thing that's not really a physical person type of
support, but the fact that we're constantly reviewing our data to look at how are the LTELs
doing, what is our reclassification rate, how are students performing.”
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 74
Most administrators recognize analysis is a support system for populations,
organizational change, and for setting priorities as a part of regular processes. LEAs are building
a basic pattern of how problems are solved (Schein, 2006).
Results for Research Question Three
Research Question Three was designed to elicit the personal views of high-level district
administrators regarding access, equity, and LTELS. All interviews were thoroughly read
numerous times to develop themes that convey the perceptions and beliefs of school personnel.
The following themes represent their beliefs: college acceptance, parent knowledge, shared
responsibility, and equity
College Acceptance
When the topics of equity, access, and success was brought into the conversation, each
administrator was asked for an example of an EL success story. Six out of seven administrators
recounted a story or situation where the EL student redesignated and achieved academic success
as measured by college acceptance. Schein (2006) explains how stories and myths within an
organization convey the culture of an organization. Administrator Murphy described his success
story about newly arrived students from Mexico that reclassified in the 4 years of high school
and were accepted to prominent universities.
I can think of a couple of students that we've had who have successfully enrolled in
ELD1, and, by the time they finish 4 years of high school, they were A through G worthy
and were accepted at several UCs [University of California campuses].
Both college acceptance and the ability to set an example for their family were mentioned as
indicating successful ELs. Administrator Bravo furthered this point in addressing success:
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 75
[It] is when you work with that first generation, first one going college bound, English
learner, that's the big one. They're the first one in the new country that is going to go to
college. That's when you really feel that that's been a successful piece.
In this administrator’s viewpoint, success translated to not only college acceptance but also
becoming an example to others. A sibling has the potential to become an example and social
agent to help future generations navigate the educational system to college and prosperity. The
notion of assiduity regardless of demographic characteristics is tantamount in many EL success
stories. How students succeed regardless of situational barriers beginning at home.
Administrator Fuller gave this example regarding two recent high school graduates:
EL parents still rely primarily on Spanish as their primary language. So, it wasn't that
these students were getting a lot of academic support at home or anything. They, through
their perseverance and their dedication and their hard work ... They both got multiple
scholarship offers to college. They're true success stories.
Even without support structures that native speakers already possess, ELs have shown resilience
and determination in achieving congruent goals. Family unit and structure was mentioned as a
component to EL language status and reclassification. Keeping parents and families informed
about expectations and processes as well as what to do with information was highlighted by
many administrators.
Parent Knowledge
Parent knowledge and parent understanding why the information is important are
challenges of both schools and families. District administrators profess the need for parental
knowledge and subsequent support to their English learning students. Fidelity support structures
that bridge information and practicality lacks within the structures widely implemented. There
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 76
are strong legislative advocates for ELs, but the how that information gets to parents is
questionable. Mr. Fuller mentioned this as he describes equity and access for ELs:
I think there's major issues with [Equity and Access] ... I've always had issues with the
fact that we know that English learners have strong lobbyists and advocates.... But what's
missing is, and this is what I explain to DI (Dual Immersion) parents all the time, and I
make sure they understand [what to do with information] because a lot of our English
learner parents aren't well informed.
Mr. Fuller described how non-English speaking parents trust that school employees design all
aspects of school life to best meet the needs of their children. He was most adamant about
parents not understanding their rights or long-term academic goals for their children without
some scaffolding by staff or an advocate. According to him, parents can identify paperwork and
current issues regarding the school but not much in terms of advocating for their children’s
academic promise. Mr. Edwards described his journey through the system and his subsequent
search for an advocate and guide:
That access piece would have support to our parents and without information and without
training and teaching and learning for them, those ELs would be on their own. I know
what that's like, you know what I mean. You kind of figure it out on your own when
many of your peers whose parents are educated, [are] trying to have their parents guiding
and leading and following that through.
Parent knowledge or a surrogate was needed when discussing the access and equity portion.
Parent apathy was not in question during these discussions; rather concerns regarded lack of
understanding the ramifications of the EL label over an extended period of time, especially
through high school. Parents were given high marks for wanting the best for their children but
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 77
low marks for understanding what and how to facilitate goals with their children utilizing all
resources available. One administrator mentions this when discussing the difference between
expectations and results of language proficiency testing.
I think when it comes to parents, I think most of the time they don't know, so it's not that
they don't believe in their children, they just don't actually know what the expectations
are. I find that a lot. I go to a lot of parent meetings and we go over the criteria and all of
a sudden they're like "I didn't even realize that”.
Parents are genuinely appreciative of guidance within the U.S. school system. Explicit directions
and suggestions are what many are waiting to hear. Individual family prior experiences in their
previous home country school systems dictate parents comfort and mores in the U.S. system,
they may or may not ask many questions regarding academics.
Shared Responsibility
Blaming occurred when assessment and progress results are questioned. Administrators
accepted some of this responsibility when discussing equity and access. They then included
stakeholders within the organization that often do not carry the load of EL language acquisition
or support structures. Traditionally, English language acquisition was designated as the English
or ELD teacher’s responsibility. An isolated classroom approach has been prevalent so long that
content teachers have not holistically adjusted to a team-based approach in addressing EL needs.
The following administrator shared his frustration with staff’s unwillingness to change lesson
planning to account for language needs of ELs:
I'm gonna be a little bit bitter right now." Yeah, there's some lack of shared responsibility.
"It's the EL teachers' responsibility, and nobody else's," you know, "and once they
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 78
reclassify, then tidy them up for me, and then you can put them in my class. I won't have
to worry about this stuff." But that's not the case.
Student language acquisition and academic success is a shared responsibility. In order for
students to achieve maximum potential in limited time, everyone involved in the student’s
education needs to have a role and responsibility. Specifically, each of the EL student’s teachers
needs to understand consequences and participate in solutions. Common Core has brought a
promise to many administrators that will force content teachers to integrate ELD into their
content and expose ELs to collaborative opportunities with peers. Common Core expectations
include ELD standards integrated in their lessons. The issue of accountability becomes another
tool available for administrators to ensure language development is relevant as Administrator
Davis said,
Now it's so evident that you have to worry about it [language requirements] regardless of
what content you teach, that it becomes not easier but there's backing for me to come in
and say yes you're the math teacher, however, what language demands does your math
lesson have that makes it so your students need your help getting to those language
demands? So I think in some ways, I don't think it's fully hit but I think it'll help our
English learners at the end of the day.
The accountability portion will be key as Common Core progresses. Administrators can do their
part by reinforcing the expectations to students and teachers. Administrator Davis continued,
Administrators, I mean if you're holding your teachers responsible for that [Language and
Reclassification requirements], they're more likely to make it something they're
accountable to as well.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 79
Research has shown the most successful programs for ELs were those that included staff buy in
and accountability (Parrish et. al, 2006; Robles, 2010). Administrators have a part in the
reclassification change by valuing English language acquisition and access to rigorous courses.
They should monitor the use of language within all content classes.
Equity
School staff members carry a preponderance of responsibility when the issue of equity is
discussed within a school environment. Administration was quick to point out they understood
the difference between equal and equitable. Mr. Edwards quickly shares his views of what is and
what’s not acceptable:
You know, equity I think we know truly that it means that we're going to provide what
each student needs, what they need at their level. It's not providing the same type of
intervention or support or whatever to every child, because every child's different.
Equity comes in not just textbooks but also through comprehensible input and personnel to
ensure all aspects of education are level. The viewpoint continued as class offerings and setting
students up with similar access to classes arose in various parts of interviews. There were strong
feelings about how schools and districts meet their legal obligation to provide services, but they
do not necessarily serve the best interest of the whole child. Where and how classes were
scheduled was either a bridge or barrier. Electives and access to elective classes seemed to be
the first item mentioned as replaced or removed from and EL schedule to add additional support
classes. Additionally, other programs are only available after-school. Administrator Graham
had this to say regarding programming:
Some of the programming that would help students to become well rounded in the eyes
of higher education, would be one of the areas. I really do think that a solution to that
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 80
would be putting a lot of those programs between the bells. A lot of what happens after
school and on weekends requires some sort of additional support outside of the school
day and that can be a challenge.
Programs that make students well-rounded need to be included in the regular school day. The
organization needs to acknowledge that ELs often have issues attending programs outside of the
regular school days and hours. Feelings became stronger at the notion that, as long as, a program
is offered during the day, the school and district met their obligation. Administrator Fuller agrees
that EL course selections are limited and schedules are created with a negative approach for ELs
when he offered his thought:
I don't believe the appropriate approach is that we limit the electives they can take or the
other opportunities or force them and say well you can participate but it's gonna have to
be in zero period or seventh period because it's not what we're doing with our EOs. We
do it under the guise of, well they're need the language support, they're an English
learner. We do it under the guise of good intentions. We're still discriminating.
Discrimination is prejudicial treatment of others, prohibiting a group the same opportunities as
others. Common beliefs stated high school EL students lose electives for ELD support class.
They are often relegated to zero-period or seventh-period selections. Native speakers are not
bound by these restrictions. Placement in classes that meet college entrance requirements is
inconclusive. Equity includes the access to college prep classes as well as the support structures
to be successful inside those environments. Administrator Charles added his perspective about
college classes:
They have the same opportunities to do what other kids do, but for instance, for A
through G requirements we know that those are very difficult sometimes for English
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 81
learners to meet, so even if we say, "Put them in A through G classes." We have to
support them with a support class or tutoring or something for them to really have that
access because if they have the equity of being able to be in A through G, which is great,
then if they don't really have the support to pass the class it doesn't really matter if they
have equity if they can't access the content.
Access to classes that meet the A-G requirements without support structures means students do
not have true access to the curriculum. The issue of equality versus equity was established in the
landmark decision Lau v. Nichols (1974). High expectations and similar materials without
language support to understand and participate in the curriculum does not constitute equity.
The newest and novice teachers are most likely to be assigned to work with second
language learners. District administrators understand that educating second language learners is
challenging and demanding. Master schedules and assignments are usually site administrators’
decisions. Routinely, these demanding spots are filled by the newest member of the staff in each
curricular area. The amount of skill needed to navigate both a curriculum and language demands
of students takes time to develop. Once teachers develop these skill sets they often move to
other districts or earned their right to teach other classes. Administrator Murphy stated,
To me, that's the biggest issue with equity. That I think the learning curve is steep for first
year teachers. If you take a look at programs in inner city, like Teach for America and all
of those, it's kind of a revolving door, in terms of training. Because I think people
underestimate the amount of effort that it takes to work with students and get them up to
a certain level.
ELs consistently receive the newest and most novice teachers. They are often in specialized
programs such as Teach for America, Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment, and
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 82
Americorps to service EL students, but with minimal training and education. The full-service
aspect was highlighted in many interviews with district personnel. Attending to the needs of the
student and bringing them into the school culture and services were mentioned as ways to
increase support and equity. Mr. Murphy added “If you really want an English learner to stay in
school and succeed, give them the best the school has to offer.” Sentiments were expressed that
ELs get a watered-down version of school until they have full linguistic access after
reclassification. Success was described by inclusion in all school activities and academic
success.
In conclusion, the overall data from this limited study says ELs are a large noted
subgroup within public schools. ELs are faced with linguistic, academic, and social challenges.
Reclassification is the process that designates ELs as English-proficient and controlled by boards
of education with administrative guidance. LEAs place organizational structures that attempt to
assist language acquisition and include stakeholders and structuring accountability. Access and
equity were key concerns as limited class offerings and support for college and career classes
were commonplace. Success was defined as college or career ready, and LEAs are evaluating
that marker for ELs at all levels.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 83
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Immigration and second language learners have spread across non-traditional immigrant
states. School systems are searching for strategies, curriculum, and policy to ensure all English
learners (EL)s are provided the best education possible. ELs are challenged with demonstrating
proficiency in English as well as navigating the school system and accessing college and career
readiness courses. A key component of an EL’s journey is the reclassification process that states
to the world they have demonstrated English-proficiency. The study affirmed that barriers and
bridges can be created by the policies enacted and measured.
This study analyzed the reclassification process for ELs from the perspective of mid-to-
high level administrators. Data has shown that multilingual and reclassified Fluent English
Proficient students score at or above grade level (Parrish et al., 2006; Robinson, 2011; Saunders
& Marcelletti, 2012). An achievement gap has persisted over time regardless of changes in
policy, practice, or funding. The purpose of this study was to look at the decisions made by
district personnel and analyzed perceptions about ELs, the processes of language acquisition, and
institutional systems set in place to assist ELs to acquire the social capital and language needed
to navigate schools and resources. Table 3 presents a summary of the findings discussed below.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 84
Table 3
Research Questions, Findings, and Literature
Research Question Finding Literature
1. How is the issue of EL
reclassification
managed by an LEA in
Southern California
with at least 800
English learners?
• Board of
Education
• Subjectivity
• Manipulation
• Linquati (2001)
• Robles (2010)
• Linquati & Cook (2013)
• Umansky & Reardon
(2014)
2. What organizational
structures in Southern
California LEAs, with
at least 800 English
learners, exists that
affect reclassification?
• Program
Implementation
• Human
Resources
• Data Analysis
• ESSA (2015)
• Parrish et al (2006)
• Schein (2010)
• Stanton-Salazar (2011)
• NCTE (2011)
3. How do LEA officials
in Southern California
with at least 800
English learners
describe equity and
access for ELs?

• College
Entrance
• Parent
Knowledge
• Shared
Responsibility
• Equity
• Hakuta (2014)
• Thompson (2015)
• Flores, Kleyn, & Menken,
(2015)
• Schein (2006)
• Goldenberg & Coleman
(2010)
• Stanton-Salazar (1997)
Findings for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How is the issue of EL reclassification managed by an
LEA in Southern California with at least 800 English learners?” Boards of education are the
official approval body for every district however, the only number they look at is your
reclassification rate. Boards rely on an administrator or committee to guide their reclassification
criteria. When and how reclassification criteria are met can be greatly influenced by
administration (Linquati, 2001; Robinson, 2011). The decision to include multiple stakeholders
lies with that official. Schools and district leadership provide the conduit for stakeholders to
address ELs’ needs (Robles, 2010). Each administrator took guidance from state requirements
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 85
but implemented personal beliefs in creating alternative criteria and recommendations to the
board.
Variable criteria in reclassification process leads to manipulated results. It becomes
difficult to point out systematic structures in place within various districts because of various
data points. Fixed criteria would create concrete comparable points and promote a unified
approach to EL reclassification. Stakeholders are stated to be important in reclassification
process but the degree to which they are informed or involved varies. The process is diversified
and often is not emphasized by districts (Linquati & Cook, 2013; Umansky & Reardon, 2014).
Redesignated students benefit through reclassification by expanding curricular
opportunities. This variance is magnified in high school where stakes to enter college and career
are near and relevant. Administrators admit that high school students lose course potential when
they are mandated and assigned ELD support class. LTELs are at a disadvantage compared to
English-only classmates accessing both course offerings, rigor, and interactions with students
and superior staff (Umansky & Reardon, 2014; Umansky et al., 2015.). This phenomenon does
not affect elementary in an equivalent manner because ELD is integrated in primary curriculum
and all students participate at their level of language proficiency.
Findings for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “What organizational structures in Southern
California LEAs, with at least 800 English learners, exists that affect reclassification?” Funding
is the strong arm of change for district administrators to implement modifications within schools.
Each district administrator mentioned that funding was prevalent in their processes to implement
programs that affected ELs. New regulations in ESSA (2015) requires the comingling of data
analysis and funding. LCAP and data analysis quickly became the center of accountability in
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 86
districts. Parrish et al (2006) found that systematic, ongoing assessment and data-driven
decision-making were beneficial in supporting ELs. Schein (2010) asserted what is measured
and not measured is prominent in creating the culture of accountability.
Common Core manufactured accountability measures by implementing ELD across the
content curriculum. Administration is using Common Core to enforce language curricula into all
content areas. A communal approach to the issue of literacy and ELs is a productive way to
address challenges (Parrish et al., 2006). Teachers of all disciplines are required to take an active
part in the literacy development of all students (NCTE, 2011). School challenges need to be
addressed by the whole group. Developing a comradely spirit is vital to address school-wide
issues. Isolative practices only disassociate members from responsibility and the collective
knowledge is diminished. In schools, having a spirit of all students are everyone’s responsibility
allows the community to share in both challenges and victories.
There are differences in the amount of parental participation in each LEA, varying from
informational obligatory to empowering. Procedures exist that mandate parent participation in
both the reclassification process and funding formulas. Administrators acknowledge the need for
families and multiple stakeholders to be involved in the reclassification process leading to
positive outcomes. Structures are in place to elicit parental involvement, but magnitude and
extent of actual influence is varied throughout LEAs. A belief system of empowering parents to
become advocates for their children is not apparent in many districts. Schein (2010) found how
leaders recruit personnel speaks volumes to others about their philosophy. This lack of
empowerment was specifically stated as being possibly fueled by fear. Positive early school
experiences and positive parents or surrogates who promote constructivist approaches, and seek
support from outside the immediate family unit are keys to successfully acquiring the navigation
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 87
tools to maneuver through the educational system and society (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). School
and district leadership provide the conduit for stakeholders to address EL’s needs (Robles, 2010).
Recruiting parents, children’s primary educators, to the forefront of knowledge and
empowerment needs to be embedded within the goals of each district to create systematic
change.
Findings for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How do LEA officials in Southern California with at
least 800 English learners describe equity and access for ELs?” Success was measured by
college and career readiness, which is measured by meeting A - G requirements and taking
career courses, but access to all requirements is a challenge for ELs. Equity and access has only
recently been combined with legislation requiring districts to report data on the progress of ELs.
This, combined with new public-school reporting system known as the California dashboard will
continue to magnify ELs for years to come. Hakuta (2014) stressed that tracking requirements
for ELs magnified the perils of the EL journey. A deficit language approach is taken by many
districts looking for ways to marry federal requirements, instructional minutes, and school master
schedules. States should focus monitoring to include that language does not exclude access to
the full comprehensible curriculum (Parrish et al., 2006). A fine balance is traversed when
implementing solutions for ELs careful not to build a barrier to access and equity under the guise
of helping.
LTELs because of their language designation are marginalized within the school system
by master schedules and lack of social capital. Not many schools or districts maintain the
amount of human and financial resources to create a schedule that addresses full access for ELs
at the secondary level. EL self-efficacy at the secondary level is lower than that of their primary
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 88
counterparts. The EL label was found to have the greatest negative connotation in higher grades
(Thompson, 2015).
Equity issues included being taught by novice teachers and placed in classes with no
support systems. That the neediest populations are taught by the most inexperienced teachers is
not new to education. The unofficial organizational systems reward longevity in schools with
higher level class and exclusion from classes with special populations. This leaves schedules
filled with new instructors teaching ELs. This deficit viewpoint is supported by administration
and not questioned by district officials. A language deficient approach dominates classroom
academic instruction and programs (Flores et al., 2015). Creating a culture and system where
veterans model the complexities of teaching these populations is the responsibility of
administration. Assumptions of expectations are reinforced through the criteria of who does or
does not get acknowledged or excommunicated (Schein, 2010). Most research and reports
suggest a variety of scaffolding, primary language support, and secondary language support to
meet ELs academic needs (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2016; Goldenberg &
Coleman, 2010; Parrish et al., 2006). These skills are learned in the classroom and workshops
but through practice and experience, refined and implemented with precision. Setting up ELD
classes as entry level classes for new English teachers furthers the deficit mindset of EL
academic ability. Language should not be a reason for excluding students from academic rigor
and access to the full curriculum (Parrish et al., 2006).
The findings suggested that boards of education have control over reclassification
procedures but are greatly influenced by district administrators or committees. Variable state
reclassification criteria may lead to manipulated results and make it difficult to pinpoint what
genuinely helps ELs attain English proficiency. Organizational structures took shape through
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 89
accountability measures and funding. LEAs take mandated curriculum such as Common Core to
enforce language policies in the classroom. Administrators leverage language programs by
monitoring and holding schools accountable for implementation and performance, usually
district assessments and state testing.
Parent involvement was found to be both imperative and mandated in each LEA. The
definition of parental involvement differed as seen in DELAC minutes in each district. Most
administrators identified the relevance of parents being part of the process, but there was a
difference when administration explained where and how they included parents in the
educational process. There was found to be substantial support to include parents in the
educational journey of their student. Districts can look to not only inform but empower parents.
There appears to be a disconnect between information received and what to do with the
information to advocate for a child’s education. Parents are powerful partners in this journey, and
their support can speed up the reclassification process becoming a constant reminder to students
that they need to work to their potential.
Success was measured by acceptance to a 4-year college which, in turn, assumed
reclassification. There was consensus that ELs have a challenging time accessing the full
curriculum because of their language status. LTELS are excluded from elective and preparatory
classes because of mandated language support classes. Support language classes are mainly
staffed with novice teachers even though an enhanced teaching skillset is needed to teach most
ELs.
Next, EL accountability needs to be extended to all staff members. Group accountability
demonstrates the importance of the task at hand: bringing the collective knowledge to solution
tables. Administrators need to implement a consistent schedule of data, observations, and
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 90
measured feedback to implant change and demonstrate the importance. An immediate practical
change is assigning skilled teachers to language acquisition courses because teaching ELs
requires an experienced teacher. Assignments and master schedules are created on school
campuses, and the culture should be one wherein EL classes and students are viewed as an
opportunity for teachers to have a significant impact on a young person’s education.
Implications for Practice
Although the study was conducted over a short period of time and had a limited number
of participants, there were several practical revelations that came from the diverse and candid
discussions with administrators. The English learner population in public schools is increasing.
Linguistically segregated classrooms provide a weaker curriculum (Gandara & Orfield, 2010).
Given global ramifications, it benefits all stakeholders to embrace the linguistic diversity found
among EL students.
Some thoughts on how educational administrators at all levels can assist the plight of ELs
and utilize the findings of this study for practical use:
First, LEAs need to consistently analyze reclassification rates and audit both ELs and
RFEPs academic performance to ensure criterion reflect the needs and abilities of ELs.
Administrators consistently spoke of using analysis to implement programs, change ideology,
and hold sites accountable. Data have proven to ignite conversations and provide factual basis
guiding instructional change. LEAs strategic choice of data may guide their organization’s
culture towards a holistic and focused approach working with ELs.
Second, the amount of crisis an administrator creates regarding ELs and language can
help create a sense of urgency and add champions to the plight of ELs. When high-level
administrators prioritize goals, it communicates to all stakeholders what is valued in the
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 91
organization. The goals would be visible throughout the LEA, measured, and rewarded for
progress. Making ELs a priority may garner unit members to focus their energy, time, and staff
towards a common purpose. ELs would benefit by attention and support of all staff.
Third, both site and district administrators need to work in creating master schedules
through an EL lens that does not relegate course offerings that exclude ELs because of language.
Administrators were candid regarding the lack of course offerings for ELs in secondary
education. Administrators should be cognizant of ELs as school master schedules are created. A
master schedule that allows ELs maximum access to the full curriculum would benefit them in
their journey to language acquisition and college preparedness.
Fourth, consistent explicit monitoring and feedback regarding EL progress is vital in
creating a culture where second language learners are valued. LEAs reported only having one
window for reclassification because required reclassification data released at different months
during the school year. Establish systems that give EL feedback regarding their progress
towards English proficiency, could include assigning school staff as specific counselors or
mentors to guide ELs in the reclassification process. Keeping ELs updated on their progress
provides positive purposeful interactions with school personnel. Positive school agents could
guide ELs through their educational journey.
Fifth, administrators should create a culture of shared responsibility when discussing
English language acquisition, second language learners, academic rigor, and success. This will
give organizations the collective knowledge and accountability necessary when attempting to
achieve big goals. Administrators mentioned how staff places responsibility for EL language
acquisition on English teachers. Placing the responsibility of English proficiency on one staff
member relinquishes responsibility from others. Monitoring ELs language acquisition progress,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 92
sharing that information with all the student’s teachers, and holding all parties accountable may
be helpful in ELs accessing support.
Sixth, parent participation needs to move from informational to emancipatory. Simply
informing parents of meetings, laws, and regulations does not create advocating parental units.
Administrators confirm many parents do not understand the ramifications of information shared
at parent meetings. LEAs could create structures that teach and give parents opportunities to
become educational voices for their students. There are meetings mandated and others created to
involve parents in schools. Scaffolding information from complex to usable would assist parents
to transition from attendants to advocates.
Seventh, since EL success is measured by college readiness, schools need to
systematically create multiple checkpoints for EL students. This may include assigning ELs to
specific school personnel who monitor their progress towards college acceptance and meet with
them periodically. LEAs state the lack of human resources directly assigned to EL support.
Frequent checks and monitoring of ELs engrain expectations and establish systematic
interactions with personnel and provide ELs with agency.
Eighth, site administrators should assign skilled teachers to EL classes rather than
continue the current stepping stone model prevalent in schools. District administrators are aware
that novice teachers are often assigned to EL classes. By accepting site decisions to use ELD
courses as a rite of passage, makes LEAs guilty by omission. Matching teacher strengths with
student needs should be the norm rather than the exception. Skilled teachers provide the best
opportunity for ELs to acquire the skills to demonstrate English proficiency.
English learners are in search of administrators that will champion their plight. Research
has attempted to shed light on the English Learner’s peril by emphasizing gaps and inequity
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 93
(Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Goldenberg, 2013; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Hakuta, 2000;
Linquati, 2001; Menken, 2008; Thompson et al., 2012). Only by spotlighting, analyzing, and
acknowledging inequity within an ELs education will LEAs put forth the time, effort, and fiscal
resources needed to address our EL community.
Future Research
This qualitative study led to rich discussions with many high-level district administrators.
During discussions, several areas of research that were out of the scope of this study were made
prevalent. First, when discussing LTELs, administrators asked about percentage of LTELs with
special needs, revealing a curiosity regarding the correlation of LTELs and special needs. One
question regarded whether language designation is a product of English proficiency or learning
disability. Second, administrators wondered whether participation in school programs such as
band, sports, or clubs affect the time to proficiency. Administrators mentioned ELs give up
opportunities to participate either because they do not know how to get involved, parents
underestimating the value of a sense of belonging to the school, or mandated support classes
block ELs from participating. Third, this study only looked at districts with more than 10% ELs.
Future researchers may want to see if perceptions change with LEAs that maintain small
populations of ELs. Fourth, districts are implementing computer-based language acquisition
programs at record levels, spending designated local funds, but the effectiveness of those
programs in each district is questionable. Researchers may want to correlate computer-based
programs and its effectiveness kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Conclusion
In conclusion, English learners have challenges to overcome in the U.S. school system.
They must simultaneously acquire academic content and demonstrate English proficiency.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 94
Proficiency blueprints are located within state guidelines but LEAs have varied data points to
meet those guidelines. Varied criteria allow for manipulated results and difficulty confirming
positive programs to English proficiency. Organizational structures are set into place through the
demands of curriculum and programs. Administrators use programs to administer accountability
measures through data analysis. Common Core brings a hope and mechanism to accountability
as ELD has been dispersed among all content areas. Next steps will include ensuring that
additional time and supports are in place to assist the dual acquisition (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2016). Parents have been identified as main players in the system. However,
the amount of capacity building created with the information they receive through district and
school meetings is widely varied and often just meet state or federal obligations. If success is
measured by readiness to enter college and career, then ELs must be given the tools and support
to meet that goal at rates comparable to their native speaking classmates. Tracking and selective
class schedules build more barriers than bridges for ELs, especially at the secondary level where
access becomes critical. Equity is ensuring students have what they need, not every student
having the same materials. Administration could help the plight of ELs at all levels by matching
teacher’s skills with the needs of the second language learner population. There needs to be a
bridge between our best teachers and our diverse populations. Multilingual households are
growing and education needs to embrace this next chapter of public education.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 95
References
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and
recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31.
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing
literacy in second-language learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-
Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432–452.
Bardack, S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Washington, DC: American Institutes
for Research.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4).
Sage.
Boyer, E. L. (1997). Ernest L. Boyer: Selected Speeches, 1979-1995. Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104
Brua, J. A. (2009). English language learners and high -stakes testing: Seeking guidance from
statutory history and judicial opinions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Database. (304967468)
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127.
California Department of Education. (2010, December). Glossary of terms and acronyms.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdtglossary.pdf
California Department of Education. (2016a). Facts about English learners in California.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2016b). Smarter Balanced Assessment System - Testing
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 96
California Department of Education. (2016c). English learner forms - Compliance monitoring.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/elforms.asp
California Department of Education. (2016d). Academic criterion for reclassification –
Reclassification. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/acadreclass15.asp
California Department of Education. (2016e). California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) – Testing. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/
California Department of Education. (2016f). Academic criterion for reclassification -
Reclassification. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/acadreclass14.asp
California Department of Education. (2016g). New groundbreaking school accountability system
- Year 2016. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr16/yr16rel59.asp
California Education Code, Chapter 3 Article 1 Section 305 (1998)
CAASPP. (n.d.). About this Website. Retrieved from http://www.caaspp.org/about/index.html
Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO) (2016, February). Major Provisions of Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) related to the education of English learners. Retrieved
from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2016/ESSA/CCSSOResourceonESSAELLs02.23.
2016.pdf
Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-
regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29(3), 248–263.
Colby, S., & Ortman, J. (2015, March). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.
population: 2014 to 2060. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census
/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 97
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in
school English. Journal of educational issues of language minority students, 5(1), 26–38.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016). About the standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
Conger, D. (2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: does age of school entry affect
how quickly students can learn English? Social Science Research, 38(2), 383–396.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual
Children. Review of Educational Research, 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual
children. Language Processing in Bilingual Children, 70–-89.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Department of Education. (2004). Title III - Language instruction for limited English proficient
and immigrant students. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
pg40.html
Department of Education. (2011). Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
related to national origin discrimination and use of funds under Title III, Part A and Title
I, Part A of the ESEA. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/
titleititleiii421.pdf
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 98
Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/essa
Duong, A. B. (2012). An analysis of reclassification criteria for English learners in the Northern
San Joaquin Valley and Foothill area of California (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (3520139)
Ed Data Partnership. (2015). Understanding the API. Retrieved from https://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Pages/UnderstandingTheAPI.aspx
Ed Data. (2015). EdData - county summary - Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.org/county/Los-Angeles
Estrada, & Wang. (2013). Reclassifying and not reclassifying English learners to fluent English
proficient, Year 1 findings: Factors impeding and facilitating reclassification and access
to the core. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED550098.pdf
Fillmore, L. W. (2014). English language learners at the crossroads of educational
reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 624–632.
Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality:
Identities of students labeled Long-Term English Language Learners. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 113–132.
Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z., & Pachon, H. (2009). Que pasa? Are English language
learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? Policy brief. Los
Angeles, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 99
Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). English learners and restrictive language policies. New
York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garci
́ a, E., Asato, J., Gutie
́ rrez, K., Stritikus, T., & Curry, J.
(2000). The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instruction of English
Learners. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Gándara, P., Moran, R., & Garcia, E. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the
United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27–46.
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). A Return to the" Mexican Room": The Segregation of
Arizona's English Learners. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know--and don’t
yet know--about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4.
Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English
learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Hakuta, K. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency. University of
California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. UC Berkeley: University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/13w7m06g
Hakuta, K. (2014). Assessment of content and language in light of the new standards: Challenges
and opportunities for English language learners. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(4),
433–441.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Berkley, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute Policy Report, 2001.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 100
Herr, N. (2007). English learners. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/science/ref/curriculum/
English_learners
Hill, L., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in
California. Retrieved from http://www.iicanet.orgwww.ppi.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/
R_114LHR.pdf
Hill. (2012). California’s English learner students (PPIC Publication). Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1031
Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language
learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., … Wilkinson-
Flicker, S. (2015, May). The Condition of Education 2015. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015144
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning, 19–39.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. San Francisco, CA: The Alemany Press.
Krovoza, C. (2013). IN THE TRENCHES: Reflections on the pedagogy and policy of teaching
Los Angeles’ English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.occidental.edu/sites/
default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/2012/2013/Krovoza%20Senior%20Comprehensive_Part
1.pdf
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 101
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology, 363–
385.
Linquanti, R. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering
meaningful accountability for English learners. Retrieved from
https://www.wested.org/online_pubs/redesignation.pdf
Linquanti, R., & Cook. (2013). Toward a common definition of English learner. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/Common%20Definition%20of%20English%20L
earner_2013.pdf
Luster, J. (2011). A new protocol for teaching English language learners in middle and
secondary schools. Journal of International Education Research, 7(4), 65.
Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies,
proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in
Botswana. System, 35(3), 338-352.
Mahoney, K. S., & MacSwan, J. (2005). Reexamining identification and reclassification of
English language learners: A critical discussion of select state practices. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(1), 31-42.
Mavrogordato, M. (n.d.). An event history analysis examining the rate of reclassification for
English language learners. Retrieved from http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-
08022012-205829/unrestricted/Mavrogordato.pdf
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy (Vol.
65). Tonwanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 102
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds
of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2016). Fast facts. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
National Council Teachers of English (NCTE). (2011). Reading and writing across the
curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/
CC/0203-mar2011/CC0203Policy.pdf
Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312–334.
Olsen, L. (2010). Changing course for long term English learners. Leadership, 40(2), 30–33.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together
Olson, C. B., Scarcella, R., & Matuchniak, T. (2015). English learners, writing, and the Common
Core. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 570–592.
Parrish, T., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., & Delancey, D.
(2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English
learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes
for Research.
Public School Review. (n.d.). Los Angeles County, CA public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/california/los-angeles-county
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 103
Robinson, J. P. (2011). Evaluating criteria for English learner reclassification: A causal-effects
approach using a binding-score regression discontinuity design with instrumental
variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 267–292.
Robinson ‐Cimpian, J. P., & Thompson, K. D. (2015). The Effects of Changing Test ‐Based
Policies for Reclassifying English Learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Robles, J. W. (2010). Participatory leadership for English learner success. Leadership, 40(2), 26.
RuizSoto, A., Hooker, S., & Batalova, J. (2015, June). States and districts with the highest
number and share of English language learners. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/states-and-districts-highest-number-and-share-
english-language-learners
Rubinstein-Ávila, E., & Fink, L. (2013). Scaffolding content and language demands for
“reclassified” students. Voices from the Middle, 20(4), 28.
Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of
reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 139–156. doi:10.3102/0162373712461849
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 356). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Slama, R. B. (2012a). A longitudinal analysis of academic English proficiency outcomes for
adolescent English language learners in the United States. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(2), 265–285. doi:10.1037/a0025861
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 104
Slama, R. B. (2012b). A Roadmap for True Accountability: Reconceptualizing Language-
learning Services, Reclassification Practices and Monitoring Systems for English
Language Learners in U.S. Public Schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). Sample Questions. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/sample-questions/
Solano, E. (2013). English language learners: A case study of reclassification data at a North
County middle school. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.calstate.edu/handle/10211.8/
414
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1–41.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066–1109.
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2012). Bill Text - AB-2193 Long-term English
learners. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?
bill_id=201120120AB2193
Statista Inc (2015) Largest counties in the U.S. 2015, by population | Statistic. (2015). Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/241702/largest-counties-in-the-us
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). Bilingual education act: twenty years later. Retrieved from
https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE021037/Fall88_6.pdf
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 105
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29, 51–67.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language
Minority Students' Long-Term Academic Achievement. Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Thompson, K. D., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., Reardon, S. F., Valde
́ s, G., & Stanford University.
(2012). Are we there yet? Exploring English learners' journey to reclassification and
beyond
Thompson, K. D. (2015). Questioning the Long-Term English Learner label: How categorization
can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117(12), n12.
Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912.
Umansky, I. M., Reardon, S. F., Hakuta, K., Thompson, K. D., Estrada, P., Hayes, K., ... &
Goldenberg, C. (2015). Improving the opportunities and outcomes of California’s
students learning English: Findings from School District-University Collaborative
partnerships. Policy Brief 15-1. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE.
California
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools.
Multicultural Education Series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 106
van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core State
Standards. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core
State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 44.
Wolf, M., & Guzman-Orth, D. (2014). Next-Generation summative English language proficiency
assessments for English learners: Priorities for policy and research. Retrieved from
http://www.rbern.org/news/201412-ELP-Policy-Report.pdf

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 107
Appendix A
Sample Notification Letter
Sample notification letter to inform parent/guardian their child’s CELDT results indicate
continued English Learner status.

NOTE:
Before this letter is distributed, be sure to insert the information required in the brackets
and in bold.

Dear Parents or Guardians:

State and federal laws require all school districts in California to give a state test of English
proficiency to students whose primary language is not English. A student’s primary language is
identified on a home language survey, which is completed by the parents or guardians upon
registering their child in a California public school for the first time. In California, the name of
the state test is the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). The results of the
CELDT help to measure how each student is progressing toward proficiency in English in the
areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

When your child enrolled in our school, [he or she] was given the CELDT, and the results are
attached. These test results have identified [him or her] as an English learner. Your child will be
assigned to an appropriate English language instructional support program based on the results.
The goal of this program is to help your child become proficient in English and succeed in the
school’s academic curriculum. [The school district or school should add a sentence or two to
explain the method of instruction used in the student’s English language instructional
support program, how this program will help the student become proficient in English, and
how it will be determined that the student is ready to exit the program.]

You are invited to request a conference at school where your child’s CELDT results and details
of the English language instructional support program will be explained. To schedule your
conference, call [put contact information here].

You are welcome to volunteer at the school and to participate on the school’s English Learner
Advisory Committee (ELAC). If you have any questions regarding your child’s instructional
placement or wish to observe the classroom, please contact the school office at [put school
office number here] during school hours.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________ _______________________
Superintendent/Principal Date

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 108
Appendix B
Interview Questions
Good (morning, afternoon, evening). Thank you for taking time out of your busy day and duties
to assist me in my research about English learners. I would like to assure you that all responses
are confidential, will be coded, scrambled, and aggregated with other interviews. At any point,
should you want to end the interview, we will end immediately. Do you have any questions
before we begin?
What is your current title?
How long have you been in this position?
Research Question 1. How is the issue of ELL reclassification managed by LEAs?

1. In your district, who determines the reclassification criteria?
2. After CELDT, list reclassification data points used in your district.
a. Name the most challenging data points for ELs to meet reclassification and
why they may not be meeting those points.
b. Describe any process to ensure ELs are being successful.

Research Question 2. What organizational structures exists that affect reclassification?

3.List services available to ELs to meet your district mission statement or goals.
a. How are those expectations supported?
b. How are subgroup testing discrepancies handled by administration?
4. Give me an example of a student who you would consider an EL success story.

5. How would you state your district is setting up ELs to be successful members of society,
college ready, or career ready?
a. What agencies or personnel are available to help ELs navigate district, career, and
college access?
b. Please describe, if any, what is in place to facilitate peer interactions between ELs
and native speakers.
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 109
Research Question 3. How do district officials influence (describe) equity and access for ELs?
6. What content or curriculum does mandatory ELD class replace in your district?
a. You may break up by elementary, middle, and high school.
b. Name programs or content ELs would not have access to?
7. Explain how common core implementation has affected EL education.
a. Do ELs take the exact same cc courses? What, if any, modifications made to
assist EL learning?
8. Long-Term English Learners are now an identified subgroup. What, if any, steps has
your district taken to address this population?
a. What personal opinions do you have as why ELs do not reclassify in less than 7
years?
b. Describe equity and access for English learners from your perspective.

This concludes our interview. Before we finish, after hearing my questions is there anyone else
you would recommend I talk to regarding English learners and reclassification? Would you be
available, if I have a few clarifying questions after my interviews are completed? What would
be your preferred method of contact, phone or in-person?

I would again like to thank you for your time. These results are scrambled and will remain
anonymous. Your work and desire to assist the English learner population is appreciated.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 110
Appendix C
Informed Consent: School Personnel Participant
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
School Personnel Participation

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PERCEPTIONS THAT AFFECT
RECLASSIFICATION OF ENGLISH LEARNERS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Patricia Tobey Ph.D., Patrick
Crispen, Ed.D., and Anthony Contreras, M.A. at the University of Southern California, because
you are an administrator or expert in charge of English learner reclassification. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate factors that affect reclassification of English learners
from an administrative outlook. This will be accomplished through interviews, local document
analysis, and state document analysis.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview in
person or via phone. Interviews will last between 30 to 60 minutes. You will be able to select a
time that is feasible for your schedule. Interviews are audio-recorded for later transcription. All
interviewees remain anonymous and are coded, such as administrator A etc. If you choose not
be audio recorded you may still participate. After all interviews, you may be asked to expand on
prevalent themes. These transactions could happen via phone or in person at your convenience
and should only last a few minutes. You will receive a copy of all findings if you choose.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Some questions will ask for personal opinions regarding English learners, processes, procedures,
and policies. Otherwise there are no anticipated risks involved with this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
With the nationally growing number of immigrants and the need to service second language
learners this study hopes to enhance systems that hinder or assist this school population. English
learners are integrated in many aspects of our school system from master schedules to LCAP and
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 111
eventually integrate in our society. Identifying potential bridges for this subgroup will hopefully
strengthen schools and society.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants in this study will receive a $20 gift card to a local eating establishment. Gift cards
will be given at the end of the interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on voice recorder and encrypted file on principal investigator’s hard
drive. Participants have the right to review or edit the audio recording or transcript as necessary
to ensure their answers are accurate. Transcribers and principal investigators will have access to
the data associated with the study. All participants will be identified by fictitious names such as
administrator A to connect to their audio recordings. When results are published, or discussed,
no identifiable information will be included. Data will be kept a minimum of three years after
completion of the study per research protocol. After that time, all data will be destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
If you cannot participate, you may recommend an equivalent administrator or expert in English
learner reclassification.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dr. Patricia
Tobey, Faculty Sponsor, University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, by
phone at 213-740-7884, or by email at tobey@usc.edu. Or you may also contact Dr. Patrick
Crispen, Faculty Sponsor, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, by
phone at 323-442.2183, or by email at pcrispen@usc.edu. You may also contact the Co-Principal
Investigator, Anthony Contreras by phone at 626-815-3622 or by email at awcontre@usc.edu.

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BELIEFS AND RECLASSIFICATION 112
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO
□ I agree to be video-recorded

□ I do not want to be video-recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Among California’s student population, 1.3 million English learners (EL) make up 22.7%, but only 11.2% demonstrate English proficiency. This study employed how organizational cultures foster English learner’s social capital by investigating reclassification process and rates. The purpose of the study was to look at how decisions of administrators or those in power affect reclassification of English learners. Through the study, the effects of decision-making administration were compared with reclassification rates of English learners. The qualitative study began with analysis of local educational agency’s reclassification rates on the state department of education site. Requests for interviews were sent to district administrators identified on websites as in charge of English learners and have at least a 10% EL population and a minimum of 8000 students. LEA documents were collected to corroborate assertions within interviews. Through interviews and document analysis a constant comparative approach was utilized to create themes. Each research question was answered implementing Creswell’s six steps to data analysis. Who’s supporting our English learners and what implications does this have for California among other states with rising EL needs?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

An ecological systems perspective of long-term English learners (LTELs) and perceptions of their college readiness: a case study

PDF

Improving the reclassification rate gap

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13

PDF

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

The re-identification of male Latino and African-American learners in the alternative high school setting: promise practice case study

PDF

Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Contreras, Anthony William (author)

Core Title Policies, procedures, and beliefs that affect English learner reclassification

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/10/2017

Defense Date 08/28/2017

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

Tag administrators,English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,reclassification,social capital

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair)

Creator Email anthonycontreras8@yahoo.com,awcontre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-443709

Unique identifier UC11263998

Identifier etd-ContrerasA-5832.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-443709 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ContrerasA-5832.pdf

Dmrecord 443709

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Contreras, Anthony William

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