University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 1

AN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE OF LONG-TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS
(LTELS) AND PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR COLLEGE READINESS: A CASE STUDY

by

Jeneé A. Corum

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 Jeneé A. Corum
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................5
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................6
Abstract .................................................................................................................................7
Dedication ..............................................................................................................................8
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...............................................................10
Background of the Problem .......................................................................................10
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................14
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................16
Research Questions and Hypothesis ..............................................................17
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................19
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................20
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................22
Organization of the Study ..........................................................................................25
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................27
Theoretical Framework: Ecological Systems Theory ................................................27
A Description of Ecological Systems Theory ................................................27
Use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as a Research Lens ......30
History of Educational Laws and Reform .................................................................33
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 .........................................................................33
Elementary and Secondary Educational Act (1965) ......................................34
Bilingual Education Act (1968) .....................................................................34
Office of Civil Rights Memo (1970) .............................................................34
Lau v. Nichols (1974) .....................................................................................35
Equal Education Opportunity Act (1974) ......................................................36
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) .........................................................................36
Plyler v. Doe (1982) .......................................................................................37
California Proposition 187 (1994) .................................................................38
California Proposition 227 (1998) .................................................................38
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ................................................................39
California Assembly Bill 2193 (2012) ...........................................................39
California Senate Bill 1174 (2014) ................................................................40
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) ..............................................................41
California Proposition 58 (2016) ...................................................................41
College Readiness ......................................................................................................41
Colleges and Universities ..............................................................................43
Knowledge of College Preparation Process ...................................................44
Importance of College Preparedness .............................................................46
Language Acquisition ................................................................................................46
Characteristics of English Learners ...........................................................................49
English Learners ............................................................................................49
Long-term English Learners ..........................................................................51
The Reclassification Process ..........................................................................53
English Learner and Long-term English Learner Research .......................................55
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 3
Research .........................................................................................................55
Lack of Student Voice ...................................................................................57
Limited Academic Skills and Learning Opportunities ..............................................57
Limited Academic Literacy Skills .................................................................57
Rigorous Learning Opportunities ..................................................................61
Teacher Education .....................................................................................................62
Curriculum for English Learners and Long-term English Learners ..........................64
Summary ....................................................................................................................68
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................69
Overview of the Case Study ......................................................................................69
Sample ........................................................................................................................71
Population ..................................................................................................................72
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................................73
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................76
Procedures for Protecting Human Subjects ...................................................76
Data Collection and Analysis .....................................................................................77
Interviews .......................................................................................................78
Document Review ..........................................................................................80
Credibility and Trustworthiness .....................................................................81
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................83
Data Collection Questions .........................................................................................83
Guide for the Case Study Report ...............................................................................84
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .............................................................................................86
Research Method and Design ....................................................................................86
Description of the Sample ..............................................................................87
Data Collection Overview ..........................................................................................88
Interview Data Collection ..............................................................................88
Document Data Collection .............................................................................89
Data Analysis Overview ............................................................................................89
Findings .....................................................................................................................90
Research Question One ..................................................................................90
Research Question Two .................................................................................101
Research Question Three ...............................................................................110
Research Question Four .................................................................................117
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................120
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................123
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................123
Limitations .................................................................................................................126
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................126
Recommendations for Research ................................................................................129
Conclusion .................................................................................................................130
References ..............................................................................................................................133
Appendices .............................................................................................................................146
Appendix A: Parent Introduction Letter ....................................................................146
Appendix B: Informed Consent: Parent Participant ..................................................147
Appendix C: Youth Assent-Parental Permission .......................................................152
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 4
Appendix D: Assent Form: Student ...........................................................................158
Appendix E: Informed Consent: School Personnel Participant .................................159
Appendix F: Semi-structured Interview Questions ....................................................162
Appendix G: Semi-structured Interview Questions ...................................................165
Appendix H: Semi-structured Interview Questions ...................................................169
Appendix I: Parent Coding ........................................................................................172
Appendix J: Student Coding ......................................................................................173
Appendix K: Teacher Coding ....................................................................................174
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Five Questions From the Interview Protocol ...........................................................75
Table 2: Dissertation Outline .................................................................................................84
Table 3: Microsystem and Mesosystem .................................................................................87
Table 4: Document Analysis ..................................................................................................88

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system ......................................................................30
Figure 2: Enrique’s micro and meso systems ........................................................................120

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 7
Abstract
The Common Core State Standards were meant to increase college and career readiness. Long-
term English learners (LTELs) face many obstacles to meeting these new standards. Utilizing
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) as the theoretical lens, this qualitative case
study explored the micro and meso systems of an LTEL and the perceptions of college readiness
that exist among him, his mother, and one of his teachers. Understanding how an LTEL’s
ecological system supports his college goals is paramount. The researcher conducted interviews
and document reviews. Data analysis occurred through the constant comparative method. The
study measured perceived perceptions among interviewees as well as compared perceptions to
documents to determine congruency. Findings include positive ecological systems support for
the student, but more can be done to assist the student in being college ready.
Key words: Long-term English learners, college readiness, ecological systems

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 8
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family. First and foremost, this dissertation is dedicated to
my parents, Keith and Judy Corum. My brother and I were blessed to have parents who brought
us up in a Christian family, to understand that education was important and that more than
anything, to serve others was paramount. They instilled a passion in me for education, which led
me to this journey. Without their love and support, fulfilling my dream would have never
occurred. Lots of phone calls and FaceTime’s with them provided the mental and emotional
support one needs to get through a program like this. Love you Mom and Dad!! I also want to
dedicate this to my brother, Ryan, and sister-in-law Jennifer as well as my nephews, Micah and
Brendan. Thank you for believing in me, encouraging me and never giving up on me. I love you
all very much.

Lastly, I give thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has protected and guided me through this
journey. Without Him, I am nothing.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 9
Acknowledgements

To my dissertation committee: Dr. Patricia Tobey, Dr. Patrick Crispen, and Dr. Briana Hinga –
thank you for your support and guidance you have provided throughout this process. You treated
me like a colleague from the very get-go, and I hope I have done right by you.

Thank you to Anthony Contreras. You and I went out in faith in applying to USC, to learning we
were both accepted within a week of each other, and having the majority of our classes together.
Never did I think close to twenty years ago that we would embark on such a journey. Thank you
for your faith in me. This journey would not have been the same without you. #fallingforward

I would like to thank the administration, counselors, teachers, and staff at my current district.
Your support did not go unnoticed. For the Guidance Office, thank you for putting up with me,
not only these past three years, but the past ten!

Thank you to my Trojan Family: Anthony, Cheryl, Emily, Jacques, Julie, and Lisa. We came
together as classmates but leave as colleagues and friends. My gratitude to you is overwhelming.
The accountability that existed among our group was paramount to all of us finishing. I am so
grateful. I know our friendship will endure. #FightonWriteon!

Thank you to the 2014 Cohort: what an amazing group of people. I have become a better person
because you have been in my life. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
A dead end. A place no one clamors to be. Yet, a large group of high school students
finds themselves in an educational dead end. Although federal law prohibits this dead end,
English Learners (ELs) and, in particular, Long-term English learners (LTELs), continue to face
this dead end of low academic skills, low grades, possible dropouts, and low motivation while
attempting to learn 21st century skills to effectively work and live in the United States. With an
emphasis on Common Core State Standards (CCSS), ELs may not reach college and career
readiness. A subset of this group, LTELs, is even more disadvantaged. Although many exhibit
native oral skills, their academic English is still emerging. With the CCSS focused on critical
reading and writing, will LTELs find themselves further less successful? Much has been
considered in attempting to close achievement gaps and increase equity for all demographic
groups, but, particularly for LTELs, these gaps are a problem that cannot be ignored anymore.
Educational standards have long been in practice in the United States. State to state,
however, standards appear very differently. In 2009, the development of the Common Core State
Standards was initiated to provide standards that were rigorous enough to ensure all students
would graduate high school college and career ready regardless of where they lived in the nation
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016a). Despite the initiative, many students begin
their postsecondary lives not ready or prepared for college and career (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2016d). One particularly disadvantaged group of students is ELs.
The premise of the Common Core State Standards is that the standards will prepare all
students to be college and career ready, which is a noble goal. Although the federal government
technically does not have the authority to implement education standards, it requires
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 11
implementation for states to continue to receive certain funding (School Improvement Network,
n.d.). Forty-two states adopted Common Core, including California, as well as the District of
Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2016c). In essence, Common Core is a national reform to educational
goals. On the surface, it seems that most students across the United States would be better
prepared for postsecondary education. Nonetheless, English Learners continue to show a lack of
promise.
Of concern with the Common Core State Standards is how certain populations, like
English Learners (ELs) and groups with low socioeconomic status, will be successful. California
has had a long history with laws regarding instruction of ELs. In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the
Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as such that local school districts and
states must ensure appropriate services to students with limited English skills. The
implementation of these services continues to be argued today both through federal and state
politics.
Due to state and federal policy, when students enroll in a school district, they are required
to complete a home language survey to determine eligibility for services. If a parent or a
guardian marks that any other language outside of English is used in the home, the student must
be tested to determine English ability (California Department of Education [CDE], 2016e). Some
students pass this initial test and move into the school system with ease. Others are not so
fortunate. A determination of English Learner (EL) status will require the child to take annual
assessments to determine English levels, along with enrollment in various EL support classes.
Currently, in California, English Learner (EL) students are required to take the California
English Language Development Test. This test determines placement on a five-point scale:
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 12
beginner, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and advanced. The test is broken
down into four categories: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The goal for an EL is to
meet the early advanced or advanced status and meet other local assessments (e.g. English
grades, teacher recommendation, and other normative assessments) to be reclassified as a
Reclassified-Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) student (or known as Redesignated-Fluent
English Proficient). Of most concern to district personnel is the student’s score on reading and
writing, as those are believed to be the most connected to academic efficacy.
However, many secondary students never reclassify. Students in California who are
designated as an English Learner for 6-plus years are considered a Long-term English Learner
(LTEL; State of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2012). Many of them remain in the
intermediate, early advanced or advanced levels. This growing population of LTELs is especially
seen in California. Many California high schools have to work with LTEL students in assisting
them to meet the demands of reclassification. Assistance typically is provided through some type
of support class to assist with their English skills. Potentially, classes, such as college-prep
courses or career electives are not readily available for the LTEL student, since they must
complete their core high school courses and English support classes. The University of
California and California State University systems have a minimum course application
requirement called the a-g requirements, which are considered rigorous in nature. With
enrollment in a support class, a student loses the opportunity to take a more rigorous course, such
as an Advanced Placement class or career elective in their schedule that could potentially meet
part of a student’s a-g requirements. Not having access to these types of courses limits the
rigorous academic preparation LTEL students need for college success.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 13
Long-term English Learners (LTELs) speak English, but they typically do not have a
command of academic English, the kind of English necessary to critically think, read and write
about topics in all academic areas. The Common Core State Standards support these higher-order
skills that should improve the academic level of all students. Although many LTELs state they
want to go to college, their inability to critically think, read, and write in English, makes them at
risk of not attending college at all, despite the Common Core initiative to ensure all students are
ready for the next level. Many districts find themselves facing this quandary: ensuring all
students are college ready, especially those designated as English Learners and LTELs.
The purposely selected site for this study was a suburban district in Southern California
herein assigned the pseudonym of Xenial Unified School District (XUSD). XUSD is a medium-
sized district serving several communities (XUSD, 2016). There are 11 elementary schools, one
K-8 school, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, one continuation high school
and an adult school program within the district (XUSD, 2016). The school district has faced
declining enrollment for some time. In the 2015–2016 academic term, 8,900 students were
enrolled, as compared to a decade ago when 11,989 were enrolled. The decline occurred due to
many families moving east, where jobs and lower housing costs exist. Some students continue to
live in the area, but attend a nearby district with open enrollment (XUSD, 2016). The loss of
students created concern in how programs that meet the needs of English Learners (ELs) would
be sustained. XUSD decided to move services that meet the needs of beginners and early
intermediate students to one middle school and one high school as the numbers were such that
they needed to be consolidated. Services at one site provide a concerted effort to assist ELs, but
all three high schools must provide services for Long-term English Learners as they attend all
three schools.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 14
In 2013, Governor Brown championed a new funding formula for schools in California.
The local control funding formula is designed to give school districts an opportunity to build
their budget to fit their specific needs (CDE, 2016h). School districts must create a Local Control
and Accountability Plan that determine high-priority district goals, resources needed and how
monies are allocated. School districts that have high numbers of English Learners, foster youth,
or students with low socioeconomics receive extra monies. The plan must be approved by the
school district governing board (CDE, 2106h).
This new funding formula came at an optimum time for Xenial Unified School District
(XUSD), as the district needed a new way to address funding needs. The superintendent, board
members, and other key stakeholders developed a Local Control and Accountability Plan to
address the needs of XUSD. The plan cites various ways to ensure English Learners (ELs), as
well as Long-term English Learners (LTELs), will meet the rigorous expectations of Common
Core as well as ensuring that the school district lives up to its mission that all students will
graduate from high school college and career ready. Unfortunately, not all aspects of the plan for
ELs were followed. A disconnection seems to exist between what the school board wants and the
practicality of implementation. Despite these good intentions, XUSD, along with many districts
in California, contend with large numbers of ELs and LTELs who are not college and career
ready.
Statement of the Problem
The problem in Xenial Unified School District (XUSD) is that high percentages of
secondary English Learners (ELs) become Long-term English Learners (LTELs). Data regarding
ELs and LTELs for this research were obtained from XUSD and the California Department of
Education. Sources remain nameless to permit anonymity for the district.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 15
As of the 2016–2017 academic term, more than 50% of English Learners at the high
school level in Xenial Unified School District were, in fact, Long-term English Learners
(LTELs; N = 206). Although the district made strides to improve this percentage, the number is
still too elevated to where many LTEL students do not have full access to all college and career
prep courses. Very few of them are college ready or on a college ready tract, despite a Local
Control and Accountability Plan that states specific goals for improvement in the areas of
reclassification and completion of courses required for college admission.
These Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students may not understand what is expected
of them, much less realize they are still classified as English Learners (ELs). Understanding how
to reclassify can be cumbersome to understand, especially when the measures of reclassification
recently changed. Neither LTEL students nor their parents understand why they are in support
classes when they speak English. This lack of understanding of academic language versus oral
language needs to be addressed to parents and students in a clear, easy to understand way. Once
EL students and their parents know how to reclassify, especially if the student can do so before
high school, support classes are no longer needed, and they can take courses that will prepare
them for college. Without knowing these expectations and having the opportunity for rigorous
courses, LTEL students may not be prepared for college and career, nor experience success in
future endeavors (Kim & García, 2014).
A lack of literature and research of the Long-term English Learner (LTEL) population
also is problematic as there is not enough research to understand how to best support this
growing population (Menken, Kleyn & Chae, 2012). There is little research that examines the
LTEL student voice. This study aims to add the LTEL student voice to the emerging literature on
LTELs.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 16
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to listen to the Long-term English Learner’s (LTEL’s) voice
as well as to understand how communication about college preparedness exists within their
ecological system. With Common Core implemented, teachers are tasked with learning outcomes
and are required to attend professional development to learn how to best implement the new
standards in their lessons. Students, though, were thrust into this new system with little support.
Educators need to understand, recognize, and address student’s lack of understanding when
developing lessons for students to be more successful with the Common Core State Standards.
Teachers trained with effective practices, such as appropriate scaffolding or specially designed
academic instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies, tend to create access to the material.
However, English Learners and LTELs generally are taught by those most inexperienced (Olsen,
2010b).
Further, the lack of literature to support Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and what
may be best to help support them is lacking (Boone, 2011; Callahan, 2005; Goldenberg, 2014;
Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Being able to
understand the LTELs’ ecological system may shed light to how we fill the knowledge gap
LTEL students and their parents have.
A case study was utilized to help understand the unique needs and concerns of Long-term
English Learners (LTELs; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Completing a case study allowed the
researcher to interview one high school LTEL student in-depth to listen to his story to help
understand the meaning behind his plight to be college ready. Also, it was important to hear from
the LTEL student’s parents and school personnel to understand their points of view. Parents have
unique views of the school system and what the school may be providing their child. Interviews
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 17
were compared to see what similarities and differences exist. A school employee was also
interviewed to understand how her point of view compared to that of the student. Interviews
were semi-structured with questions about their perceptions of academic preparedness.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) is the framework for this study. The
ecological systems theory is a natural fit to understand the Long-term English Learner (LTEL)
student and their immediate base: their family and school, known as the microsystem in the
ecological systems theory. It also allowed the researcher to study the mesosystem to understand
how the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan is constructed to support the LTEL
student.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Several key concepts emerge that guide the research questions. Understanding students’
perceptions of themselves as English Learners is one concern (Kim & García, 2014; Menken et
al., 2012). As many students do not realize their classification, it is important to clarify students’
misunderstandings about support classes and access to a college-prep curriculum (Callahan,
2005; Kim & García, 2014). Being able to add their voice to this emerging body of research is
important, especially to see if motivation, or lack thereof, is related to students’ language
reclassification.
Lastly, the researcher was curious to understand the programming that Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) have received and how they perceive it towards their goals (i.e. college and
career). Programming should be content-area based, not just linguistic (Callahan, 2005;
Linquanti, 2001). Researchers noted that students understand that academic English skills are
necessary for their success in school (Kim & García, 2014). Yet, programing for LTELs does not
seem to support this, nor do students feel supported (Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 18
2010). With so little research, especially in California, it seems fitting to ask California students
about their perceptions of programs or support offered. It is also important to understand the
perceptions of administrators who direct such programs, along with teachers who instruct such
programs.
In considering the literature that exists along with the data about English Learners, and in
particular, Long-term English Learners (LTELs), several guiding questions emerge that this
study proposes to investigate:
1. How does an LTEL student in a suburban school district located in Southern California
perceive himself as college ready?
2. How does a school personnel employed in a suburban school district located in Southern
California perceive LTEL students to be academically prepared for college?
3. How do parents of an LTEL student who attends a suburban school district located in
Southern California perceive their child to be ready for college?
4. How does the Long-term English Learner student’s ecological system support his
academic goals?
The researcher hypothesized that a disconnection exists among the student, family and
school system in understanding what needs to occur to prepare the student to be academically
prepared for both reclassification and college readiness. The hypothesis includes a student and
family unfamiliar with system procedures in how a student reclassifies and becomes college
ready, along with the school personnel not providing a simple understanding of how the system
works, as opposed to technical jargon.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 19
Significance of the Study
With so many Long-term English Learners (LTELs) in the system, it is concerning how
these students will meet the new Common Core State Standards, much less the demands of the
21st century workforce. This study aspired to contribute to the emerging literature and research
on LTELs. With the growing numbers of LTEL students, a definite need exists for more LTEL
research to be completed, especially so in California, as most of the research found was
conducted outside of California. This lack of research is of concern as the majority of LTELs
reside in California (Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn, 2010). This study was conducted in
a California school district, and although qualitative, it is the researcher’s hope that the research
can be added to others for generalizability purposes.
In particular, this study aimed to understand the micro and meso levels of the Long-term
English Learner (LTEL) student’s ecological system in how he is successful in meeting the goals
of Common Core and his impediments to being successful. Understanding the student’s
perspective of academic success and college readiness should add to the emerging research in
this area. The study sought to understand the LTEL student’s parent’s perspectives of academic
success in meeting college readiness goals. Parents may have differing opinions as to what they
believe is happening in schools. Parents typically want what is best for their child and may
perceive their child is on track for college readiness, when s/he is not. Lastly, understanding the
school personnel’s viewpoint should allow for a full picture of what is occurring. District
personnel may believe something is occurring in the classroom when it may or may not be, while
teachers may believe the support they receive is insufficient. It is imperative a team effort occurs
to ensure the LTEL student becomes college ready.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 20
The researcher hopes that others will learn from this research the importance of listening
to one another to inform teaching or educational practices. A dialogue among all parties needs to
take place to narrow any type of knowledge gap. Schools believe they are preparing their
students. Students claim they want to go to college. However, when the data show that students
are not prepared (e.g. not attending college or access to entry-level jobs only), something is
amiss. With this study, the researcher learned what the three parties understand to be true and
how it can begin a dialogue among all three parties to improve the Long-term English Learner
student’s high school experience.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any research, there are limitations and delimitations to this study. Every effort
was made to ensure the research was completed fully and to the highest regard. However, there
were some practical problems with this study.
First, several definitions of a Long-term English Learner (LTEL) exist. Therefore, the
definition approved in California in 2012, AB 2193, was used to identify an LTEL since this
study focused on LTELs who reside in California. AB 2193 defines an LTEL as a student who is
classified as an English learner, has continuous enrollment in U.S. schools for six years, but does
not exit English Learner status.
Second, California recently required districts to report the number of Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) for state reports. The California governor signed AB 2193 in 2012 and it took
four years before LTEL reports were available on the California Department of Education (CDE)
website. Before the fall of 2016, it was difficult to identify the percentages of LTEL students
within a district. Xenial Unified School District queried data to determine the numbers of LTEL
students for this study before the reports made available on the CDE website. A cross-
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 21
examination of English Learner and LTEL data from the CDE website also took place in the fall
of 2016 and in the spring of 2017 to identify the percentage of LTELs in this district. However,
the numbers were vastly different and therefore, the numbers reported to the CDE were the ones
utilized in the study.
Third, as a case study, generalizability is limited, as the population of Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) is an emerging population (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
However, a qualitative approach to the case study was preferred to uncover any meaning for
those involved. It is important to understand why LTELs remain as such, despite many services
available for them to reclassify. Also, the push to go to college is strong and it is important to
understand what, if any, challenges LTELs have in pursing any college goals.
Validity also needs to be addressed. Internal validity was secured through triangulation
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In particular, the use of interviews and multiple document reviews was
conducted to triangulate the data. Through a review using the constant comparison method,
themes were determined. Also, to ensure validity, multiple member checks were completed to
ensure that the constant comparison method was used correctly. External validity was obtained
by transferability. This means that the data will have descriptions that would allow others to
make an informed decision with the information provided.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 22
Definition of Terms
This section presents and defines major terms pertinent to this study. This, however, is
not an inclusive list.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives: For agencies that received Title III grant
money to improve English Learners (EL) proficiency, each agency had to develop annual
measurable achievement objectives that would measure EL student growth. For example, these
measures had to include annual increases in the percentage of ELs making progress in learning
English and annual increases of ELs reclassifying as fluent English proficient. (U.S. Department
of Education, 2004b)
Advanced Placement (AP): Advanced Placement courses, overseen by the CollegeBoard,
are college-level courses for students interested in taking more rigorous courses to be better
prepared for college. Earning a 3 or higher on an AP course can potentially earn a student college
credit or be allowed to bypass entry-level college courses. More than two million students took
an AP exam in 2014 (CollegeBoard, 2016).
Adequate Yearly Progress: Adequate yearly progress was part of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, which required states to manage an accountability system that measured if
schools and districts were making progress towards stated targets (CDE, 2016a).
California Assessment Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): California
Assessment Student Performance and Progress is a system that was started in 2014. It replaced
California’s previous system, the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program. CAASPP
includes the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for English and math, which are based
on the Common Core State Standards. Students in grades three through eight and eleven take
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 23
these assessments. The CAASPP also has a science assessment that is given in grades five, eight
and ten (CDE, 2016b).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Common Core State Standards are a set of
college and career ready standards for grades kindergarten through 12th grade that focuses on
English and mathematics. They were devised to make sure students who graduate high school
are equipped for introductory college classes or can successfully enter the workforce. As of
today, 42 states have adopted the CCSS (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016b).
California Department of Education (CDE): This is a government agency that supervises
public education. The department enforces educational law while ensuring accountability for
local educational agencies. Further, it attempts to provide ongoing reform to improve public
school programs (CDE, 2015).
California English Language Development Test: The California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) is given to students whose primary language is not English to
evaluate their English proficiency. Those identified as needing to improve their English skills,
take the CELDT yearly to gauge their progress. At the time of this study, the CELDT was
nearing termination, as a newer proficiency test was to be administered in California: the English
Language Proficiency Assessments for California. That test was deemed more in line with the
Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2016d).
English Learner (EL): A student whose primary language is something other than
English and who cannot speak, read, write, or comprehend English well enough to meaningfully
participate in the regular classroom (CDE, n.d.a).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 24
English Language Development (ELD): English language development is an instructional
program designed for English Learners to assist them with second language acquisition (CDE,
2016f).
English-Only: Students whose primary language is English. Also known as a native
speaker of English (State of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2014b).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): This act was signed into law in 1965
by President Johnson and was reauthorized by every president since. President Johnson believed
that all students should have access to a full education. The ESEA is essentially a civil rights
law. For example, it provided for resources for low-income students and funding for special
education (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
Local Control and Accountability Plan: Under the local control funding formula, Local
Education Agencies must complete a plan that identifies yearly goals for students that define
specific actions (CDE, 2016f).
Local Education Agency (LEA): A public board of education, like a school district, that
maintains control over public elementary or secondary schools within a particular border
(¡Colorín Colorado!, n.d.).
Local Control Funding Formula: A new educational funding procedure in California that
began in the 2013–2014 academic year. It streamlines how monies are allotted to Local
Education Agencies (LEAs). LEAs that serve English Learners, foster children, or students
eligible for free or reduced-price meals receive additional funds to provide intensive support for
these populations (CDE, 2016g).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 25
Long-term English Learner (LTEL): An English Learner who has not reclassified for
more than six years. Typically, LTELs have difficulty with academic content due to limited
English proficiency (¡Colorín Colorado!, n.d.).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): President George W. Bush reauthorized
Elementary and Secondary Education Act using this name which defined his educational goals
(¡Colorín Colorado!, n.d.).
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP): Redesignated fluent English proficient
students are English Learners who were reclassified as having fluency in English through
demonstration on various criteria (CDE, 2016f). In more recent times, the term Reclassified-
Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) has been utilized (CDE, n.d.b).
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE): This is an instructional
approach to assist English Learners in academic content areas (CDE, 2016f).
In literature, English Learners (ELs) are identified either as English language learners
(ELLs) or ELs. For this study, the term ELs was used.
Organization of the Study
The study is organized into five chapters. In Chapter One, a problem was defined that
many secondary English Learners (ELs) become Long-term English Learners (LTELs). In
particular, Xenial Unified School District has more than 50% of LTELs at the high school level
(N = 206). This is problematic because students are encouraged to be college ready, yet these
students typically are in support classes and not enrolled in more rigorous courses. In Chapter
Two, a review of the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
theory takes place. Through this lens, the researcher reviewed existing literature on the history of
educational reform, laws that shaped educational reform, definitions of an EL and LTEL, the
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 26
lack of research on LTELs, access to rigorous learning opportunities, and the types of debated
curriculum for LTELs. In Chapter Three, the methodology of the research, including using a
grounded theory approach, is discussed. Chapter Four reports data discovered. Chapter Five
presents an interpretation of the data, along with future recommendations for research.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Two begins with the theoretical framework as it provides a lens to understand the
major themes that are important in studying Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and how they
perceive themselves to be college ready. To understand LTELs’ perceived readiness, it is
important to review topics that reflect the history of English Learners (ELs), the laws that
currently exist, what it means to be college ready, the type of research that already exists, and the
nuisances of what it means to be an LTEL. LTELs are ELs to begin with, so a review of EL
information is warranted. There will also be a focus on California law and concerns as the study
was conducted in California.
Theoretical Framework: Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory was employed as the framework for
this study. This theory posits that environmental factors influence the development of the person
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Santrock, 2011). As presented in Figure 1, the theory suggests that there
are five systems surrounding the individual: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem
and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986; Santrock, 2011). The fifth system, the
chronosystem, is not depicted in Figure 1, as this system can be seen at any system level.
Bronfenbrenner firmly believed this system of environmental factors surrounding the child has a
direct bearing on the child’s potential (Brendtro, 2006).
A Description of Ecological Systems Theory
Microsystem. First, the individual finds him/herself in the microsystem (Figure 1). This
includes the person’s more immediate interactions: family, peers, school and neighborhood
(Bronfenbrenner, 1974; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Santrock, 2011). Direct interactions take place in
this system, whether it is a parent providing care for the individual or the individual receiving
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 28
instruction from his/her teacher. It also includes friendships and people within the neighborhood
with whom the individual has direct contact.
Bronfenbrenner believed that, without trusting bonds, “children cannot thrive and reach
their full potential” (Brendtro, 2006, p. 163). He saw these bonds as reciprocal as each person
can impact other people in how they influence each other (Brendtro, 2006).
Mesosystem. This system shows relationships between the microsystem, such as home to
school experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1977, 1986; Santrock, 2011). These interrelations are
key in how a person develops (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The mesosystem can also include other
points of contacts, such as involvement with religious groups or community groups (Figure 1).
Bronfenbrenner (1977) wrote, “a mesosystem is a system of microsystems” (p. 515).
Exosystem. This system shows a link to the outside world that the individual does not
actively participate in, yet could be influenced by (Figure 1; Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986;
Santrock, 2011). For example, an individual’s parent may be fired from his job, which causes
financial distress to the family and the individual may not have access to items that his friends
have. It could also include the parent’s social network (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).
Macrosystem. This system encompasses the culture that the individual lives in
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Santrock, 2011). A person’s culture includes the attitudes and values
held sacred by that community of people (Figure 1). Bronfenbrenner (1977) gave the example
that a school classroom in one area appears and operates much like one in a different area.
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) defined culture as the ethnic or national origin of which
the person is born. They furthered the definition by stating that a person’s origin influences his
values and beliefs. However, they claimed the idea that educators must consider the student’s
culture to incorporate it into lessons is very weak for English Learner instruction. They did note
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 29
that there was some research that found student engagement was high with considerations to
culture sensitivity, but not student achievement.
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) noted that a person’s sociocultural group could affect
their achievement levels in school. They stated that, although we should not pigeonhole a person
into a stereotype or generalizable statement, it goes without saying that students who come from
low-incomes and students whose home language is Spanish typically struggle academically in
school. Although exceptions may and do exist, Goldman and Coleman (2010) pointed out that
the research is thin regarding aligning classroom instruction and sociocultural aspects.
It could be helpful for teachers to have some understanding of cultural differences that
could factor into the student’s learning of a second language (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010;
Hudspath-Niemi & Conroy, 2013). These factors coincide with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological systems theory in how various levels within the system affect the individual.
Chronosystem. This system reviews the entire lifespan, looking at life transitions
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Life transition indicators or markers include items such as graduation,
marriage, having a child, divorce, and death of loved ones. These times of transition can affect
the individual whether for good or bad.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 30

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems

The use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as a research lens.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory provides an opportunity to understand the
Long-term English Learner student’s support system as they navigate through his/her academic
journey. “One can only gain an accurate understanding of a child by attending to transactions
within the family, school, peer group, and neighborhood” (Brendtro, 2006, p. 163). It is an
opportunity for “discovery – the identification of those systems properties and processes that
affect, and are affected by, the behavior and development of the human being” (Bronfenbrenner,
1977, p. 518).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 31
The two closest systems to an individual were examined by looking at transactions within
the micro and meso systems. Both systems include a student’s family and peers, while the
mesosystem also includes school and work (Paat, 2013). In 1986, Bronfenbrenner (1979) noted
that research up to that point had focused on the family’s influence on the child in school, but not
vice-versa. This research sought to see how the Long-term English Learner student’s
environment, which includes both family and school influences, provides support for college
readiness.
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) wrote, “School, district, home and family
factors…influence achievement” (p. 11), which requires educators to understand that teaching is
more than just the instruction of language. Wiggan (2007) pointed out that some of the
difficulties that students experience are due to low teacher expectations. Many parents want the
best for their children. Paat (2013) posited that a tight-knit family unit could provide a shield to
undesirable results. Having such protection can afford the student the opportunity to successfully
navigate the systems s/he must encounter within the school system.
When ecological systems are disrupted, children may experience problems (Brendtro,
2006). For example, researchers (Brendtro, 2006; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Paat, 2013;
Wiggan, 2007) noted that parent education levels could and do have an impact on student
outcomes. Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) mentioned that home literacy plays an important
role. They reported that the National Literacy Panel determined that parents of ELs do want to
help their children, but that schools misjudge their interest. They further state it succinctly when
they wrote, “Given an opportunity, parents could make a difference in their children’s school
success; however, they often lack the knowledge or the confidence about what they can actually
do to help” (p. 130). For some, it is a language barrier that prevents them from becoming
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 32
involved (Paat, 2013). Paat (2013) believed parent groups taught by qualified personnel could
assist parents in understanding the American school system and learn how to become connected
through parent involvement and volunteer work. Without support, along with low parent
education levels and limited finances, a lack of social capital exists that prevents parents from
providing optimum academic support to their children.
Bronfenbrenner was not a fan of laboratory studies as he felt they did not provide useful
information for practice (Brendtro, 2006). Rather, Bronfenbrenner preferred practical studies that
explored “how a child experiences and interprets his or her world” (Brendtro, 2006, p. 164). This
naturalistic viewpoint allows the researcher to study a child under normal circumstances, as
opposed to a contrived laboratory study.
Wiggan (2007) wrote, “students from low-achieving schools are less likely to have access
to appropriate resources and experienced teachers” (p. 323). Long-term English Learners
(LTELs) require intensive support, but, without access to skilled teachers who provide such
support, the LTEL students could continue to fall behind their peers.
Wiggan (2007) reported there are very few studies that focus on how students explain
achievement, despite many studies focused on student achievement. His proposal, a student-
based inquiry, includes students as “active investigators” (p. 324) who can provide information
on how they define success, achievement and areas of concern. These qualitative studies utilize
the student viewpoint, which can provide a better overall perspective than just a top-down focus
where students are merely “passive subjects” (p. 324). In previous research, Wiggan learned that
what teachers and administration considered achievement was different than how students
defined it. He believed that a student-based inquiry study would highlight students’ perspectives,
which in turn would “strengthen the literature” (p. 325). Wiggan wrote,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 33
There are at least four major research areas that have been overlooked. Studies are
needed that (a) examine the meaning of student achievement among students; (b)
determine students’ perceptions about the quality of instruction they receive; (c) identify
the climate at the individual school level, which students believe places them at risk for
low achievement; and (d) investigate the educational progress and solutions students
believe to be necessary for improving school achievement.” (p. 325)
This study did not address all four overlooked areas, but it did include one student as an
active researcher to help identify his perceptions on achievement, in particular to his college
aspirations, on support he receives from his high school and on how his environment supports his
academic endeavors.
History of Educational Laws and Reform
Educational reform has occurred at all agency levels: federal, state and local. Throughout
the years, various laws were enacted to ensure educational equality, including those to meet
English Learners’ (ELs’) needs. These laws are seen in the macrosystem of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological system. Although the various laws do not have an immediate, direct effect on
the student, their impact eventually trickles down to the mesosystem where students are affected.
The United States has had a long history with laws regarding instruction of ELs. Although not an
inclusive list, major decisions for the United States and California are discussed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
A person may not be discriminated against based on race, color, or national origin
(Gallegos, 2015; National Archives, 2016). This included several areas, including education.
Specifically, Title IV prohibits discrimination of race, color, or national origin by public
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 34
elementary and secondary schools and public institutions of higher education (United States
Department of Justice, 2015).
Elementary and Secondary Educational Act (1965)
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act to provide equity to the disadvantaged (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
For example, this law provided grants to help districts that served students with low
socioeconomics and provided funding for special education (U.S. Department of Education,
2016). Since then, every U.S. President has reauthorized this act.
Bilingual Education Act (1968)
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 provided funding for language programs like
bilingual education (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). Like other rulings, this act did not provide
guidelines regarding what type of program that should be provided to English Learners. Since its
initial authorization, it was reauthorized four times (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).
Office of Civil Rights Memo (1970)
Approximately five million U.S. students have limited English proficiency (National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, n.d.). Schools have a responsibility that all
students have access to the curriculum (National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, n.d.). The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a memo in 1970 that school
districts’ responsibilities must include steps to remedy the language deficiency of English
Learners (ELs) for ELs to participate equally (National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, n.d.). Despite the fact that the OCR requires districts to take steps to rectify the
situation, it did not provide exactly what steps districts are to take. If a district fails to assist ELs
gain English proficiency, then the district is in violation of federal law (National Clearinghouse
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 35
for English Language Acquisition, n.d.). Through their research, Umansky et al. (2015)
determined that ELs “suffer from restricted educational opportunity” despite what the law aims
to purport (p. 4). ELs are more likely to be in remedial type courses and not in more advanced
courses. Further, ELs may enroll in English language development courses that meet their high
school English requirements but never take the actual English language arts courses, the courses
that meet eligibility requirements for college readiness.
Lau v. Nichols (1974)
In the early 1970s, San Francisco had a large population of Chinese immigrants. The San
Francisco school district failed to provide English language services to approximately 1,800
Chinese students who did not speak English (Sugarman & Widess, 1974; U.S. Department of
Education, 2015a). A class suit was filed for not providing equal education for these students.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that San Francisco was not
at fault because students bring their culture with them, which includes their language (U.S.
Department of Education, 20115a). However, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit
decision on the basis that disregarding language was discriminatory per the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which bans discrimination against race, color or national origin (American Institutes for
Research, 2006; Gallegos, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015a). These students in San
Francisco could not and did not have a meaningful education without knowing the English
language, the language that was required by California Education Code. Further, the U.S.
Department of Education belief is that English language instruction should occur fast enough to
ensure students have access to the full curriculum (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a).
Interestingly, the law contradicts with language acquisition theory.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 36
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Office of Civil Right’s 1970 memo in 1974’s Lau v.
Nichols ruling (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, n.d.). The Supreme
Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as such that local school districts and states must
ensure appropriate services to those students with limited English skills. The justices claimed
that if a student does not understand the language of instruction, then that student could not be
provided an equal education (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, n.d.).
They further stated that merely providing the same teachers, curriculum, and textbooks do not
equate equality for someone who does not understand the language (Gallegos, 2015; National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, n.d.). The implementation of these services
continues to be argued today both through federal and state politics.
Equal Education Opportunity Act (1974)
In 1974, Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA; American
Institutes for Research, 2006). This act instructed that no state could deny an education to a
student due to a language barrier (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition,
n.d.). Part of the EEOA codified the decision of Lau v. Nichols (Wright, 2010). In particular to
Lau, it stated that Local Education Agencies (LEAs) had to take action to assist English Learners
(ELs) for ELs to have a meaningful education (The United States Department of Justice, 2015).
As seen in previous statutes, EEOA did not define what kind of action LEAs needed to take to
ensure adherence to the law (The United States Department of Justice, 2015).
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981)
This case began in Texas where the plaintiffs alleged that Raymondville Independent
School District failed to meet the requirements of the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA)
that pertained to English Learners (Wright, 2010). The Fifth Circuit determined that the district
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 37
was not meeting the requirements of EEOA. The key outcome of this case was that a three-part
test, known as the Castañeda standard, was established to determine if a school district was
providing appropriate language services (American Institutes for Research, 2006; Gallegos,
2015; Wright, 2010). Appropriate services must meet three parts: programs based on educational
theory, effective implementation with appropriate resources and personnel, and evaluation of the
program to determine its effectiveness (Wright, 2010).
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
The state of Texas enacted Section 21.031 in 1975 that excluded undocumented children
a public education (American Immigration Council, 2012; Hull, 1983; United States Courts,
n.d.). It also allowed school districts to charge undocumented children tuition if they did want to
attend school. Since undocumented families did not earn much, the cost to send their children to
school stopped them from enrolling their children.
The challenge began with parents and guardians of undocumented children in the Tyler
Independent School District (American Immigration Council, 2012; Hull, 1983). At first, Section
21.031 was deemed unconstitutional. However, Texas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
(United States Courts, n.d.). In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided five to four to nullify
Section 21.031 (American Immigration Council, 2012). The small majority deemed it
unconstitutional to deny public education to children who do not have legal status in the United
States. Justice Brennan wrote for the majority, stating that undocumented children were
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that people cannot be denied to equal
protection of the law (American Immigration Council, 2012; Hull, 1983; United States Courts,
n.d.). He continued to say that these undocumented minor children were victims and could not be
held to the idea that they entered the country unlawfully. Further, Justice Brennan stated that
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 38
Section 21.031 limited these children to a lifetime of illiteracy, which could only burden Texas
in the long run (American Immigration Council, 2012; Hull, 1983). Ultimately, the Court stated
that these children were in the country through no fault of their own, and should have access to a
basic education.
California Proposition 187 (1994)
This proposition would have eliminated public education access for undocumented
immigrants; however, it was overturned as unconstitutional (American Immigration Council,
2012). Proponents felt California could not sustain social services to undocumented immigrants
and that continuing to do so would further hurt California economically. However, the majority
of English Learners (ELs) are U.S. native born, so, for the most part, this would have been a
moot point towards improving education for ELs. With Governor Gray Davis in office, he
withdrew the appeal petition. The various conditions of Prop 187 were repealed in the Senate
Bill No. 396 (State of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2014a).
California Proposition 227 (1998)
California voters passed Prop 227 in 1998 (American Institutes for Research, 2006;
Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). This proposition limited bilingual programs in California, which
contradicted the intent of Lau v. Nichols and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Instead, a
structured English immersion program was considered ideal, suggesting that one to two years
would be sufficient for students to learn English successfully (American Institutes for Research,
2006; Olsen, 2010a). Bilingual programs still existed, but parents had to sign waivers to allow
their child to participate (American Institutes for Research, 2006). This proposition eliminated
primary-language instruction in California, but the promises of English Learner success did not
materialize (American Institutes for Research, 2006; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 39
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
With President George W. Bush in office, he reauthorized Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act in 2001 under a new name: No Child Left Behind (NCLB). There was public
sentiment that no child should lack certain skills or be left behind in instruction.
President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law in 2002 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004a), which began a shift towards implementing standards in education. States
were required to develop said standards and assessments to which they were held accountable for
federal measures (American Institutes for Research, 2006; Mathis, 2010). In California, the
California State Standards were developed. Children from second grade through eleventh grade
took the California Standards Tests.
Having such standards increased accountability at all schools as every school had to meet
their adequate yearly progress goals (American Institutes for Research, 2016). Schools had to
show growth in all areas measured. States had to set specific goals, called annual measurable
achievement objectives (American Institutes for Research, 2006). Annual measurable
achievement objectives included increases in English, mathematics and graduation rates. This
also included subsets of students whose numbers were large enough to be assessed. Subsets
included ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, English Learners (ELs) and special education
students. For example, a school could meet all target areas, except ELs’ growth in English, and
therefore, the school could be subject to sanctions. Many teachers of ELs felt immense pressure
to ensure student growth (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
California Assembly Bill 2193 (2012)
California Education Code Section 306(a) defines a limited English proficient student as
a student who does not speak English or whose native language is not English and who is not
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 40
currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in English (CDE, 2016e). However, it does
not accurately describe the student who has been an English Learner (EL) for more than five
years. Assembly Bill 2193 was passed to fix this. It formally recognized that students who
continue to be an EL for more than six years should be recognized as a Long-term English
Learners (LTEL; State of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2012). California is the first
state to pass such a law. Interestingly, the law does not match up to the U.S. Department of
Education’s definition of an LTEL, which they purport begins after the student’s EL
classification remains at five years or more (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015f).
In 2015, Senate Bill 750 was approved by the governor that revised AB 2193 on Long-
term English Learners (LTELs; State of California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2015). The
original law stated any English Learner (EL) student who had been enrolled in school for more
than six years along with staying at the same proficiency level would be considered an LTEL.
First, SB 750 revised this statement also to include ELs who had regressed to a lower English
proficiency. Secondly, the law changed in how it defined an EL who could potentially become
an LTEL. Third, the law required that the information on ELs in danger of becoming LTELs and
information on LTELs be posted on the California Department of Education (CDE) website. In
the fall of 2016, this data could be accessed through the CDE website, four years after the AB
2193 went into effect.
California Senate Bill 1174 (2014)
This bill is known as the California Education for a Global Economy Initiative (State of
California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2014b). Prop 227 required that all children in
California be taught English by being instructed in English. English Learners (ELs), then, were
to be instructed through a sheltered English program for no more than a year. The language of
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 41
Prop 227 was written into Section 300 of the Education Code. SB 1174 amended many portions
of Section 300 including how ELs could be taught, such as teaching students through a dual-
immersion program. It also resolved to ensure all students become multilingual, as the global
economy demands such a skill.
Most of this bill needed to be ratified by voters, since voters had backed Prop 227.
California Prop 58 was placed on the November 2016 ballot and was approved by voters
overwhelmingly.
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)
In 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act to continue support for student
achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2015c).
Along with this, the development of the Common Core State Standards was created and
highly encouraged for states to adopt. Common Core is highly focused on college and career
readiness. English and mathematics are its primary foci.
California Prop 58 (2016)
This proposition dismantled California Prop 227 (California Secretary of State, 2016a).
Over 70% of California constituents voted in favor of this proposition (California Secretary of
State, 2016b).
College Readiness
Although no formal definition exists, college readiness typically implies that a student is
prepared well enough that s/he is ready for college and does not need remedial assistance in
college. Universities and colleges, part of a student’s exosystem, expect students to come
prepared for college. Yamamura, Martinez and Saenz (2010) noted, “college readiness (CR)
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 42
standards are an emerging trend” (p. 126). They further claim that “increasing college access for
Latina/o students is of national concern, in particular for the Southwest and geographic areas that
are experiencing growth in their Latina/o population” (p. 127). With more than three million
Hispanic/Latino students enrolled in California schools, it should be of concern to California as
well. Hispanics/Latinos comprise 53.97% of the student population, larger than any other ethnic
or race category in the state (CDE, 2016d). However, researchers (Gao, 2016; Martinez, Cortez,
& Saenz, 2013) note that not only the gap of academic success between Latino and white
students continues to grow, but also that Latinos’ high school graduation rates remain the lowest
of all racial and ethnic groups.
Although the Common Core State Standards purport college readiness, most adults do
not have a college degree. Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) reported approximately 75% of
adults do not have a degree. They also reported that, of those who do have a degree, 13% were
adults whose first language was not English. Despite this, the majority of the fastest growing
occupations require some postsecondary education, from a trade school program up to a
doctorate program (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) point out that children will not always fare well in their
education if their parents have low educational levels. And since so many of today’s students,
regardless of language, do not have a parent who graduated from college, it is important for
educators to understand so they may be best prepared to teach these children about the college
process. This would be noted in a student’s microsystem. Whether her/his parent(s) went to
college could potentially affect a student’s vision of the accessibility of attending and graduating
from college.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 43
Colleges and Universities
California has the largest public college system, with nine University of California
campuses and 23 California State University campuses. Additionally, California has the largest
community college system in the United States with 113 colleges in the state (California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2016).
To be considered for admission to University of California and California State
University, students must meet the a-g requirements, earn certain scores on either the SAT or
ACT, along with having a particular grade point average (GPA). The a-g sequence is a set of 15
courses in which students must earn at least a C grade. Each letter specifies a certain discipline:
(a) history – one year of a social science and one year of a U.S. history; (b) English – four years;
(c) mathematics – three years which includes up to Algebra II; (d) laboratory science – one year
of biological science and one year of a physical science; (e) language other than English – two
years in the same language; (f) – visual and performing art – one year; and (g) college prep – one
year, which could be an advanced course within a-f or an approved college-prep course
(University of California, 2015).
For many decades, to be college ready in California meant meeting these basic
requirements. In 2016, the California State Board of Education passed a preliminary plan that
would define college readiness for federal accountability purposes (Leal, 2016). This plan is
much more than meeting the a-g sequence. At the very least, a student would still need to meet
the a-g sequence, but to be considered well-prepared, the student would need to meet one of the
following options: complete a career technical pathway; score “Ready” on both the math and
English portions of the CAASPP; earn a three or higher on at least three AP tests; complete three
years or more of dual enrollment in a community college; or earn an International Baccalaureate
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 44
diploma (Leal, 2016). Other levels include prepared, approaching prepared, and not yet
prepared, which have varying requirements. Although this plan is partially enacted, districts
continue to determine how they will provide programs for students for them to be successful
with this new framework.
To attend a California community college, one either needs to have a high school
diploma or be 18 years of age. More than two million students enrolled in a California
community college in the 2014–2015 academic term and enrollment continues to increase
(California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2015).
Knowledge of College Preparation Process
Students find out how to apply to college in various ways. They may have learned from a
person in their microsystem, mesosystem, or exosystem, such as a school counselor, a parent or
an older sibling, or by investigating the process on their own. Yamamura et al. (2010) found that
although parents play an important role, even if they did not attend college, most Latino students
obtain college information from other sources.
Long-term English Learners (LTELs) do indicate they want to attend college (Kim &
García, 2014; Olsen, 2010a, 2010b). However, Olsen posited that students do not realize, nor do
their parents, that they are not prepared for college due to low academic skills and lack of college
preparedness. In Kim and García’s (2014) qualitative study, they found the students were
motivated to better themselves because they wanted to attend college and make their parents
proud. They further found that that the students believed they could go to college as long as they
passed their classes. Although passing one’s classes is important, this may mean that LTELs do
not understand the process of applying to college, which includes taking and passing specific
courses, taking the SAT or ACT, and taking college placement exams. Kim and García’s (2014)
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 45
study did not indicate whether these LTEL students knew the multiple measures they must
complete for college admission.
Many students are unaware that they must take placement tests for college and score
proficient in English and math to be able to take college-level courses. Without proficiency,
students are subjected to remedial college courses, which they must pay for and pass, but for
which they do not receive college credit. The California State University, in particular, designed
various programs to assist students with low scores (The California State University, 2016). In a
student’s junior year, s/he takes the Early Assessment Program test that is embedded in the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (The California State University,
2016). Students are notified of their results, which includes whether s/he is college ready,
conditionally ready, or not ready for college. Depending on the results, students then have their
senior year to better prepare themselves for college (The California State University, 2016). For
some, they may take a course called Expository Reading and Writing Course that purports to
improve their academic literacy skills.
Just like four-year colleges and universities, students must take placement tests at the
community colleges as well. According to the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office, 43.4% students began in remedial English during the 2013–2014 academic term
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2015). Although the Expository Reading
and Writing Class course was specifically made in conjunction with the California State
University system, it is still a class that could assist seniors during their final year of high school
to be better prepared. Without proper preparation, students can become easily frustrated starting
their college career in multiple remedial classes.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 46
Importance of College Preparedness
As stated previously, the majority of the fastest growing jobs require some postsecondary
education. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) reports on occupations with
the most job growth. Of the 15 occupations, four require a bachelor’s degree. Some might
believe that goes to show people do not need to attend some postsecondary education and that it
may just be wasted time. However, for the remaining occupations, the pay is so low that
depending on the number of people within the household, one would essentially fall within the
poverty level per U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (2016) standards.
This outlook from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) is without regard to
language acquisition. One can only presume, then, an English Learner or a Long-term English
Learner who does not have a command of academic language is ill prepared for college and will
be at a disadvantage when looking for an occupation with a living wage.
One of the fastest growing occupational areas is the healthcare pathway (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2015). Due to the new college indicator, many high schools in California developed
pathway programs, like a medical pathway program. Students could begin a program in high
school, and continue it during their college years. By doing this, a student would be trained
properly for an occupation sector that is expected to be larger than most.
Language Acquisition
Language acquisition has been studied for thousands of years (Krashen & Terrell, 2000).
In recent times, Krashen (1981) and Cummins (1980) became the leading researchers, and
teacher preparation educational programs base their programs regarding language acquisition on
their work. Educational pedagogy that Krashen and Cummins present would be seen in a
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 47
student’s macrosystem; however, students would only be affected by their practice through their
mesosystem if teachers practice their language strategies.
Krashen believes that the traditional approach to learning a language is acquiring the
ability to communicate without instruction in its grammar (Krashen & Terrell, 2000). He further
describes that the European and American education to teaching a language is not typical of how
most people learn a second language. Oral language instruction went by the wayside in favor of a
more grammatical approach.
Cummins first described the difference between oral proficiency and academic
proficiency (Cummins, 2008; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Hudspath-Niemi & Conroy, 2013).
Cummins created the terms basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP) to provide a conceptual framework. BICS is defined as
the everyday language a person employs that can be acquired within two years, whereas CALP is
the kind of language necessary for academic success (Cummins, 2008; Hudspath-Niemi &
Conroy, 2013). CALP can take anywhere from five to 10 years to develop (Cummins, 2008;
Hudspath-Niemi & Conroy, 2013; Olsen, 2010a). Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) note that
some have critiqued Cummins’ work, but the planning to best instruct English Learners for
academic success continues to revolve around the concepts of conversational and academic
English.
Academic instruction typically is considered content instruction in areas such as math,
science and social science (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Content knowledge is needed to be
academically successful, which, unfortunately, Long-term English Learners typically lack due to
many years of learning English at the cost of learning science, social studies, and language arts
(Olsen, 2010b). Further, the ability to use higher-order thinking skills, such as analyzing,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 48
evaluating and creating, skills found in Bloom’s taxonomy (Iowa State University, 2016), are
necessary to be successful in the academic setting, especially at the college level.
Researchers understand language acquisition occurs through the concept of transfer
(Cummins, 2005; Krashen & Terrell, 2000; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Simply, transfer is
the ability to apply knowledge to various settings. Without transfer, Goldenberg and Coleman
(2010) argue no one would be able to learn important concepts and be able to employ them to
different situations. They further state that, if one learns something in their primary language,
learning it in the next language is much easier. For example, learning how to read is much easier
to do in one’s primary language (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Then, instruction can focus on
transferring those skills to the second language. Despite this research, English Learners (ELs) in
California receiving primary language support has dropped down to five percent (Olsen, 2010b).
Essentially, ELs and Long-term English Learners try to catch up linguistically to their native
classmates all the while trying to learn the content (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
Language and the intricacies of learning language for academic purposes continue to be
recognized by researchers as important (Cummins, 2008; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000;
Linquanti, 2001). Learning syntax and how to use grammar properly is part of “language
structure” (Hill & Miller, 2013, p. 3). Hill and Miller (2013) write that being able to use such
structure allows a student to be able to participate in a lesson. Olsen (2010b) denotes that social
studies and science provide ideal opportunities for language development. Linquanti (2001)
states, ultimately, the objective is for students to learn English, and secondly for English
Learners to succeed in academic core classes, regardless of what second language theory is
employed.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 49
Characteristics of English Learners
Both English Learners (ELs) and Long-term English Learners need to be defined for
clarity of the study. ELs are expected to reclassify, which, essentially, means they have the
language skills that mirror a native speaker. When they do reclassify in California, they are
considered Reclassified-Fluent English Proficiency. These definitions are defined in a student’s
macrosystem.
English Learners
The Office of English Language Acquisition (2015c) reported that an English Learners
(EL) is a student between the ages of five and 18 who attends school and does not speak English
proficiently. They also reported that the poverty level for this group is very high at 73.8% and
that more than 60% of ELs are second-generation.
An English Learner (EL) is qualified as such when his English language skills do not
mirror a native speaker. If a student qualifies for EL support, services typically include some
kind of limited English proficiency services. This can include employing instructional aides for
the classroom, enrolling EL students into English as a second language or English language
development classes, or providing content with specially designed academic instruction in
English techniques. Whatever method is utilized for ELs, the instruction must allow students “a
meaningful opportunity to participate to in the public educational program” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015a).
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) noted that many states not normally associated with
English Learners (ELs) saw a growth in their EL population. States like Kansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, South Carolina, and West Virginia have seen their EL
population grow by over 100% (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015f). Goldenberg
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 50
and Coleman (2010) further noted that 76% of elementary-aged EL students were born in the
United States. Interestingly, many ELs and Long-term English Learners were born in the United
States (Boone, 2011; Kim & García, 2014; Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015f).
Although the media and politicians may report something different, only 18% of ELs are non-
citizens, whereas 77% of ELs were born in the U.S. (Office of English Language Acquisition,
2015b). This phenomenon of students born in the U.S. who cannot understand the dominant
language needs to be addressed; these students may appear to be English-speaking but may be
severely limited in their access to higher education.
In general, the number of English Learner (EL) students continues to increase (Hill &
Miller, 2013). Umansky et al. (2015) reported there were 1.4 million ELs in California alone.
Olsen (2010b, 2011) further pointed out that 185,000 ELs enter kindergarten in California each
year. Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) reported that the largest group of ELs in the United States
is Hispanic/Latino at 80%, with the next group being Asian at 10%. In particular, the largest EL
nationality groups are Honduran (17.3%) and Salvadoran (17.1%). ELs of Mexican heritage
comprise 13.2% (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015b). The most commonly spoken
language among ELs is Spanish (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015d). In California,
over 80% of ELs are Spanish-speakers (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015d).
Graduation rates for English Learners (ELs) fall short in every major category, including
all students, economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities (Office of
English Language Acquisition, 2015e). This is also true specifically in California, where ELs lag
behind all students in graduation rates (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015e).
California’s overall high school graduation rate is at 81.0%, but for ELs, it is only 65.0%
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2014).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 51
Long-term English Learners
A Long-term English Learner (LTEL) is someone who has not met reclassification for a
great length of time. Identification of an LTEL is primary to understand the nuisances of such a
group and help this sub-group of English Learners (ELs). According to the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of English Language acquisition, students classified as ELs who have
continuous enrollment in U.S. schools for five years, but do not exit EL status, are considered
LTELs (2015f). Some researchers follow this definition (Callahan, 2005), but many do not,
asserting an EL becomes an LTEL after seven years or more (Kim & García, 2014; Menken &
Kleyn, 2010; Menken et al., 2012; Olsen, 2010b). The state of California recently adopted AB
2193 that indicates an LTEL is someone classified as an EL for six or more years (State of
California Office of Legislative Counsel, 2012). This discrepancy is concerning as the potential
for students to not receive more intensive service may exist for several years before the student
receiving help.
The majority of Long-term English Learners (LTELs) are students at the secondary level
(Callahan, 2005; Kim & García, 2014; Olsen, 2010a, 2010b). In California, 40 districts reported
in 2010 that 59% of English Learners in secondary schools were, in fact, LTELs (Boone, 2011;
Callahan, 2005; Menken et al., 2012; Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015f; Olsen,
2010b; U.S. Department of Education, 2015d). Olsen (2010b) reports that this equates to 330,000
California students as LTELs. This trend, though not as high, is also seen in New York City,
Colorado, and Chicago (U.S. Department of Education, 2015d).
With such high numbers also come high numbers of dropouts (Boone, 2011; Cook,
Boals, & Lundberg, 2011; Kim & García, 2014; Menken et al., 2012; Olsen, 2010b). As high
school courses become more difficult, the propensity to drop out of high school is more likely.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 52
Having more rigorous courses is even truer as more and more districts continue to support
students meeting the University of California/California State University’s a-g requirements that
are required as part of the admission application (Los Angeles Unified School District, n.d.).
Students may be encouraged to take such courses, but then may struggle, not completely
understanding why. With low grades, students are encouraged to attend summer school to make
up courses, and for some students, they may have to be transferred to a continuation high school,
as their credit deficiency is too high.
For example, in Boone’s (2011) qualitative study, she interviewed several students who
had considered dropping out of high school or had dropped out. One such student was found to
be lacking in credits, earning poor grades, yet his micro and meso systems included his family
that encouraged him to finish high school. He had also switched schools during high school,
which can be traumatic for some, as noted in the chronosystem. Although this student felt safer
at his new school, he did not have any connections to friends, teachers, or other school personnel
to reach out to for extracurricular activities, tutoring support, or understanding of his graduation
status. A second student saw his older brothers drop out of high school and start making money.
This student felt that was better than sitting in class bored. A third student found that the school
system within her mesosystem did not support her when seeking college information. A parent
who was interviewed noted that her first three children were placed into special education
because the school did not know what to do. She also noticed that there was not any teacher who
could effectively teach her children. This mom even noticed that half of the Latino population at
her children’s school dropped out.
The ability to reclassify can be problematic for English Learners (ELs), and Long-term
English Learners (LTELs), especially once the student is in high school. Through their research,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 53
Umansky and Reardon (2014) learned it could be many years before an EL is ready to reclassify.
They also learned that reclassification rates for Spanish-speakers are slower. Further, a pattern
seen across the United States shows that ELs and Latino ELs achieve lower than their English-
speaking peers. Many LTELs do not view themselves as ELs (Kim & García, 2014), believing
that they speak English fine and that “support” is only needed for newcomers. With this
propensity to not push them to continually better their English, LTELs are not ready for exams
that get more difficult each year (Callahan, 2005). This lack of awareness that LTELs have of
themselves needs to be addressed (Cook et al., 2011; Menken et al., 2012).
The Reclassification Process
State and federal law, part of a student’s macrosystem, requires students who claim
another language learned or spoken at home be tested for English proficiency (CDE, 2016e). To
assess language, when a student enrolls in a school, s/he is required to complete a home survey.
Interestingly, this form is not uniform across the United States, with at least eight forms of
language proficiency tests utilized across the country (Hudspath-Niemi & Conroy, 2013). If the
completed form reveals that the student listens to or speaks languages other than English, the
student is assessed for English proficiency. In California, students are assessed using the
California English Language Development Test to determine the student’s English language
proficiency (CDE, 2016e).
In 2012, the California State Board of Education adopted new English Language
Development (ELD) standards aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2016e).
The California English Language Development Test (CELDT), however, is not in alignment
with the new ELD standards, and a new proficiency exam aligned with Common Core was on
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 54
the horizon as of this writing. The CELDT is aligned with standards that were approved in 1999
(CDE, 2016e).
English Learners (ELs) in California take the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) for initial placement and take it annually to determine their EL level (CDE,
2016e). The CELDT tests the student in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English
(CDE, 2016b). Students must continue taking the CELDT annually until they reclassify as
English proficient (CDE, 2016e).
State and federal law also require that Local Education Agencies (LEAs) develop annual
measurable achievement objectives for English Learners (ELs; CDE, 2016e). Results of the
California English Language Development Test inform LEAs of EL students’ progress in
learning English as well as progress towards the LEA’s annual measurable achievement
objectives (CDE, 2016e).
To reclassify, California state law requires that English Learners (ELs) meet four criteria:
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores, teacher evaluation, parent
opinion, and performance on a basic skills exam as compared to English proficient students’
performance (CDE, 2016e). In particular, EL students must earn scores on the CELDT to be
classified as early advanced or advanced, with all sub-scores at the intermediate level or higher
(CDE, 2016e). Teachers are to consider the EL student’s academic performance but should be
indifferent to low grades due to a lack of motivation (CDE, 2016e). Parents are to be encouraged
to participate in the reclassification process, along with being invited to a meeting with the Local
Education Agency (LEA) to discuss their child’s progress (CDE, 2016e). Lastly, with the basic
skills exam, EL students should be tested using an objective assessment (e.g. Smarter Balanced,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 55
2015) where the LEA has identified a cut score or range of scores that the EL student must meet
to be considered for reclassification (CDE, 2016e).
Despite California’s requirement, Umansky et al. (2015) found that “reclassification
criteria are not consistent across the state” (p. 4). Essentially, this means that a Long-term
English Learner (LTEL) could be reclassified in one district, but not in the district next door. If
the district has more stringent criteria, Umansky et al. (2015) found that LTELs have stronger
English proficiency rates as compared to districts with lower criteria. Linquanti (2001) further
noted that the methods used to reclassify English Learners seriously misrepresent the truth of the
student’s progress. Ultimately, the reclassified student should be able to “comprehend and
communicate effectively at any grade level…has sufficient academic language skills to engage in
cognitively-demanding, grade-level work…meet grade-level performance expectations, as
demonstrated by academic achievement in grade-level subject matter using English” (Linquanti,
2001, p. 5-6).
English Learner and Long-Term English Learner Research
Any potential research conducted on English Learners and Long-term English Learners
would be found in a student’s macrosystem.
Research
Remarkably for the number of English Learners and Long-term English Learners
(LTELs) identified, very little empirical research has been conducted (Boone, 2011; Callahan,
2005; Goldenberg, 2014; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn,
2010). For LTELs, research focused on elementary-aged students, not secondary where the
majority of LTELs exist. Further, there is a lack of research to determine if there are positive
effects on reading achievement in English through primary-language instruction, such as a dual-
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 56
language program (Goldenberg, 2014; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). However, studies are
scattered, so generalizability cannot occur with any certainty (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010).
A discrepancy exists among researchers’ definitions of a Long-term English Learner
(LTEL) compared to the U.S. Department of Education (Callahan, 2005; Kim & García, 2014;
Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Menken et al., 2012). Why such a discrepancy exists is unknown;
however, much of the research found was from the early 2000s, whereas the definition from the
U.S. Department of Education was from 2015. This could be a reason for the inconsistency. To
add to the confusion, California’s AB 2193 was approved that defined an LTEL as an English
Learner who continued to be such for more than six years (State of California Office of
Legislative Counsel, 2012).
Research is also limited towards Long-term English Learner (LTEL) needs: linguistic
services or academic proficiency (Kim & García, 2014). The research that does exist suggests
English Learners (ELs) and LTELs need academic proficiency help (Goldenberg, 2014;
Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Olsen, 2010b, 2011). EL and LTEL students need to be able to
read and write academically much like an English-only student would (Goldenberg & Coleman,
2010; Olsen, 2010b, 2011). Without this ability, ELs and LTELs would not be able to compete
against native speakers for college admission or employment opportunities.
Most of the research found was qualitative and the authors expressed that their findings
could not be generalized. A need exists for more research to be conducted to build
generalizability, which may lead to more appropriate Long-term English Learner (LTEL)
programming (Kim & García, 2014). Interestingly, for the numbers of students identified as
LTEL, the majority live in California, yet the majority of the empirical research was conducted
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 57
outside of California (Flores, Kleyn & Menken, 2015; Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn,
2010).
With the goal of English Learners (ELs) and Long-term English Learners reclassifying to
the proficient level, it may seem that the student strictly needs English language development.
However, if one employs that philosophy, the student will only fall further behind his classmates
in content areas (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Olsen, 2010b). Goldenberg and Coleman (2010)
purport “the challenge for teachers is to use strategies, approaches, and techniques that promote
grade-level content learning and English language development” (p. 89). They continue to point
out that there is a lack of research demonstrating how this can be done. Goldenberg and Coleman
(2010) asserted they had no answer to the question of whether ELs who are learning content and
language can keep up with their English-only peers. Ultimately, educators do not have sufficient
research about promoting academic language proficiency.
Lack of Student Voice
Another claim that researchers made was that the Long-term English Learner (LTEL)
voice was missing from the research (Boone, 2011; Kim & García, 2014). Some qualitative
research did bring the LTEL voice to the forefront. However, because studies were small, results
have not been generalizable to the entire population. Researchers recommend more of this type
of study be completed (Boone, 2011).
Limited Academic Skills and Learning Opportunities
Limited Academic Literacy Skills
Researchers posit English Learners become Long-term English Learners (LTELs)
because of limited academic literacy skills, not linguistic skills (Boone, 2011; Callahan, 2005;
Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Kim & García, 2014; Olsen, 2010b). Academic language is
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 58
“complex grammatical forms, more technical vocabulary, less use of slang and idioms, clearer
references, and a more objective sense” (Cook et al., 2011, p. 67). Without this knowledge,
LTELs are unsuccessful in core classes. Without academic literacy knowledge, LTELs are more
likely to fail these courses. Failing a course would require the student to make up said course in
summer school. If there were too many courses to make up, it could require the student to
transfer to a continuation school, where the student would have limited access to college and
career classes. Lastly, if the student is discouraged, it could lead to a student dropping out of
school.
Every discipline has its vernacular that must be taught. For example, science teaches
scientific terms, while English teaches grammatical terms. Teachers may provide instruction, but
for the Long-term English Learner (LTEL), it may be more difficult as they may not have
enough English or native language skills to build on. Researchers have seen this problem of
LTELs having limited literacy skills in their native language (Kim & García, 2014; Menken &
Kleyn, 2010). Some asserted that native language skills should be taught to English Learners and
LTELs in addition to English instruction (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Kim & García, 2014;
Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Students pointed out that when a teacher could explain the concept in
their native language, it provided a better understanding of the assignment (Kim & García,
2014). Students commented that it was difficult to understand the subject matter in English, even
though they have spoken English for five or more years (Kim & García, 2014).
Having opportunities for rigorous classes is paramount for Long-term English Learners
(LTELs; Callahan, 2005; Kim & García, 2014). Being able to write a lab report or answer a
document-based question that requires knowledge of how to provide support in one’s essay
(Callahan, 2005; Kim & García, 2014), is key for LTELs to know how to complete, especially
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 59
those who want to attend college. Many LTELs believe they are ready for the next level, but,
without these academic literacy skills, they are ill prepared for college-level work (Callahan,
2005; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Menken et
al., 2012). Further, it was found that teachers typically ask recall questions, as opposed to higher-
order questions found in Bloom’s taxonomy (Ramirez, 1992 as cited in Hill & Miller, 2013). To
not challenge English Learner (EL) students, and especially LTEL students, with higher-order
questioning, it only perpetuates their ability to move forward and reclassify. The Supreme Court
was clear when they ruled that knowledge of English is not sufficient if the student cannot
successfully participate in the school setting (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Hill and Miller
(2013) suggest that teachers truly are not prepared to work with ELs. This is concerning as all
teachers in California must have authorization in language and academic support to assist their
EL students.
Despite meaningful services mandated by Lau v. Nichols (1974), English Learner
students continue to fare worse than their English-only counterparts in federal and state
standardized testing (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) argued
that there is no way to know whether their language skills are inhibited “because of lagging
content knowledge and skills, limited English proficiency, other factors that interfere with their
test performance – or some combination” (p. 16). Despite not knowing what may be the reason,
they determined that educators must help these students have the opportunities for educational
success as any other student would have. This would require the educators in a student’s
microsystem to understand this and provide such opportunities.
With poor performance as measured by state mandates, many English Learners and
Long-term English Learners (LTELs) inaccurately perceive themselves to be ready for college
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 60
(Menken et al., 2012). This misconception could potentially harm them as they enter college
believing they are prepared, when, in fact, they are not. Without reclassification, LTELs remain
in a hodgepodge collection of support classes. Most do not meet college requirements, and some
do not graduate. Without access to college-prep courses, it can become problematic for LTELs to
be ready for, attend, and complete college. By increasing reclassification rates, a difference could
be made in many underprivileged communities. Students of color are underrepresented in higher
education; failing to graduate high school or having no access to college-prep curriculum are
important factors that contribute to colleges lack of diversity.
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) indicated that many English Learner students
consistently underperform compared to their English-only classmates. Students must learn “the
sort of language skills that allow them to understand, talk, and write about abstract and
cognitively challenging concepts” (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010, p. 92). Without knowing how
to do these higher-order tasks, students will have limited opportunities once they leave school.
They further stated that, although high literacy does not promise people the world, without it,
future options are severely limited, including college opportunities. They reason that this is bad
for society because there will be large numbers of students underprepared for the world of work.
A final concern raised by Olsen (2010b) is that English Learners and especially Long-
term English Learners become isolated. They typically have classes together all day. Therefore,
they do not have opportunities to learn from native English speakers, outside of their teachers.
Not having peer interactions to continue to develop linguistics and academic language is not only
unfortunate; it perpetuates a segregated system. Flores et al. (2015) plainly state it is “epistemic
racism” (p. 130) and leads to marginalization of these students.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 61
Rigorous Learning Opportunities
Students across the United States have access to a variety of school programming, which
includes Advanced Placement courses, STEM, and career pathway programs. In California, part
of a rigorous schedule also involves meeting the a-g requirements for University
California/California State University admission.
Advanced Placement (AP) courses allow a student to learn from a trained AP teacher.
Courses are rigorous, the type one might see in college. At the end of the year, students sit for an
AP exam. If the student earns a three or higher, the student may earn college credit, depending
on the college’s regulations. However, only 2% of English Learners (ELs) nationwide participate
in AP courses (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2015a). This is troubling, as many ELs
are Spanish speaking and could be enrolled in the two Spanish AP courses, which would foster
the student’s primary language.
Another indicator towards college readiness is participation in STEM courses. STEM
stands for science, technology, engineering and math (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).
STEM courses require enrollment in upper-level science and math courses, such as chemistry,
physics and Algebra II (Gao, 2016). Gao (2016) wrote that enrollment in STEM shows better
potential for postsecondary success. She further noted that STEM skills are in great demand in
California. Despite this, Gao posited that enrollment in STEM courses has increased for all
students except Latinos, which happens to be the largest ethnicity of ELs in California.
Third, another indicator is enrollment in a pathway program. Pathway programs received
a boost in California when the legislature passed, and Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 86
in 2013 (CDE, 2016c). This bill established the California Career Pathways Trust. Since the time
it was signed, close to $250 million was granted to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to increase
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 62
pathway programs. Pathway programs integrate academics and technology into real-life learning
(ConnectEd, 2008). There are 15 major industry areas in California to which LEAs can develop a
pathway program. Further, these pathways lead towards academic preparedness as they include
STEM and a-g courses. These programs can assist students for postsecondary education, improve
student achievement, and provide students avenues to have a higher earning power (ConnectEd,
2008).
Lastly, if the student is enrolled in California, one can assess if the student is meeting the
a-g requirements. These seven areas include multiple disciplines, including STEM courses,
which meet minimum University of California and California State University eligibility
requirements. Although private universities and colleges in California have their requirements,
the course requirements echo the a-g sequence.
Teacher Education
California requires teachers hold a credential to teach (Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2015b). To teach at the elementary level, one must have a multiple-subjects
credential, while those who want to teach at the secondary level, must have a single-subject
credential. Those interested in teaching must complete an approved teacher education program
and be recommended by said program for a credential.
In addition to the credential, teachers in California must have English Learners (EL)
authorization (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2015a). Today’s teacher education
programs have an embedded English learner component, while other teachers earned their EL
authorization through a supplemental program, such as the Cross-cultural, Language, and
Academic Development certificate. One of the components that teachers learn is to use specially
designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE). SDAIE techniques are sheltered instruction
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 63
(Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Sheltered instruction includes providing students with
background information, allowing students to use graphic organizers to organize their thoughts,
utilizing pictures to explain concepts better, and allowing for additional practice of the important
ideas (Goldenberg, 2014). Sheltered instruction allows the teacher to use these types of
accommodations and modifications to the grade-level curriculum to make it accessible for the
ELs (Goldenberg, 2014; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). The student is then able to learn the
grade-level content at the language proficiency level of the student.
Educators typically learn the difference between oral English proficiency and academic
English proficiency, many noting it as playground language versus classroom language
(Cummins, 2008; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Hakuta et al., 2000). Since California has large
numbers of English Learners (ELs), teacher preparatory programs include a language
development course to meet the requirements for the California teaching credential. Through
teacher preparatory programs, pre-service educators learn about Cummins and his analysis of
what he calls basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) versus cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP). BICS is the informal use of language, one that people would use
with family and friends, whereas CALP is the type of language used in the classroom and what is
necessary to participate in higher-order, critical thinking skills needed for Common Core and
college (Hill & Miller, 2013). Various academic disciplines have their vernaculars to which ELs
need assistance in understanding. For example, Hill and Miller (2013) discuss how science uses a
passive voice, while history is known for its chronology. They purported that, in essence,
educators want students to speak and write like professionals in the field. Further, to assist ELs,
they reason that scaffolding needs to occur.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 64
Despite being educated on best practices for English Learners (ELs), many teachers feel
ill prepared to teach these students. Some are not adequately prepared at all (Olsen, 2010a).
Many times, school leaders place the least-experienced teacher with ELs, as more proficient
teachers prefer to teach the high-end classes. Linquanti (2001) argued that educators typically
have not planned and taught lessons that meet the needs of EL students, whose language is ever
evolving.
Curriculum for English Learners and Long-Term English Learners
Because of the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Lau v. Nichols (1974), various
programs were created for English Learners (ELs). However, this broad stroke of services makes
for many differences in EL programs not only from state to state but also district to district
within a state. The most commonly used programs for ELs include English immersion,
transitional bilingual education, maintenance bilingual education and dual-language bilingual
education (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). With English immersion, instruction is primarily in
English with none in the primary language. EL students typically have some kind of English
language development (ELD) course to help them improve their English abilities. Transitional
bilingual education is when the student learns academic content in their primary language, with
the addition of an ELD course and eventually shifts to all English within three to four years of
schooling. Maintenance bilingual education provides for language arts and other content areas to
be provided in the child’s home language during elementary school. EL students may have
transitioned to English-only courses, but still would have instruction in their primary language. A
dual-language bilingual program begins with year one with 90% of instruction in the home
language and 10% in English. The second year has 80% of instruction and 20% of English. This
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 65
continues until both languages are used at 50% each. Instruction at the middle school and high
school levels would include both languages for either academic or elective courses.
In other countries, it may be customary for their citizens to know more than one
language. Although there is not an official language in the United States, it is assumed that
English is the common language (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Goldenberg and Coleman
(2010) contend that an English-only utilization in schools only becomes a political, ideological,
and even racial issue when other programs, such as dual-immersion, are considered. Despite
Cummins’ and Krashen’s research that indicates learning a language proficiently can take many
years, political powers may disagree on the best course of action for an English Learner student
and essentially deny the student the educational opportunities s/he is afforded by law. Some may
not understand how a bilingual or dual-immersion program works and may just offer their
opinion about how best to learn English, without understanding the actual research (Goldenberg
& Coleman, 2010).
Of particular interest to many researchers was the idea of deficit programming or
subtractive programming (Callahan, 2005; Kim & García, 2014; Menken & Kleyn, 2010;
Menken et al., 2012). Menken et al. (2012) defined it as schools failing “to build on the native
language resources…developing only English instead” (p. 125). The premise is that Long-term
English Learners (LTELs) do not fare well with English; therefore, the emphasis must be more
English (American Institutes for Research, 2006; Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Therefore, LTELs are
placed into remedial courses (Kim & García, 2014), where they receive vocabulary and grammar
lessons. Research showed students do relatively better in a bilingual program as opposed to a
monolingual English classroom (Olsen, 2010b; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). Although the
research indicates that the use of the native language will help with transfer (Cummins, 2005;
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 66
Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010), too many times, politics gets in the way, and an English-only
program becomes implemented.
At times, Long-term English Learners (LTELs) get scheduled into beginner level support
classes. These classes become boring to the LTEL (Boone, 2011; Callahan, 2005; Menken &
Kleyn, 2010) and the LTEL loses motivation to pass the support class, which connects to their
reclassification. Research stressed that LTELs should either be in a class by themselves or taught
academic language and literacy skills (Kim & García, 2014; Olsen, 2010b).
Programming was also discovered to be problematic (Kim & García, 2014; Menken &
Kleyn, 2010; Menken et al., 2012). School districts might use any combination of bilingual
education, services for students learning English as a second language, and specially designed
academic instruction in English strategies. The Long-term English Learner (LTEL) might find
her/himself in all these programs at least once if not multiple times. In Menken et al.’s (2012)
study, one student started school in an English-only class but then was moved to a bilingual
program for middle and high school. Other students in their study found themselves in the same
predicament. These students were expected to have Spanish literacy skills, but they did not, as
they began their careers in an English-only environment. Essentially, they were behind in both
English and Spanish literacy skills, both of which were difficult for them. Other students may not
have any English Learner service for an amount of time (Kim & García, 2014; Menken et al.,
2012; Olsen, 2010a). This inconsistency is of concern because the LTEL student cannot improve
their literacy skills in an unpredictable sequence. Essentially, LTELs become further behind their
peers in language and academic literacy.
The research continually shows that teaching an English Learner student in their primary
language best supports their attainment of English (Goldenberg, 2014; Goldenberg & Coleman,
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 67
2010; Umansky et al., 2015). The research also shows that learning to read in one’s home
language will assist in transfer of another language (Cummins, 2005; Goldenberg & Coleman,
2010). Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) reported on several meta-analyses that reported that
students who learn to read in their primary language, and then their secondary language, could
continue to learn to read in both languages concurrently. They stated this finding is astounding as
it is “one of the strongest findings in the entire field of educational research” (p. 27). Despite this
finding, politicians and average citizens continue to claim that English-only is the best policy.
Cummins (2005) wrote that people assume that multiple language instruction must be kept
strictly disconnected from one another. On the contrary, he claims the use of bilingual instruction
allows for transfer and language awareness.
Presently, many school districts must contend with larger populations of students who do
not speak English proficiently and be able to provide these students with a meaningful education
(U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). The Office of Civil Rights does not prescribe a
particular program for instructing English Learners (ELs); rather, it requires that instruction is
based on educational theory, instruction that can be successful in assisting ELs and instruction
that is reflected on and revised as necessary (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b).
Due to the passage of Proposition 227 in 1998, English Learners (ELs) in California were
restricted to English-only programs. Some bilingual programs do exist, but parents must sign a
waiver for their child to participate in such a program. The research of Umansky et al. (2015)
revealed benefits to bilingual education. In 2016, California overwhelmingly passed Proposition
58, which will allow bilingual programs to return. It remains to be seen how this will affect
education for ELs.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 68
In recent years in California, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) was
implemented to assist English Learners (ELs). SIOP purports to be a framework that tackles the
academic needs of ELs (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2016). SIOP professional development
provides teachers eight components that aid the teacher in developing lessons that address EL
needs. However, Goldenberg (2014) reported that SIOP has yet to exhibit any effect on student
outcomes. He further noted that other models have not provided results either or worse yet, have
not been evaluated for their effectiveness.
Summary
A review of literature determined many elements that focus on Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) that affect their ecological system. In particular, there is a need to clarify the
definition of an LTEL. Multiple definitions can confuse researchers, but, ultimately, hurts the
LTEL in what kind of support s/he receives. Although many laws were written to support the
English Learners, there is still more that can be done.
Secondly, English Learners’ language acquisition and what methods best to increase
academic language continue to be argued. Further research needs to make this a priority;
otherwise, a mixed bag of curriculum will remain to be employed.
Lastly, due to little empirical research on Long-term English Learner’s (LTEL’s) college
readiness, this gap of literature needs more exploration, which this study hopes to provide. A
lack of the student’s voice was noted. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979)
as a lens, this study should provide research to understand the LTEL’s perspective on being
college ready as well as the perspectives of other people in the LTEL’s ecological system. By
looking at data within the LTEL’s ecological system, an overall perspective can be provided
which may assist the LTEL student to become college ready.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 69
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Understanding Long-term English Learners (LTELs), their perceptions of being college
ready and how their environment supports their academic goals is important to understand as we
continue to move into the Common Core era. As this population continues to grow, it is
imperative that the research continues to grow to add to the developing collection of literature on
LTELs.
Overview of the Case Study
The case study plan was “an embedded case study design” (Yin, 2014, p. 55). Yin (2014)
states it is a time of a revelatory case as it focused on a phenomenon where data or research
could not be acquired earlier. The rationale for the revelatory case is that information on Long-
term English Learners had only recently become accessible from the California Department of
Education. One could have acquired information from a school district, but doing so would have
been cumbersome.
To find answers to the research questions, the researcher conducted an embedded case
study, using qualitative methods. Long-term English Learners (LTELs) are an emerging
phenomenon. Essentially, LTEL students are a culture within the English Learner population,
and there is a strong likelihood that the LTEL student and her/his parents do not realize this is the
case (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and Strauss (2008) stated, “phenomena are complex and
their meanings not easily fathomed” (p. 14). Conducting this type of research allowed the
researcher to discover hidden information that could potentially help LTEL students in their
pursuits to be college ready (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
A case study approach was desired primarily to listen to the student’s voice as it was
lacking in the literature (Boone, 2011; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Kim & García, 2014). Further, as
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 70
Common Core continues to be implemented, a case study approach was also preferred to
understand how parents and a school employee view their role in preparing the Long-term
English Learner (LTEL) student to be college ready. Ultimately, this type of a qualitative
approach allowed the researcher “to learn more about people” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 13),
particularly LTELs.
A quantitative approach was not appropriate because the number of Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) in one district is not generalizable to the entire population of LTEL students.
Although a qualitative study cannot be generalizable either, it was the preferred method to
uncover meaning for one LTEL student in a school district that has higher numbers of LTELs. It
allowed the researcher to see how this unique phenomenon of being a Long-term English
Learner has affected his ability to be college ready (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2014).
Considering Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and their environment, it is a natural
fit to utilize Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the framework. This framework
allowed the researcher to consider the microsystem and mesosystem of the LTEL student and
how the people who exist in these systems provide support for the LTEL student’s college
readiness.
Considering the problem statement and literature review, the following research
questions were posed:
1. How does a Long-term English Learner in a suburban school district located in Southern
California perceive her/himself as college ready?
2. How does a school employee in a suburban school district located in Southern California
perceive Long-term English Learners to be academically prepared for college?
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 71
3. How does the parent of a Long-term English Learner who attends a suburban school
district located in Southern California perceive their child to be ready for college?
4. How does the Long-term English Learner student’s ecological system support his
academic goals?
Sample
A suburban school district in Southern California was purposely selected for this study.
This district was assigned the pseudonym of Xenial Unified School District (XUSD) to permit
anonymity. As of the 2016–2017 academic term, XUSD currently has 27.2% of English Learners
(ELs; N = 2,391), which is a higher percentage than the county the district resides at 21.7% (N =
329, 292) and the state of California at 21.3% (N = 1,332,405). The majority of XUSD’s ELs’
home language is Spanish. Currently, XUSD has 424 students in grades 6 through 12 who are
Long-term English Learners (LTELs), which translates to 17.7% of all ELs in the district. Of the
424 students, 206 are high school students. The district’s county currently has 52,287 LTELs,
which equals to 17.3% of all ELs in the county, while California has a total of 230,119 LTELs,
which equals to 17.2% of all ELs in the state. As the focus is on college readiness, one LTEL
student from one of the two comprehensive high schools was interviewed. Although there are
LTEL students at the continuation high school, students there focus on credit recovery to
graduate from high school and may not necessarily be focused on college preparedness.
Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students in California are, by definition, English
Learners for six or more years who do not make any improvement (State of California Office of
Legislative Counsel, 2012). Therefore, the sample population is purposive, as only an LTEL
student was invited to participate in the study. Additionally, the student’s parent was invited to
participate in an interview. As the family is part of both the microsystem and mesosystem of an
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 72
individual, it is imperative to understand the impact of this environmental factor on the student.
Lastly, a teacher was interviewed as well, as she also exists within the student’s mesosystem.
However, the teacher’s responses are understood as such that she is impacted by other systems,
including the macrosystem of federal education policy and public opinion along with her own
ecological system, which includes her exosystem of the school district.
Population
This school district was chosen as it has a high population of high school students Long-
term English Learner (LTEL) students, with 57% of high school English Learners designated as
LTELs (N = 206), with another 328 students at risk of becoming LTELs. The LTEL student
provided some invaluable information about his perceptions of college readiness and how a
school district could better serve him.
Xenial Unified School District is a public school district in Southern California. There are
11 elementary schools, one K-8 school, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools,
one continuation high school and an adult school program within the school district, along with a
preschool program. (XUSD, 2016).
The organizational structure includes a superintendent, three assistant superintendents,
one administrator of human resources, 12 directors, and two coordinators at the district office
level (XUSD, 2016). The district has employed the superintendent for the past four years. The
three assistant superintendents range in service from less than a year to three years. The two
comprehensive high schools have one principal and two assistant principals, while the
continuation only employs a principal. At the time of this study, all three principals were
relatively new at their positions and had between less than a year and two years of experience.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 73
The school board has five members who govern the educational program. The
community votes members for four-year terms, with elections held each odd-numbered year.
There are two cycles, with two members voted in one election, and the other three in the next
election. Experience ranges from a year to over ten years. Due to recent legislation (SB 415), the
school board voted and passed an extension of their terms in December 2016. SB 415, The
California Voter Participation Rights Act (State of California Office of Legislative Counsel,
2016), allows school boards to realign their election cycle to even-numbered years when larger
elections typically take place to increase participation and potentially curb low voter turnout.
The school board approved a local control and accountability plan (LCAP; XUSD, 2015)
focused on improving support systems for English Learners and Long-term English Learners and
on college readiness. New classes were implemented from this LCAP. The effectiveness of the
plan is still in its infancy, as data is still needed to mark attainment; however, some goals were
met.
Instrumentation
Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested an ecological systems lens must take into account a
larger system, such as a triad of people. Therefore, the use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory allowed the researcher to study three groups of people: a Long-term English
Learner (LTEL) student, the parent of the LTEL student and a teacher who worked with the
LTEL student. Through the constant comparative method to analyze the LTEL ecological
system, this allowed the researcher to add a priori codes from the reviewed literature to the
overall list of codes, items like communication and education that is paramount to understanding
how to become college prepared. Other a priori codes included the terms of the ecological
system, such as the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. It is
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 74
the researcher’s belief that if students, and their parents, do not understand how the student
becomes college ready, then there is reason to believe that the student will not select rigorous
coursework, take the right exams and know how to apply to college. Further, if the student is an
LTEL, the student also needs to know how to reclassify and still understand the steps to
becoming college ready.
Therefore, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory lent itself to understanding
the individual, in this case, a Long-term English Learner (LTEL), and how the interactions with
others affected the individual. Corbin and Strauss (2008) discussed that an analyzer must be
concerned about the interaction between the microsystem and macrosystem, what their influence
of each other is, the consequences, and then how it reciprocates back to affect the individual.
Considering this, the researcher understood the imperative to interview people from the LTEL’s
microsystem and mesosystem, along with completing multiple document reviews to uncover the
various relations and influences that form the LTEL’s perceptions.
Interviews to determine a person’s perceptions were important. With a case study
approach, a family was identified for interviews, along with one school employee, a teacher who
instructs Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students. Understanding the viewpoint of each
person within the LTEL’s microsystem and mesosystem should shed light on whether there is
consensus or not. Interviewees were advised of their confidentiality and the purpose of the study.
Interviews were semi-structured. Interview questions reflected the ecological systems theory in
how people from each system provide support to the student, particularly regarding of college
preparedness. Questions ranged from how the student, parents and school employee perceive
how the student is college ready to what each system could do more of to provide additional
support to the student. Table 1 previews five questions from the interview protocol (Appendices
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 75
F, G, and H for all the interview questions). Follow-up questions occurred to elicit clearer
information (e.g., What do you mean by that? Tell me more.)
Table 1
Five Questions From the Interview Protocol
Interview Question Concept Reference
Tell me your experience about
learning English in school.
Ecological Systems Theory

Experiences
Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What are the rewards and
frustrations of learning a
second language?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
If someone who speaks
English perfectly is a ten and
someone who doesn’t speak
English is a one, where you do
place yourself on that scale?
Why?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
Think of someone who
learned English as a second
language and whom you
consider has very good skills
in English. Tell me about this
person. What is it about
him/her that makes you
believe they have good
English skills?
Language & Literacy Skills

Opinions/Values

Goldenberg, 2014

Patton, 2002

How often did a parent or
other family figure read to you
when you were young?

Ecological Systems Theory

Experiences

Language & Literacy Skills
Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Cummins, 2005; Goldenberg,
2014

Several documents were reviewed. The student’s transcript was reviewed to find any
college readiness indicators (e.g., a-g completion, Advanced Placement courses, STEM), along
with his language assessment data and course request for the following school year. The
district’s local control and accountability plan (LCAP) was reviewed to determine how Xenial
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 76
Unified School District supports college readiness for all students and supports Long-term
English Learners to prepare them better for reclassification. Further, the district employed a
consulting firm to determine if LCAP goals were met. The firm produced two documents for
public review, and the researcher examined both.
Through interviews and document reviews, triangulation was achieved. This triangulation
provided internal validity through three interviews and six documents reviewed.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) provided a theoretical lens to analyze the
themes discovered through the constant comparative methods.
Data Collection Procedures
After submitting and receiving approval from the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board, which included an approval from Xenial Unified School District, the
researcher began to collect data.
Procedures for Protecting Human Subjects
Potential participants were asked if they would like to participate. Each participant
received an introduction letter and informed consent or assent letter (Appendices A, B, C, D, and
E). Participants signed the consent form and received a copy. For the student who was not 18
years of age, the researcher acquired both the interviewee’s assent along with parental consent.
These forms are stored in a locked cabinet. Part of the consent/assent letter included an option to
allow the interview to be audiotaped using a digital voice recorder to which all interviewees
agreed. Semi-structured interviews asked a variety of questions that correlate to the ecological
systems theory and college readiness (Appendices F, G, and H). Audiotaping the interview was
imperative for the researcher to analyze the rich data that was elicited. Interviewees were given a
nominal gift card for their participation. As the researcher is limited in Spanish, one of the school
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 77
district’s community liaisons provided translation during the parent interview. The community
liaison was paid to provide translations services. The teacher and student interviews were
transcribed through online software. The parent interview needed to be translated and
transcribed. The researcher hired a professional transcriptionist who transcribed the interview in
Spanish and provided English translations. All interviewees were given a pseudonym to permit
anonymity. A codebook was created using software for data analysis utilizing the constant
comparative method and was password protected. Recordings were deleted once the transcription
was received. After three years, the transcription of the interviews will be deleted. The codebook
will also be deleted after three years.
The student data were elicited from the district’s student information management
system. The researcher reviewed if the Long-term English Learner student enrolled in any course
work that would indicate college readiness. Once the transcript, language assessment data, and
course request were evaluated and information recorded, the documents were shredded.
The local control and accountability plan (LCAP) is available for the public on the
district’s website. This document can, therefore, be printed and then evaluated using the constant
comparative method to determine potential themes. The two documents that reviewed the
district’s goals towards meeting the LCAP were provided by one of the assistant superintendents,
although the two documents were available for public review on the school district’s website.
Any and all memos the researcher wrote will be destroyed after three years.
Data Collection and Analysis
The case study focused on a Long-term English Learner and people within his ecological
system to find meaning to the first three research questions. Data for each research question was
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 78
analyzed in and of itself leading to a final overall review that provided information for the final
research question that focuses on the ecological system of the student.
Interviews
Through the institutional review board, the Xenial Unified School District superintendent
provided a letter of approval of the case study. As the researcher is a school counselor, she was
trained to quickly build rapport with the person interviewed, to be an active listener, and to ask
follow-up questions. This skill set is important when interviewing participants.
To begin this case study, a school employee was identified for an interview. The
researcher asked an assistant principal names of teachers who work with Long-term English
Learner (LTEL) students and was given two names. An email was sent to one of the teachers.
The teacher was eager to participate, and an interview date was set. The interview took place in
the teacher’s room, which allowed for a quiet, confidential space to elicit answers from the
employee. Once the interview was completed, the researcher asked the teacher of any potential
LTEL students the researcher could interview. The teacher was very helpful and found two
students and their parents who agreed to participate. Interviews were taken of both students and
their mothers. One student and parent set of interviews was treated as a pilot study, which
allowed the researcher to reconfigure her questions as necessary for the second set of interviews.
The parent and student interviews were conducted in the school’s guidance office, which allowed
for a quiet, confidential space. For the parent interview, a translator was provided as the
researcher has limited Spanish skills. The translator read the questions in Spanish and then
provided translations to the researcher in case the researcher needed to ask a follow-up question.
Once the interviews were transcribed, the researcher sought further information from the parent
and student to clarify and enrich certain responses.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 79
Interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method to determine
overarching themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This method implements a procedure to analyze
data. Ultimately, it allowed the researcher to “constantly compare” (Merriam, 2009, p. 1999) the
data throughout the analysis. By implementing this method, it allowed the researcher to find
meaning in the data. Meaning can include similarities and differences amongst the different
interviews and documents (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Each interview was read individually by the category they fall in (e.g. student, parent or
school personnel). Then, the researcher reread it and created open codes (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). These codes are the smallest codes that hold the tiniest bits of meaningful information.
For each code, a definition was written and example provided in the codebook. Next, the
researcher reviewed these codes to create axial codes that communicated patterns that may be
emerging (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). These codes were written in the codebook as well. Lastly,
the axial codes were reviewed to determine selective codes that provided insight to potential
themes of the overall data (Merriam, 2009). These selective codes were also written in the
codebook. Throughout the process, the researcher kept research memos. Research memos are the
researcher’s thought processes that occurred through the analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
After analyzing the three individual interviews, the researcher reviewed the selective
codes of each group to determine if there was an overarching theme(s) that potentially answered
research question number four that asks how the environment is supportive of the student’s
college goals.
One concern is that the parent interview had to be translated, both during the interview
and for transcription. Although an interpreter was present for the interview and a transcriber with
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 80
Spanish skills who has transcribed numerous documents, some of the data may not convey the
richness of what the interviewee was stating.
Document Review
Transcript. Research memos were taken when analyzing the transcript. The first item the
researcher analyzed was whether the Long-term English Learner (LTEL) student is on track to
graduate as an a-g completer. A-G is a major part of the University of California/California State
University minimum requirements for college readiness. In total, there are 30 semesters of
specific courses that a student needs to pass with a C or better to meet the a-g requirements
(University of California, 2015). If not completed, students must begin at a community college.
Most students in Xenial Unified School District (XUSD) do begin at the community college,
with a number beginning with remedial courses. Another college readiness indicator is whether
the student has taken an Advanced Placement (AP) course. These courses are more rigorous and,
if a student passes the AP exam with a score of three or higher, the student may earn college
credit. Third, STEM classes will be identified on their transcripts. Lastly, another indicator of
college readiness was whether the student has been in a pathway program. Pathway programs are
in their infancy in XUSD, but they do exist. One high school has a medical pathway program,
while the other high school has an engineering pathway. If an LTEL student is enrolled in such a
pathway program, it suggests another indicator for college readiness. All four indicators are
gauges whether the student is college ready.
Language assessment data. This data allowed the researcher to analyze the student’s
California English Language Development Test scores. Research memos were written while it
was reviewed. The data allowed the researcher to see how the student performed for the past four
years, which included both middle school and high school years.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 81
Course request form. High school students in this district complete course requests for
the following school year in the spring. The researcher wanted to know the student’s plan for his
junior year. This data cannot be used with 100% certainty as the school may change his course
request to reflect language needs. However, it did give a glimpse to what the student is
considering for his junior year, which may reflect college readiness markers.
Local control and accountability plan. Research memos were employed when
analyzing the local control and accountability plan (LCAP), the document that lays out the
school district’s goals and benchmarks. When writing such a memo, it forced the researcher to
think about the document and that contemplation is when analysis develops (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). These memos are elementary in thought but are critical in developing analysis in
understanding the research. It was important to determine what is expected of Long-term English
Learners for the researcher to cross-examine this data with the interviews to determine
congruency. Questions the researcher considered included how the LCAP supports or hinders the
student and what the LCAP means in practical terms for the student.
LCAP metric update. The school district hired a research company that assessed its
progress towards the local control and accountability plan goals. Two documents were provided
to the researcher: one for January 2017 and a second for April 2017. Both documents were
placed on the school district’s website for public review. Research memos were also employed in
analyzing these two documents. This provided an opportunity to review the data to determine if
the school district was meeting their goals and benchmarks.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ensuring credibility and trustworthiness of the data occurred through meticulous care
(Merriam, 2009). Several checks occurred to ensure the validity of the study. First, triangulation
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 82
was employed. This concept is the idea of using multiple measures to determine emerging
outcomes (Merriam, 2009). For this study, triangulation encompassed the three interviews and
six document reviews.
Another way the researcher ensured credibility in her findings was to complete a member
check. A member check allows for an outside person to read the researcher’s codebook and
provide feedback. If this person’s feedback and the researcher’s findings correlate, then it can be
presumed that the researcher was accurately analyzing the data. If not, it could mean the
researcher was misinterpreting the data (Merriam, 2009). Further, the researcher had the teacher
who was interviewed complete a member check. This meant that the teacher reviewed the
researcher’s finding to determine if she captured her intent (Merriam, 2009). The teacher stated
that her intent was captured and offered a few more points of clarification for the researcher.
A third way credibility was built was to ensure that rich, thick descriptions (Merriam,
2009) were presented for the analysis of the data. Through member checks, the researcher
ensured that the analysis accurately reflected the descriptions that were used. Descriptions of the
people involved are present, along with quotes from the interviewees, and field notes. Definitions
are defined in such a way that a layperson can understand the analysis.
The final step towards credibility and trustworthiness is to explain the researcher’s biases
and assumptions. This is known as reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). The researcher taught English
Learners (ELs) for approximately nine years and, at the time of this study, had been a counselor
for ten years. During this time, the researcher generated assumptions about ELs and potential
reasons to why they are not prepared for college. She has seen frustrated students for being
placed into support classes, students who dream of college but never make it, and parents who do
not understand the system that appears to be stopping their child from moving forward to the
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 83
next level. For readers, it is important to understand the perspective from which the researcher
comes from because it can provide understanding about the lens from which she writes.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any qualitative study, there are limitations and delimitations, as a qualitative
study does not allow for a broad review of the topic. In particular, the research evaluated the
ecological system of a family that has a Long-term English Learner (LTEL) student. However,
the research does not compare this family to one that has a reclassified English Learner (EL).
Also, the research does not compare the family to a family whose language is English-only.
Lastly, the research does not compare the family to a family that has a successful first-generation
EL student who is in college. Therefore, no parallel comparisons are made. Further, as this is a
case study, it is limited to only this student and his ecological system. Although the student may
represent other students like him, it cannot be generalized to all LTELs.
Data Collection Questions
While the case study was completed, the researcher kept in mind certain questions to not
only keep her on track, but also to know in advance where she could find the answers to those
questions (Yin, 2014). These types of questions guided her inquiry of this case.
First, the researcher kept in mind questions to guide her. These questions were to keep
her on track on “the information that needs to be collected” (Yin, 2014, p. 90). The questions
included what more she needs, how to know she understood the participants, and whether she
asked the right questions to inform the school district.
These types of questions can be answered through strategies towards validity. For
example, if the researcher wanted to check if she understood a participant, she could complete a
member check (Merriam, 2009). A member check allowed the participant to review the
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 84
researcher’s analysis to provide any pertinent feedback for the researcher. This allowed the
participant to ensure their voice was heard correctly.
Another way to view the data was to look for “alternative explanations” (Merriam, 2009,
p. 219). The data were analyzed to see if it presented in a different way than how the previous
literature has presented information on Long-term English Learners. Further, when a student or
parent stated something that the researcher was not expecting, the researcher asked follow-up
questions to clarify their meaning. The researcher utilized her counseling skills to be an active
listener, but also analyzed the participant’s answers to determine if a follow-up question was
needed (Yin, 2014).
Another question that the researcher posed was “Do I have rich, thick descriptions?”
(Merriam, 2009). It is important to have this to ensure an abundant of information is presented
that is fully developed. The researcher had a fellow doctoral candidate review her work
(Merriam, 2009) to determine if she met this criterion.
It was important that the researcher continually questioned her self throughout the
inquiry, along with asking where evidence could be found. It allowed her to be reflective
throughout the process of collecting data, which are presented as part of the findings.
Guide for the Case Study Report
Table 2 presents the outline for this dissertation.
Table 2
Dissertation Outline
1. Problem Statement Too many English Learner students in Xenial Unified School
District become Long-term English Learners and are not
ready for the rigors of college.
2. Research Questions 1. How does a Long-term English Learner student in a
suburban school district located in Southern California
perceive himself as college ready?
2. How does a school personnel employed in a suburban school
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 85
Table 2, continued
district located in Southern California perceive Long-term
English Learner students to be academically prepared for
college?
3. How does a parent of a Long-term English Learner student who
attends a suburban school district located in Southern California
perceive their child to be ready for college?
4. How does the Long-term English Learner student’s ecological
system support his academic goals?
3. Design
• Single-case embedded study
• Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems Theory
4. Data Collection
• Interviews with the student, parent, and teacher
• Document analysis of local control and accountability plan
(LCAP), two LCAP metric updates and student’s transcript,
language assessment data and course request
5. Analysis Methods
• Use of constant comparative method through online software
• Research memos
6. Limitations of Study Due to case study, findings are not generalizable
7. Potential Audiences Multiple presentations
• Dissertation Committee
• Superintendent
• School Board

It is important to keep in mind the audience who may read this work. First and foremost,
my dissertation committee read this work. Their knowledge of K-12 policies and procedures
towards English Learners and Long-term English Learners is limited due to their profession in
higher education. Therefore, it was important for the information to be presented in
understandable terms, with any jargon explained in detail. Second, as the school superintendent
agreed to allow the study to be completed in her district, she might have wanted a report as well.
Further, she may have wanted the findings to be presented to the school board as well. The
school board is comprised of people with mixed-levels of education, so again, it was important
for the findings to be presented in a way a layperson can understand.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 86
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitative embedded case study was to examine a Long-term English
Learner’s (LTEL’s) perceptions of college readiness using the micro and meso systems of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory. The general problem is many English
Learners (ELs) never reclassify and become LTELs, stuck in a reclassification system that many
of them do not understand. The specific problem is that LTELs lack the academic English skills
to excel in rigorous courses, which prepares students for college. Chapter One defined the
problem of how many ELs are becoming LTELs and are not adequately prepared for college.
Chapter Two reviewed literature and the law on topics including ELs, LTELs and college
readiness. Chapter Three described the procedures utilized for the embedded case study. Chapter
Four discusses the findings related to the research questions.
Research Method and Design
This study used an embedded case study to focus on one student, and his micro and meso
systems, which included his mother and one of his teachers. The case study focused primarily on
the student and each participant’s perceptions of him being college ready. The superintendent
from Xenial Unified School District gave approval for the researcher to conduct research in the
district on March 1, 2017. Approval from the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board was granted on March 14, 2017.
The sample was purposive, as the student must be classified as a Long-term English
Learner (LTEL), and the teacher must work with LTEL students as the research questions center
on LTELs. An assistant principal at Butte High School (a pseudonym) identified the teacher. The
researcher invited the teacher for the study via email. The researcher interviewed the teacher and
then asked if the teacher could find students who might be interested in the project. The teacher
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 87
then identified several students from her support class. Two students and their parents indicated
interest in participating in the research. One student and parent were ultimately selected for the
study, while the other student and his parent participated in a pilot study of the research
questions. Pseudonyms were provided for all participants, school and school district to ensure all
participants’ identities remain confidential.
Description of the Sample
The sample in this embedded case study consisted of one ecological system, looking
primarily at the microsystem and mesosystem of one Long-term English Learner (LTEL), herein
assigned the pseudonym Enrique. It was a purposive sample as the student had to be an LTEL.
The microsystem included the LTEL’s mother, and the mesosystem included one of the LTEL’s
teachers (Table 3). Enrique began and currently attends school in the United States. Enrique’s
mother was born in Mexico; however, she has lived in the United States for the past 30 years.
Table 3
Microsystem and Mesosystem
Name Gender Age Ethnicity Ecological System
Enrique* Male 15 years, 10
months
Latino, Mexican descent Individual: Student
Mrs. Acosta* Female 36 years Latina, Mexican descent Microsystem: Mother
Ms. García* Female 28 years Latina, Cuban descent Mesosystem: Teacher
*All participants were given a pseudonym.

Six documents were elicited for this study (Table 4). These documents were used for
several purposes. First, the school district’s documents were analyzed to determine what goals
existed for Long-term English Learners and college readiness. The student’s documents were
analyzed to determine if he was making any progress towards reclassification and to determine if
there were any markers for college readiness.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 88
Table 4
Document Analysis
Document Purpose Intended Audience Public
Student Transcript Record of grades Student
Parent
Colleges/Universities
Scholarship Committees
No
Student Language
Assessment Data
Indicates markers of EL
classification
School Counselor
School Administrator
School Teacher
District EL Director
No
Student Course
Request Form
Student selection of courses
requested for the next school year
Student
School Counselor
School Administrator
No
Local Control and
Accountability Plan
Description of goals and actions for
pupil achievement, and potentially
any subgroups of pupils that reflect
California’s eight state education
priorities and any locally identified
priorities
School District
School Board
School Administrators
School Employees
General Public
Yes
LCAP Metric Update
January 2017
To assess district’s progress towards
LCAP goals
School District
School Board
School Administrators
School Employees
General Public
Yes
LCAP Metric Update
April 2017
To assess district’s progress towards
LCAP goals
School District
School Board
School Administrators
School Employees
General Public
Yes

Data Collection Overview
This section describes the two types of data collected for the study. Both interviews and
written artifacts were elicited to seek answers to the research questions. Having multiple
interviews and documents allowed for triangulation.
Interview Data Collection
The interviews lasted anywhere from 25 to 45 minutes. The interview questions were
open-ended and semi-structured. Questions asked respondents about their perceptions of learning
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 89
English, college readiness and support systems, which reflected the research questions. At times,
the researcher asked for more information, such as “tell me more” or “can you give me an
example.” The interview with the teacher was held in her classroom after school, which provided
a quiet, confidential space. The interviews with the student and parent were held after school in a
school counselor’s office, which provided a quiet, confidential space.
Transcription and coding occurred as soon as possible after the interviews. Transcription
was provided through online software for the student and teacher interviews, while a professional
transcriptionist transcribed and translated the parent interview from Spanish to English. Coding
was done through an online software qualitative coding program.
Document Data Collection
Six documents were collected for this study (Table 4). The local control and
accountability plan (LCAP) is a public document on the school district’s website that anyone can
have access to. Two LCAP metric updates were also on the school district’s website for public
review. The student’s transcript, language assessment data, and course request form were
provided through the school district via their student management system. Research memos were
taken of all documents to understand their meaning towards the research questions.
Data Analysis Overview
An analysis of each participant is provided, followed by a cross-analysis of the three
participants to provide information for the fourth research question. The following were the
research questions that guided this study:
1. How does a Long-term English Learner in a suburban school district located in Southern
California perceive himself as college ready?
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 90
2. How does a school employee in a suburban school district located in Southern California
perceive Long-term English Learners to be academically prepared for college?
3. How does the parent of a Long-term English Learner who attends a suburban school
district located in Southern California perceive their child to be ready for college?
4. How does the Long-term English Learner’s ecological system support the child’s
academic goals?
Each interview was read carefully first. Then, the researcher reread it and created open
codes (Appendices I, J, & K). These codes are the smallest codes that can hold their own weight
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Next, the researcher reviewed these codes to generate axial codes that
communicated patterns that were emerging. Lastly, selective codes were developed that
hypothesized potential themes of the overall data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam, 2009).
Documents were also read carefully first. The researcher kept research memos on the six
documents indicating various thought processes that transpired. For the student transcript, the
researcher denoted whether the student was on track to meet a-g requirements, if any Advanced
Placement, pathway or STEM classes had been taken, how many overall marks the student
received, and how many types of marks the student earned.
Findings
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How does a Long-term English Learner in a suburban
school district located in Southern California perceive himself as college ready?” Enrique
recently completed his sophomore year at Butte High School. He was born in California, much
like many other English Learners (ELs) who were born in the United States. He was designated
an EL in kindergarten. In middle school, he earned a score of early advanced on the California
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 91
English language development test. However, in ninth grade, he dropped down to the
intermediate level. During tenth grade, he reverted up to early advanced. Four major themes
evolved through his interview: college readiness; ecological system; a lifetime of learning
English; and perceived confidence. The researcher met Enrique in the school’s guidance office,
where the interview took place. Enrique appeared to be a little nervous. He quickly became calm
once he realized that the questions were about him and he was the expert on that subject.
College readiness. School districts in California prepare to be graded on how many
students are college ready. For some time, being prepared meant a student needed to meet the a-g
requirements and earn certain scores on the SAT or ACT. These requirements are regulated by
the University of California and California State University systems.
However, the California legislature has legislated what it means to be college ready. As
part of the local control and accountability plan, school districts must write their goals and
objectives towards meeting the eight state priorities, one of which is a college and career
indicator. This indicator measures how many students who are prepared for postsecondary
education. Although the California Dashboard exists, the data for this indicator would not
become available until fall 2017 (CDE, 2017a). This indicator will gauge how a student performs
in high school, with focus on the Early Assessment Program and Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortia results, Advanced Placement test results, International Baccalaureate exam results,
completion of the a-g requirements, completion of a Career Technical Education pathway and
completion of dual enrollment courses (CDE, 2017a).
Students will receive one of three indicators: prepared, approaching prepared or not
prepared (CDE, 2017b). To be considered prepared, students have to meet multiple measures
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 92
within the different foci mentioned in the previous paragraph. A student who only meets the a-g
requirements would be considered approaching prepared (CDE, 2017b).
Believing that one can matriculate to college is important. With these new measures that
California implemented, it is complicated and ultimately may confuse students, parents, and
educators, as the University of California and California State University systems do not require
such an expansive checklist for students to apply. However, they do look for these factors, like
Advanced Placement enrollment and exam results, and career technical education pathway
programs. But when interviewing Enrique, none of these items were of immediate concern to
him.
Rather, when thinking about college, Enrique just wonders whether he will be admitted
or not. He stated, “good grades should do” to get into college. This echo’s Kim and García’s
(2014) and Menken et al.’s (2012) qualitative studies where they found that students believed
they could go to college as long as they passed their classes. When further asked what classes he
needed to take to get into college, Enrique replied, “Just standards ones I need for high school,
like histories and biology and all those. Chemistry.” Later when asked what the a-g requirements
were, he replied, “The standards. The ones you need to accomplish to graduate or get a diploma.”
It appears that Enrique is not aware that the high school graduation requirements and college
requirements, although similar, are different. Further, when asked what classes on his campus
that promoted college, he did not know of any.
The interviewer had to ask Enrique to describe specifically the SAT and Advanced
Placement (AP) courses and whether he was interested in taking these. He knew that AP courses
potentially meant college credit and said he was interested in taking one to see what college
courses looked like and how tough it may be. Interestingly, he said he was interested in an AP
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 93
course in math. Math is an area Enrique has struggled in and has had to take summer school
courses to make up his deficiencies as evidenced by his transcript. As for the SAT, Enrique
stated, “A test that is, it’s scoring you on your overall in high school. Like what you’ve learned.”
Enrique further stated he planned to take it during the spring of his junior year.
Lastly, Enrique noted that he had not talked to his mother about college yet. He stated,
“Well, I don’t talk to my parents that much about college. I just like focus on the here and now,
and then, when it’s at the time, I will speak to them.” He then stated he would talk to his mother
during his junior year. The interviewer thought this was interesting because, as a school
counselor, she encourages students to discuss their plans with their parents at all grade levels.
Further, this district promotes college awareness at all levels, elementary, middle and high
schools, via various outreach programs at the sites, and through programs through local
universities and colleges. But for Enrique, the plan is to tell his mom about his college plans
during his junior year. He stated, “Cause colleges focus in junior year. So like, your SAT scores
and your GPA.” His believes that is when colleges focus on high school students, and, therefore,
it is during this time that he will talk to his mother.
Enrique’s sophomore course load is typical of other sophomores. Two major differences
include that his core classes were specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE)
classes and that Enrique was enrolled in an English language development (ELD) Long-term
English Learner (LTEL) support class. He would prefer to not be in a support class and would
prefer an engineering class. Enrique believes taking such a class would prepare him for college.
Enrique stated, “Taking an engineering class that can help like, a prehistory of what it’s like. I
thought I could just know what it’s going to be in high sch-, in college.” He is signed up for an
engineering course for next year, but that could change because he was accepted into the
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 94
Associated Student Body (ASB) leadership program and will most likely change electives.
Although this may mean he loses a career prep course, Enrique becoming involved in ASB is
one recommendation that Olsen (2010b) makes in that LTELs become involved in
extracurricular and club activities. He is assigned to have ELD LTEL support class for his junior
year. If this does happen, it means Enrique will have three years of an ELD support class that
could have been three years of exploring a college or career prep class, which is exactly what
Olsen (2010a, 2010b) purports to happen to the majority of LTEL students when they do not
have full access to the curriculum.
Enrique stated that his definition of college readiness is, “That you have the perspective
of what college is going to be. So when you enter college, it’s already there in your head, so you
know what to, like, face.” Administrators, teachers and counselors may be focused on test scores,
ensuring students are applying to college, and meeting deadlines. But Enrique wants to know
items, such as “Like, the courses you are going to take. Like, what are the struggles, like, how
many things you have to complete, turn in.” His statement identifies a lack of social capital in his
life when it comes to college readiness. Educators need to realize that broken ecological systems
may exist and they need to involve the student through conversations, and not just tell the student
what they think he needs to know.
Ecological system. Within Enrique’s microsystem exist his mother and three siblings.
Enrique has an older sister and two younger brothers. Enrique’s father passed away when
Enrique was in middle school. His father’s passing is a nonnormative experience within
Enrique’s chronosystem, as losing a parent at such a young age is a major life indicator that can
affect an individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 95
The death of Enrique’s father left a gaping hole that needed to be filled. After this loss,
Enrique most likely searched for friendship to compensate for this loss. He noted that during his
freshman year, he spent time with the wrong crowd. His world had been turned upside down and
coped with this loss as best as he could. Enrique eventually recognized that maintaining these
friendships were costing him good grades. He stated:
Freshman year, I started messing around. I'd get like Fs and Ds. I was barely passing, and
I thought about it over the summer, and I was like, cause all the friends I was hanging out
with, they're a bad influence. I stopped hanging out with them. And I got my head into
the books, and I got good grades this year.
This could be an “alternative explanation” (Merriam, 2009, p. 219) as to why Enrique’s grades
were substandard as opposed to his limited academic English skills. Enrique purposely changed
his mesosystem when he decided to discontinue these friendships and surround himself with
others who wanted to achieve in high school. However, his use of English during the interview
indicates someone who is still in need of some academic English instruction.
Enrique realized that high school is important. He knows he should have paid better
attention. Flores et al. (2015) acknowledge that many LTELs blame themselves, “while
completely discounting the role of schools and society” (p. 128). Enrique made no comment that
he wished his teachers, or his counselor, or someone, could have provided him more assistance.
Enrique considers his late father as his current role model. But since his father has died, Enrique
cannot seek him out for help. However, he realizes that his father is a better role model than
those former friends. Enrique acknowledged that his father was always a hard worker and never
gave up. Like other students in Kim and García’s (2014) qualitative study, Enrique’s motivation
is such to ensure his father would be proud of him. He specifically mentioned that his aunt had
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 96
helped him the most in recent times. Enrique stated, “She is on me. She is, like, you are going to
go to this college. You are going to do this class. I’m like, ‘Okay.’” Although Enrique’s aunt is
encouraging him to do well, it appears that his ecological system is lacking social capital in
preparing him for college. Olsen (2010b) wrote that Long-term English Learners must be
explicitly taught as to what to do, such as time outside of class studying, or being able to seek
help when struggling. It does not appear that Enrique, or his family, realizes he is late to the
game in preparing for college and will need extensive help in approaching the college application
process and college itself.
If educators would involve the students within an ecological framework, one might have
learned that Enrique does have desires when it comes to what he would like to learn. He said he
did not really need the course when they learn the same curriculum over and over. However,
when asked what he would like to be learning in his support class, Enrique stated, “Just read out
loud.” He started volunteering to read because he wanted to get better at it. He mentioned that a
teacher taught him “to stand up, have a protective, productive voice.” He appreciated this
opportunity to read out loud because his teacher stated they might need to know this skill later on
in life, if they have careers where they are required to speak in front of people. Enrique said he
volunteers a lot now to perfect this skill. He also remarked that his teachers were helping him
and were not giving up on him. Enrique stated, “Like, if I finished early, she [the teacher] would
always have me doing work to keep my grade up.” Enrique stated he was grateful to his teachers
for not giving up on him. From an ecological perspective of preparing for college, this
unfortunately may not be enough for Enrique to be college ready.
A lifetime of learning English. Enrique began kindergarten as an English Learner (EL).
Like many ELs, he was born in the United States. And like many ELs in California, his first
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 97
language is Spanish. However, since he has held that designation for so many years, including
California English language development test results that showed regression, Enrique is now
considered a Long-term English Learner. His command of academic English is still emerging as
evidenced by his responses to the researcher.
Enrique understands that being bilingual is a desirable skill. He has translated for his
mother and for other students whose English skills are in the beginning stages. For example, in
his history class, they were asked to complete a document-based question. Enrique stated, “There
was a bunch of questions which our Spanish-speakers still didn't understand, so my teacher asked
me to be in the group, so I could translate the question and help them answer it.” Many English
Learners and Long-term English Learners see the benefit of being bilingual for communication
purposes, especially so for employment purposes (Flores et al., 2015). Enrique echoed this idea
of how it will help him when he seeks work.
Enrique typically speaks English at school and Spanish at home. However, he will speak
to his siblings in English at home. He even stated, “I understand English more than Spanish
now.” The fact of the matter remains that most students go home and speak in their primary
language. This concerns Ms. García, his teacher, as she acknowledges that English Learners
(ELs) and Long-term English Learners (LTELs) will then need a different kind of academic
support. She recognizes that English-only students go home and continue to practice English
with their parents, guardians and/or siblings whereas ELs do not get to practice these
foundational skills. Therein lies the question – at what point do ELs get this kind of support?
And does this contribute to their LTEL status? According to research (Callahan, 2005;
Goldenberg, 2014; Menken & Kleyn, 2010), it is believed that primary language can be utilized
for academic support. Goldenberg points out that ELs will need additional support. Sheltered
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 98
instruction that focuses on academic content continues to be suggested, according to Goldenberg,
despite any data to support its effectiveness. He continues to state that there is some evidence to
support these sheltered strategies, like utilizing material that is familiar to the students. This is a
strategy that Ms. García has employed with her students and feels it was successful in connecting
the literature to her students.
Due to Enrique’s Long-term English Learner status, he has been placed in support classes
for the past several years. He understands that he is enrolled in this course because he is “below”
in English and needs to “catch up with everyone else.” He continues to be tested for
reclassification purposes. One possibility to why Enrique has not reclassified is due to
motivation. For a couple of years, Enrique did not try. He commented that the California English
language development test (CELDT) is basically the same test year in and year out. He stated, “I
just get it over with…so it’s my fault of being in the class.” He further said, “I’m trying to get
outside of it this year. I am trying.” This is evidenced by his CELDT score and grades he earned
this past year.
According to Enrique, no one has explained the language reclassification process to him.
Ultimately, this is a breakdown in his ecological system. He was told how he did on the
California English language development test (CELDT), which he thought was intermediate or
advanced. He scored at the intermediate level in ninth grade and early advanced in tenth grade.
In particular, during his sophomore year, Enrique scored early advanced for reading,
intermediate for writing, early advanced for listening, advanced for speaking and early advanced
for comprehension. This is typical for a Long-term English Learner: the student can speak well,
but his/her writing is less developed, and they have limited understanding of their CELDT scores
(Callahan, 2005). The disconnection is an area that needs to be addressed.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 99
Perceived confidence. Throughout the interview, Enrique continued to comment that he
was confident in his abilities. A quick glance at his transcript would seem to support his belief,
as he received a 3.67 grade point average (GPA) for the spring semester of his sophomore year.
In fact, his GPA has risen to this from his freshman year GPA of a 1.00. However, as the
researcher is versed in reading transcripts, she noticed some atypical items. Enrique was enrolled
in one support class, one specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) class for
English, and the final five classes were mainstreamed his freshman year. His sophomore year, he
continued to be enrolled in a support class but had four SDAIE courses. They were for English
II, Integrated Math II, biology and world history. Only two classes were mainstreamed, which
were physical education and American Sign Language I. He received 71% language support
during his sophomore year as opposed to 29% during his freshman year.
At the beginning of this year, Enrique rated himself below a five out of ten in terms of
confidence, but towards the end of the year when the interview took place, he put himself at a
ten. Enrique stated, “I’m confident now.” This is especially seen with his comments regarding
his support class. “This class [support class], I find it easy for me. Like, I don't need it, so I just
learn like the same basic things that we usually use in common day,” he remarked.
Despite this confidence, Enrique is also defeated and confused, emotions that were found
to be true of other Long-term English Learner students in a study by Flores et al. (2015). He feels
below average to even be placed in a support class and figures that everyone is better than him.
He stated:
I feel like everyone else is better than me. But then, like, when it's regular English, I am
above everyone. And that's like, why am I in this class, if I am ahead of everyone in my
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 100
regular English class? So, then, I just think, like, I need that much support? Or like, I
don't know. I just get lost in it.
Enrique believes he is in a regular English class, when it is, in fact, a specially designed
academic instruction in English (SDAIE) English class. This could lead to a false sense of
confidence, as SDAIE courses provide language accommodations for the English Learner
students and many times operate at a slower pace than a regular mainstream course. Further, the
loss of his father could be contributing to his sense of confusion. Enrique may feel defeated
because he is not living up to his perceived father’s goals. Also, if his father was alive, there is
more of a chance his mother would be more involved in his school and could learn about the
reclassification process. This is another part of the breakdown that exists between Enrique and
the school. Enrique needs to be explicitly told what is expected of him, so he understands the
goals for him to reclassify.
Despite his placement into a specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE)
English course, Enrique believes he exhibits better writing skills today. He stated, “When
everybody had finished one essay, this semester, and we looked back at the old one, I seen [sic] I
got [sic] big improvement, and so I would say this year is my best learning experience.” He felt
his teacher taught them well in learning how to introduce their topic, provide evidence and
follow up with a statement to back up the evidence. The teacher had provided the students with a
detailed job aide that explicitly stated what was expected in each paragraph. He said this format
was used primarily throughout the year and it became second nature to him.
Ultimately, Enrique decided he was not going to give up on himself. He said success
meant, “To not let yourself be brought down. Even if you fall hard, it's better to get back up and
continue.” It appears that the confidence level he does have for himself has given him this
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 101
attitude to keep pressing forward to improvement. Part of this confidence comes from Enrique
looking to his late father as a better role model for encouragement. Enrique believes he has made
a turnaround to be better prepared for college.
Summary. Enrique, a Long-term English Learner (LTEL), just completed his sophomore
year in high school. Enrique is not well informed of the college process. His ecological system
was disrupted when his father passed away during Enrique’s middle school years. This
nonnormative experience has shaped the way Enrique made friends and his approach to his
education. Enrique is like many other LTELs, who were born in the United States, and has been
classified as an English Learner since kindergarten. He does not understand the system he is
stuck in. Enrique has built up his confidence this past year, but the majority of his classes were
classified as specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) courses, which could
lead to a false sense of confidence.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How does a school employee in a suburban school
district located in Southern California perceive Long-term English Learners to be academically
prepared for college?” Ms. García has worked at Butte High School in Xenial Unified School
District for two years, with this being her initial teaching assignment. She currently teaches two
periods of specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) English II, two periods of
English language development (ELD) II and an Advanced Placement (AP) English Language
and Composition course. Enrique is enrolled in her SDAIE English II course. The SDAIE
English II course is for Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and provides accommodations to
the students to help them access the curriculum for sophomore English; however, Ms. García
does have some seniors in this course. The ELD II course is for English Learners (ELs) who
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 102
primarily have early intermediate status on their California English language development test
scores and are still learning the basics of the English language. The AP English Language and
Composition course is for juniors who want the challenge of a more rigorous course that mirrors
college-level courses. Although Ms. García has worked in other types of education, such as
Upward Bound, her experience echoes what Olsen (2010a) purported regarding that the least-
experienced teacher educates EL students. In particular, four major themes evolved from Ms.
García’s interview: perceptions of ELs and LTELs, perceptions of college readiness, perceptions
of confidence, and teacher support for ELs and LTELs.
The interview was held in the teacher’s classroom. Her classroom was clean and
organized. She sat at her desk, which was in the back of the room. The researcher sat at a student
desk. Her walls were print rich with student work and posters of academic language. Ms. García
was eager to share and spoke passionately about her students. Her interview lasted the longest at
45 minutes.
Perceptions of ELs and LTELs. Ms. García believes it is difficult for English Learner
(EL) and Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students to learn academic English, as many of
them have not had an academic foundation in their native language. Many do not learn how to
read and write in their primary language. Although Enrique was read to in Spanish, his ability to
transfer is limited, as he did not learn how to read in his home language, which it typical of many
ELs and LTELs (Cummins, 2005; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Because there is a lack of
language awareness, Ms. García’s greatest goal in her specially designed academic instruction in
English (SDAIE) English class is to support them with the foundational English skills that many
of them are still lacking. She sees their frustration with their lack of success and wants to build
moments of success for them to see that they can achieve. Despite this, placing an essay in front
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 103
of them will cause student disengagement. Ms. García understands that specifically breaking
down an essay in its parts (i.e. scaffolding) is a major key to success for the students to become
engaged and ultimately become better writers.
Ms. García also noted that English Learner and Long-term English Learner (LTEL)
students many times do not understand why they are in a support class. She commented that one
of her past students told her he did not need to be in the support class. However, that student had
not made improvements on the California English language development test (CELDT) and was
therefore in the class. Olsen (2010b) encourages schools to meet with parents and students and
explain the situation the student is in. Otherwise, what occurred was this lack of information
“made him completely shut down academically in that class, which is counterproductive because
if you don’t pass the ELD, you can’t get out of ELD.” When Ms. García asked students about the
CELDT test, one student told her, “The questions are, ‘What is this? It’s a carrot. It’s always the
same carrot.’” This frustration of having to take the same test year after year, be placed in a
support class year after year, is wearisome for LTELs and can make them believe something is
wrong with them. Further, it places them into isolation. They are a group of students who may
for the most part have all their classes together and may never have opportunities to work with
English-only students.
Although the research company the district employed stated that monitoring of English
Learners does occur and that individualized language plans exist for all English Learners, Ms.
García did not discuss this. Through a follow-up email, Ms. García did state she was aware of the
individualized language plans and had accessed them to gain background information of her
students. However, she noted that the students take most of their testing within their English
language development (ELD) class. The district wants the public to know they are meeting their
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 104
goals; however, it does not appear that Ms. García had the opportunity to fully use the
individualized learning plans to their fullest intent.
Perceptions of college readiness. The school district’s third local control and
accountability plan goal indicates there should be increases in all students’ college and career
readiness. This includes more students completing, attending, taking, and/or participating in: the
a-g requirements; Advanced Placement courses; the SAT and ACT; a pathway program; a
college-prep workshop; financial aid workshop; college applications; college and career
counseling; and an online college planning guide.
With the school district focused on these actions, Ms. García stated, “I don't know that a
lot of them, at this point, are thinking about college. I haven't heard a lot of discussion about it. I
don't know if that's because they're 16 and they're not thinking about it, or because they don't
think that's a possibility for them which is one of my personal concerns.” Students in this district
are expected to have a four-year plan while in high school that helps a student make a plan for
future college and career goals. In fact, it was reported to the research company the district
employed that 100% of students have an Individual College and Career Plan. Enrique did state
he saw his counselor four or five times this past year, but that he did not know what this plan,
also known as a four-year plan, was. He stated it was a four-year university. However, if Enrique
knew what his four-year plan is, it could enable him to understand what courses he needs to take
to become college ready.
College readiness means different things for different people. As stated previously, the
Californian politicians have legislated what it means to be college ready and are ready to roll out
the College and Career Indicator on the California Dashboard in the fall of 2017. Ms. García’s
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 105
definition depicts someone who has social capital, as opposed to high-test scores and enrollment
in certain programs. In particular, her definition of college readiness is:
For a student to be college ready, I would say that they are prepared to be successful in
their college years, that they've fostered enough of a sense of independence, academic
independence, that they are able to tackle the challenges of college-level curriculum and
that they are confident in seeking out the necessary resources to help them where they
may struggle. And that they know that sort of sense of agency that you know how to
approach the work that you're assigned, and you know how to ask for help, and how to
use your resources to be the most successful.
The micro and meso systems are important regarding this topic. Students should hear
from their parents, teachers, and others that exist in these systems that college is an option that
all can attain and that everyone is there to support the student (Olsen, 2010b). Ms. García shared,
“I feel like if we were more unified in supporting the child's academics, I feel like they would be
more successful.” This is important because Enrique, his mother, and Ms. García want the best
future for him. Ms. García stated:
Because I feel like maybe academically, their linguistic needs have not been reached or
have not been met, that the desire to be successful is still there, and when you give them
the tools that they need to be successful…Seeing them reach that success is really
rewarding.
Ms. García wants to see her students, in particular her Long-term English Learner (LTEL)
students, to become successful. She believes that if a teacher has relevant and engaging content,
creates an environment where students are willing to participate, and where students will work
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 106
with a partner or discuss assignments within a group or class setting, LTEL students will become
“agents in their own learning.”
Perceptions of confidence. Ms. García commented that many of her Long-term English
Learner (LTEL) students do not have confidence in their academic abilities. With many different
kinds of assignments, especially essays, students just shut down. Ms. García is quick to point out
she realizes the difference between a student who is lazy versus her students who shut down due
to a lack of confidence. She stated, “It’s because reading is challenging for them, and it’s always
been challenging for them. The same thing with writing.” She further stated, “That foundation of
confidence hasn’t been addressed.” With district written assessments, the percentage of English
Learners (ELs) meeting proficiency is quite low, with freshmen at 1.3%, sophomores at 3.5%,
juniors at 1.8%, and seniors at 7.1%. It is therefore understandable why ELs and LTELs get
frustrated with their essay assignments.
After reading the first two essays of the school year, Ms. García discovered that her
students were missing essential components in the writing process. Ms. García realized early on
that if she continued to push forward, she would set her students up for failure. She knew she had
to address these gaps in her students’ learning for them to be successful. She began teaching her
students paragraph structure, as opposed to full-blown essay format. This scaffold allowed her
students to see step-by-step what was needed in a successful paragraph. The students were still
exposed to the rich literature that is prescribed by the district’s curriculum map. However,
instead of writing sloppy essays, students were beginning to write well-structured response
paragraphs. This was further aided by a rubric. Students knew from the beginning what was
expected in their paragraph. Olsen (2010b) recommends that LTELs have specific explanations
and Ms. García’s rubrics provide such specificity.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 107
Another scaffolding technique Ms. García employed was the use of highlighting the
various aspects of a paragraph. Students were taught to highlight the different parts of a
paragraph with different colors. Ultimately, this nurtured their self-efficacy, as they were able to
self-evaluate their work to see if their paragraphs were complete. With added self-efficacy, Ms.
García stated:
I saw their confidence increase dramatically, and the success they achieved had a
significant impact on their learning. I had a few students ask if they could apply the
strategy I taught them to one of the ELD benchmarks they were taking, which was very
exciting for me. I wanted my students to leave my class with a better understanding of
paragraph structure, so that when they moved on in their studies, they would find greater
success in their writing overall.
Ms. García also was able to break down the reading process for her LTEL students.
When they read Night by Elie Wiesel, the students were required to focus on the theme “human
cruelty.” Students read the novel, which was chunked into sections, in class. Students were
tasked to write examples of human cruelty for each chucked area. Once the reading was done,
students then used their notes to write their paragraph. This format allowed students to focus on
the theme throughout the reading, and provided structured writing that led to their development
of their paragraphs.
Ms. García does see that her Long-term English Learner students do have goals and
aspirations, but she is not sure that they have envisioned the path to meet them. Ms. García,
therefore, wants to instill a sense of ability within her students. This type of foundation for
success is one Ms. García promotes, which one would see within a student’s mesosystem: a
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 108
supportive teacher who encourages the student to have faith in her/his abilities through the use of
effective teaching strategies.
Teacher support of and for ELs and LTELs. The school district’s first local control
and accountability plan goal indicates there should be an increase in student achievement on the
Common Core and to narrow achievement gaps. It includes that teachers will participate in
professional development to support English Learners (ELs). The second goal is specifically
written for ELs and is to improve achievement and decrease the number of Long-term English
Learners (LTELs). The district focused on increasing professional learning community (PLC)
opportunities to help address these goals. Despite this, Ms. García stated, “an LTEL-specific
PLC or PD would be really beneficial because even in our non-SDAIE classes we have students
whose first language is something other than English.”
Within the goals, there are specific actions for improvement. With the first local control
and accountability plan goal, teachers should have access to instructional coaches. These coaches
are Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs). The TOSAs receive additional training to support
teachers primarily in English and math, the two areas that Common Core focuses. Ms. García did
receive some assistance from one of the TOSAs who focuses on secondary English. She found
the TOSA to be extremely supportive and had the opportunity to discuss lesson plans for her
Long-term English Learners on several occasions this past year. Further, the majority of Ms.
García’s fourth period had another teacher for their support class. Ms. García collaborated with
this teacher throughout the year to communicate about their student’s abilities and progress. Ms.
García remarked it was nice to be able to have this type of collaboration that allowed better
support for their students.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 109
Of concern is that Ms. García has to create a curriculum for her Long-term English
Learners (LTELs). This is typical of many teachers who search for resources on their own. One
of the district’s goals for student achievement was to purchase curriculum aligned with Common
Core. A goal was set to purchase new books for the 2016–2017 school year and, according to the
research company the district employed, books were purchased and distributed to schools.
According to the high school English department chair, this is not the case. The books are
expected to be distributed for the 2017–2018 school year. With a percentage of 10% of junior
level English Learners meeting or exceeding Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing
standards, an aligned curriculum is a must as the current district goal is to have at least 39% of
all students meeting the standards. As stated previously, an LTEL-specific professional learning
community meeting could help in this area too where teachers could work together to look for or
create resources that reflect the Common Core and the goals set for from the school district.
Ultimately, Ms. García understands that she needs to assist Long-term English Learner
students to the best of her ability for the students to master concepts so that they will be
successful in reclassifying. In particular, Ms. García was determined to involve her students in
literary discussions. To do this, she had her students imagine that they were the character in the
text. She would ask them, “If this was you, how would this make you feel” and other questions
like this. It was then that her students began to understand the human struggle that is presented in
literature. Ms. García noted that when the students began to comprehend the human nature in the
text from their perspective, class discussions became livelier as all of the students were engaged
in the discussion. Groups were formed where students would discuss the topic, which ultimately
provided more access to participation.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 110
Ms. García remarked that “I found that kind of brings them more into the curriculum”
because they had more time to understand it and make it relevant to their lives. She found it was
only then the students were willing to put effort into producing quality work. According to
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010), incorporating a student’s culture into the curriculum generally
does not increase student achievement, but student engagement may be higher. Through the use
of her writing and reading scaffolding, along with literary discussions, it appears that Ms. García
has found ways to increase student engagement for her students to find success.
Summary. Ms. García is just a couple of years into the teaching profession. Although
new, she has quickly picked up on the plight of Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and the
difficulties, along with frustrations, they face. She has purposely changed her teaching strategies
to provide better instruction to her LTELs for them to find success. She senses the need for
parents, students, and teachers to work together to best serve the student. Ms. García would also
like to see the district support her and other teachers by providing an LTEL-specific Professional
Learning Community time.
Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How do the parents of a Long-term English Learner
who attends a suburban school district located in Southern California perceive their child to be
ready for college?” Mrs. Acosta, the parent to Enrique, is a hard-working woman. She is a single
parent as her husband, Enrique’s father, passed away several years ago. She primarily speaks
Spanish and only understands a bit of English, despite living in the United States for 30 years.
She supports the family by working two jobs. She did not complete high school.
This interview also took place in the school’s guidance office. The researcher interviewed
Enrique first, so Mrs. Acosta and the translator were in the lobby area waiting. The researcher
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 111
does not know what type of conversation took place between the mother and translator during
this waiting time. When the interview began, introductions were made. Mrs. Acosta at times did
not understand the question, so the researcher and translator would reframe the question. The
researcher awaited the answers, as she is not fluent in Spanish and was eager to know Mrs.
Acosta’s replies. The researcher has worked with this translator for many years and there was a
comfort level that existed between them. The translator easily built rapport with Mrs. Acosta.
Parent’s attitudes and beliefs of her child. It was evident that Mrs. Acosta was proud
of her son Enrique. It was obvious that she has reared her son to be a respectful young man as
seen in his interview with the researcher. She shared he had been well behaved since he was
little. She stated, “Mm, pues, cuando él era más chico, se portaba bien, jugaba, todo. [laughing]
Sí.” (Mm, well, when he was little, he was well-behaved; he played and everything. [laughing]
Yes.) Mrs. Acosta is aware of her son’s helpfulness as he often comes home stating that he has
helped a friend or a teacher during the school day.
Mrs. Acosta is proud of her son, especially this year as he is making progress and making
an effort in his studies. She is pleased to see this change in him. She agreed with her son’s
assessment that his confidence level is high this year and has improved greatly from last year.
She stated:
Estoy orgullosa de él porque no deje la escuela, él ya no queria continuar y yo le dige que
tenia que ir para salir adelante el estubo de acuerdo y eso me hace orgullosa. (I am proud
of him because he did not want to continue attending school, but I told him he needs to
go in order to be successful and he agreed with that and that makes me proud.)
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 112
Mrs. Acosta shared that she motivates him by telling him that his academics are most
important and that he must continue to work hard in order to achieve his goals. She further
stated:
Pues, yo pienso que la razón es porque si uno le está motivando que siga adelante, a que
salga adelante. Y esto, yo, no le- le digo a él, “Yo no te puedo dar.” A veces me dice,
“Mami, hice buenos grados. ¿Qué me vas a dar?” Y le dije, “No te puedo dar algo
[chuckling], pero me siento orgullosa de ti porque lo estás logrando… porque estás
saliendo adelante. (I think that the reason is because [I’m] motivating him to keep
improving, to keep going. And this- I can’t- I tell him, “I can’t give you anything.”
Sometimes he tells me, “Mom, I made good grades. What are you going to give me?”
And I tell him, “I can’t give you anything [chuckling], but I feel proud of you because of
what you’re accomplishing—because you’re doing well.”)
Mrs. Acosta believes his best subject is science and that he struggles the most in math.
She stated, “Porque cuando lo miro que está haciendo su tarea de matemáticas, dice, ‘¡Ay, no
puedo hacer esto!,’ ‘¡Ay, no sé esto!’” (Because when I see that he’s doing his math homework,
he says, ‘Oh, I can’t do that!’ or ‘Ugh, I don’t know this!’) This was interesting for two reasons:
he stated to the researcher that he was interested in taking an AP math course, and he needs to
make up one semester of Integrated Math I.
Parent engagement. Like most parents, Mrs. Acosta wants her son, Enrique, to do well
for himself. She stated, “Pues que salga adelante, que estudie, que saque una carrera; y pues que
sigan los estudios.” (Well, for him to do well, to study, to study a profession; and, well, for him
to keep on studying.) But as she is the only breadwinner in the family and must provide for
herself and four children, she does not have much time to be involved in very many school
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 113
activities, a byproduct of Enrique’s exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Mrs. Acosta does not
contact the school very often, nor attend any meetings. She does receive automated calls from
the school and is appreciative of any reports she may receive, especially if it is a report when
Enrique is not doing well in a subject. However, she is willing to participate if the time works
with her schedule. She stated, “En lo que se puede ayudar y yo puedo ayudar” (I can help with
whatever I’m needed to help with).
Mrs. Acosta did have the opportunity to attend one parent-teacher conference this past
year. She stated that she did learn new things about her son, even though she went into the
conference believing she knew everything about her child already. In particular, Mrs. Acosta
stated that the teachers shared that she, as a parent, have to support their student at home.
Due to the passing of Mr. Acosta, Mrs. Acosta works two jobs to support the family. She
generally works her first job from 6:00 A.M to 3:00 PM, at which time she is home with her
children for a few hours. It is during this time that Mrs. Acosta feels she is encouraging them to
come to school every day, to pay attention to their teachers and to behave at school. She reminds
her son that she did not have the chance to study. She tells him, “Hijo, tú tienes que progresar,
ser alguien” (Son, you have to make progress, you have to be someone).
When Enrique was younger, Mrs. Acosta was more hands-on when it came to Enrique’s
education. While he was in elementary school, the students had to read for 30 minutes each day.
Many times, Enrique’s dad would read books to him in Spanish. Those days ended once Enrique
could read books in English to himself, and now Mrs. Acosta only sees Enrique reading if it is
for a homework assignment. Further, since Mrs. Acosta works two jobs now, she does not have
the time to assist him with his homework.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 114
Ecological system supports. Mrs. Acosta supports her children at school and home as
best as she can. Since she is a single parent and must work to provide for her children, she is not
at home as often as she would like, nor can she participate in her children’s school as much
either. In particular, Mrs. Acosta talked about how she is supportive at home and for school.
Home life. When Enrique was young, both his mother and father read to him in Spanish.
Mrs. Acosta stated that they have lots of books in Spanish and that she or his father would read
to Enrique from when he was little until fifth grade. Unfortunately, today, Mrs. Acosta works
long hours at two jobs and does not have time to help her son with schoolwork, along with the
fact that she did not graduate from high school and would have a hard time assisting him. At this
point, Mrs. Acosta knows that Enrique comes home, does his homework, eats, and goes to bed.
She also knows he plays sports and may be at school for practice.
Understandably so, the family many times talks about their dad and what life would be
like if he were still alive. Mrs. Acosta stated, “Mm, pues, cuando estamos juntos, lo que
platicamos es ellos que viene, pues, que recuerdan a su papá, o que ‘Si mi papá estuviera aquí
esto estuviera pasando’ (Mm, well, when we’re together, what we talk about is how they
remember their dad, or they say, “If Dad were here, this is what we would be doing.”) She stated
that the children have commented that if their dad were still alive, their mom would not be
working so much and would be able to spend more time with them. Mrs. Acosta’s workload has
affected her children through their exosystem. They cannot control it, but it affects them. When
they do have free time together, they many times go to the movies or go out to eat.
School support. Mrs. Acosta believes her son is learning very well. She recognizes that
he was struggling, but feels he is getting help now. She believes the school is a good school
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 115
because they are helping him to do well. She believes they are supporting Enrique by giving him
the classes he needs and encouraging him to do something with his life. Mrs. Acosta stated,
Pues yo pienso que es una buena escuela porque los ayuda mucho a ellos, como a él
cuando estaba queriendo ya no querer ir a la escuela, y estaba queriendo ir a otra escuela,
y que yo le dije “No, voy a ir con tus maestros, voy a hablar. Y si ellos me dicen que está
bien que vayas a esa escuela yo te pongo en esa escuela. Si no, ahí te quedas”. (Well, I
think it’s a good school because they help [the students] a lot, like when he was wanting
to stop going to school, and he was wanting to go to another school. And I told him, “No,
I’m going to go talk to your teachers. And if they tell me it’s fine for you to go that other
school, I’ll take you there. If not, you’re staying here.”)
Mrs. Acosta was concerned about him possibly attending another school. Apparently, Enrique
was interested in the Independent Study Program (ISP). This program allows students in Xenial
Unified School District to complete their studies independently through an online credit
program. Enrique felt this would allow him to get a job to help the family and do his work when
his time permitted him. Ultimately, Enrique stayed at Butte High School, and, with the
improvement of his grades, he wants to complete high school there and go to college. Mrs.
Acosta stated, “Pues, él lo que a mí me- yo creo el esfuerzo que está haciendo para mejorar sus
grados; el esfuerzo que está haciendo para aprender, para poder llegar a- hasta la universidad”
(Well, what I see- I think the effort he’s making to bring his grades up; the effort he’s making to
learn; to be able to get into college).
As for his English Learner classification, Mrs. Acosta reported that no one had explained
the reclassification process to her. During the interview, the translator had to describe what the
letter looked like because Mrs. Acosta was having trouble remembering what letter it was. This
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 116
is unfortunate because it is the belief of the researcher that Mrs. Acosta would encourage Enrique
to continue to do well with both his studies and his exams to potentially reclassify if she knew
what the letter truly meant. Olsen (2010b) recommends that parents receive information
regarding Long-term English Learner’s language progress to see if their child is improving. The
researcher believes that sending home the yearly California English language development test
results is not enough. Parents need the opportunity to meet with school officials for better clarity
of the process.
As for preparing for college, Mrs. Acosta shared that Enrique is bringing up his grades
and making an effort to learn. She stated, “Pues, él lo que a mí me- yo creo el esfuerzo que está
haciendo para mejorar sus grados; el esfuerzo que está haciendo para aprender, para poder llegar
a- hasta la universidad.” (Well, what I see- I think the effort he’s making to bring his grades up;
the effort he’s making to learn; to be able to get into college.) She believes these items will assist
Enrique in getting into college. Mrs. Acosta’s statements mirror Olsen (2010a, 2010b) accounts
regarding parents who do not realize that their children are not adequately prepared for college
due to their low academic skills and a lack of college readiness. Enrique improving his grades is
great, but it is not the only factor in preparing him for college. Mrs. Acosta does not know what
is needed for Enrique to attend college. This lack of social capital is an unfortunate, but all too
often, condition.
Summary. Mrs. Acosta is a single parent to four children, one of whom is Enrique, who
just completed his sophomore year in high school. Mrs. Acosta is proud of her son, who recently
has improved his grades and also is someone who is quite helpful to others. Unfortunately, due to
her status as a single parent, Mrs. Acosta rarely becomes involved with her children’s schools, as
her work schedule does not permit it. She believes she is encouraging her son to do well in
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 117
school with the hopes he will go to college. Unfortunately, Mrs. Acosta is not aware of all the
factors that are needed for Enrique to attend college.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “How does the Long-term English Learner student’s
ecological system support his academic goals?” In Enrique’s ecological system, there are support
systems in place to help him achieve his academic goals. Enrique receives support from his
mother, Mrs. Acosta, and one of his teachers, Ms. García (Figure 2). These supports, along with
others that were not included in this study, such as his other teachers, counselor, and
administration, are crucial in providing Enrique an opportunity to be college ready. Olsen
(2010b) confirms that “an inclusive and affirming school climate” (p. 37) needs to be present at
school sites to “end the social isolation…of English Learners through activities that build
relationships across groups” (p. 37).
It appeared that Enrique has great relationships with his mother and his teacher. Enrique
wants to help his mother, knowing she is working hard to provide for their family. He has
realized that working diligently for his grades will make his mom proud. Enrique also recognized
how important a teacher, like Ms. García, is in improving his academics (Figure 2). He also has
been welcomed to join the Associated Student Body (ASB) program at the school through his
tennis coach. This will help Enrique connect with others and potentially end his social isolation
that being a Long-term English Learner has caused (Olsen, 2010b). Further, Callahan (2005)
stated, “Learning occurs most effortlessly in a supportive environment” (p. 308). Ms. García has
provided a supportive environment for her students, scaffolding lessons for her students to see
success.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 118
It is important for teachers, like Ms. García, to continue to ensure the curriculum is
engaging to Long-term English Learner students. Boone (2011) wrote if students see the
relevancy of the curriculum to their lives, it allows for student engagement and not student
disconnection. Ms. García works tirelessly to show her students how the literature is related or
connected to them through her scaffolding techniques. Enrique recognized his improvement in
her class. Enrique has made better strides towards improvement this past year, which Callahan
(2005) stated that if given the opportunity, English Learner students “will rise to the meet the
challenge” (p. 311). In particular, Enrique noted that when reviewing his second semester essay
to that of his first semester essay, he noticed an immense improvement in his writing capabilities.
Also of importance in the classroom is to ensure that the instruction provides academic
language and structure within its language discourse. Many teachers understand the label
“English Learner” as someone who shows a deficiency in language, but they may also
understand it as a deficiency in academics. As Callahan (2005) reasoned when English Learners
(ELs) and Long-term English Learners (LTELs) are enrolled in specially designed academic
instruction in English (SDAIE) or other sheltered classes, the academic rigor is typically less as
compared to mainstream courses. Essentially, the EL or LTEL student becomes further behind
his/her peers and is caught in a brutal cycle of never reclassifying, or becoming college ready.
Fortunately for Enrique and his classmates, it appears that Ms. García is employing academic
language instruction as evidenced by Ms. García’s goals for her students and her use of rubrics,
along with what Enrique stated in how they learned to write an essay.
Several breakdowns exist in Enrique’s ecological system (Figure 2). First, Enrique lost
his father at a young age. Not having access to one’s father is devastating for any person. Now
that his mother must work to support the family, Enrique does not have much access to her. This
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 119
only compounds his situation. Enrique wants both of his parents to be proud of him, but lacks the
social capital to be truly successful.
Since both Mrs. Acosta and Enrique stated that neither of them understood the
reclassification process, this is a second breakdown in Enrique’s ecological system. Kim and
García (2014) recommend that families be advised of “college readiness and related academic
requirements” (p. 311) to ensure Long-term English Learners have the same access to
information as others may have. And although the California Department of Education
encourages families to be part of the reclassification process, it does not seem that this school has
provided enough information to Mrs. Acosta and Enrique that could assist Enrique is meeting his
reclassification goals and ultimately have better access to college and career courses. Mrs.
Acosta did receive the yearly report of Enrique’s California English language development test
scores but stated she did not know what the paper meant.
Enrique also needs support in understanding how to be prepared for college, including the
prerequisites for college and application requirements. This kind of social capital is imperative
for someone like Enrique, who has two major disconnections in his ecological system. As a first-
generation student, Enrique would have trouble navigating what can be a complicated system
without any kind of support.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 120

Figure 2. Enrique’s micro and meso systems

Summary of Findings
An ecological systems framework provided the opportunity to see that a Long-term
English Learner student can be successful if the people in his/her system are supportive,
encouraging and providing resources. Enrique, the individual who the research was focused,
recently completed his sophomore year at Butte High School. Two people within his ecological
system were interviewed, his mother, Mrs. Acosta, and one of his teachers, Ms. García. All
spoke of the promises that Enrique has to reach college, but through their interviews, comments
were made that are concerning whether Enrique has enough support within his ecological system
to attend and be successful in college.
Like most English Learners (ELs) in California, Enrique was born in California and
speaks Spanish with his mother. Enrique, like students in Kim and García’s 2014 qualitative
study, does not see himself as an EL, yet he does realize that at times he struggles with his
assignments. In essence, he is confused as to why he is in a support class when he perceives he
Mrs. Acosta
Microsystem
Mesosystem
Ms. Garcia
Enrique
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 121
does well most of the time. He is also motivated to continue to do well in his studies, like the
students in Kim and García’s study. He wants to go to college to become an engineer or an
American Sign Language translator. However, Enrique does have academic deficiencies as noted
on his transcript and has had to attend summer school for the past two summers to improve his
grades for high school graduation requirements. At this point in his high school career, Enrique
has met 43% of the a-g requirements, but ideally, he should be between 49-53% at the end of his
sophomore year. Part of the reason why he is not on track is due to two factors: low grades
during his freshman year and two years of enrollment in a Long-term English Learner English
language development support class, which limits him from taking other a-g courses in its place.
Researchers (Kim & García, 2014; Wiggan, 2007) stated the voice of the student is
absent from the literature and this study allowed the voice of one Long-term English Learner
(LTEL) to be heard. It was learned that Enrique needed confidence boosters throughout the year
for him to understand what it felt like to be successful, so he could continue to strive towards that
success. Teachers who are engaging and provide appropriate resources, such as Ms. García,
allow LTEL students, like Enrique, to reach success and find their confidence to be able to
navigate a system that ultimately frames them as deficient students.
A breakdown in Enrique’s ecological system was noted in two different ways. First,
Enrique’s dad died when Enrique was in middle school. This kind of loss can be quite
impressionable at such a young age. It was as if Enrique lost his compass for life as he began to
hang out with the wrong crowd and earned poor marks in school. The second breakdown is how
the school is communicating with Enrique and his mother regarding his English Learner
classification. According to Flores et al. (2015), schools need to accept responsibility for how
Long-term English Learners (LTELs) have ended up in the situation they are. They contend that
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 122
schools see LTEL students as problematic due to the language ideology that schools have put
forth. They believe schools have not done a good enough job in “building on their cultural and
linguistic practices as a way to bridge social and academic realms” (p. 128). They further claim
that this is a form of “epistemic racism” (p. 130) that marginalizes them as of their bilingualism.
The researcher of this study contends it also marginalizes them from being college ready as well
if schools are focused solely on linguistic practices and not academic literacy.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 123
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this qualitative embedded case study was to determine the perceptions of
a Long-term English Learner’s college readiness through studying his ecological system.
Utilizing this framework allowed for “discovery” of “the behavior and development of the
human being” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 518).
Long-term English Learners are a growing population in California and the United States
at large. Only in recent years has attention focused on this group stuck in a reclassification
system without ever reclassifying to English proficient. Students who do not reclassify continue
to be enrolled in English language development support classes at the expense of college and
career elective courses.
Four research questions were posed to determine the development of college readiness of
a Long-term English Learner. The student, along with his mother and one of his teachers, were
interviewed for this study. These “environmental dimensions” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 518)
were coded individually and then cross-examined to identify potential themes. Bronfenbrenner
(1977) noted that investigating such a triad of people would foster strength and reinforcement in
one’s study. The interviews of the three people reinforced each other’s answers that led to the
identified themes. Also, various documents were reviewed to allow for triangulation.
Summary of Findings
Four major findings were presented in Chapter Four. An ecological systems framework
provided an excellent opportunity to research a Long-term English Learner (LTEL) student and
his micro and meso systems. It is a complex situation (Callahan, 2005) that needs attention to
best support LTEL students.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 124
It was learned that a Long-term English Learner student could be successful if provided
the appropriate resources and people in his life. Enrique does have people in his life who want to
see him do well, reclassify, and become college ready. His mother, although not a high school
graduate, wants her son to attend college and find a profession better than her housekeeping job.
However, she has no understanding of what is required of him for high school or college. She
does not realize what educational mountains her son is facing during this time in his life.
Ms. García, Enrique’s teacher, is concerned with how her students, including Enrique,
develop academic literacy skills so that they are better prepared for the rigors of high school and
college. She has done her best to restructure her curriculum to provide better support for her
Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students. She, too, needs additional supports. Ms. García
recognizes she would like to have access to an LTEL-specific professional development.
These two adults in Enrique’s micro and meso systems represent the type of support he
needs to find success in his educational career. However, more can be done to support and teach
the adults who support Enrique.
Secondly, Enrique is confused why he is in support classes and has a limited
understanding of why he was placed in them. Enrique sees himself as an English speaker who
speaks Spanish at home. He does not see the value of taking the California English language
development test (CELDT) annually. Olsen (2010a) stated that Long-term English Learners
should be “knowledgeable about the purposes of the CELDT and implication of their CELDT
scores” (p. 33). Enrique has figured out that by not taking the CELDT seriously, he is continually
placed into support classes. But passing the CELDT alone is not enough to reclassify. Enrique
needs to know what specifically he needs to meet to reclassify (Olsen, 2010a). It is only then that
Enrique may be able to reclassify and have other opportunities for electives in his class schedule.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 125
Third, teachers need to provide engaging, rigorous curriculum for the Long-term English
Learner (LTEL) student to catch up to their English-only peers to be prepared for the rigors of
college. Ms. García, Enrique’s English teacher, understands this sentiment and is trying her best
to provide such a curriculum that incorporates academic literacy (Menken & Kleyn, 2010).
However, Ms. García noted that it would be beneficial to have an LTEL-specific professional
learning community meeting where she and her fellow educators could collaborate. Olsen
(2010a), a leading researcher of LTELs in California, stated, “Professional development and
collaborative planning time for teachers of classes with LTELs is a high priority for the use of
professional development funds” (p. 33). With the number of LTEL students in California, this
can no longer be ignored and dedicated time for educators to assist this population would be
ideal.
Lastly, two breakdowns exist in the student’s ecological system. First, Enrique lost his
father several years ago. This breakdown was seen in how Enrique coped with the loss of his
father. He replaced his late father with bad people, who claimed to be Enrique’s friends. These
friendships only led Enrique to a destructive path, where he saw himself losing focus on his
education.
The second breakdown exists between the school and the student and his family.
Although the school sends home the California English language development test results
paperwork, there is no explanation of the form to the student or his parent. Although sending
home the paperwork fulfills “notifying the parent,” it is not enough for families to truly
understand the reclassification process. Olsen (2010a) recommends that everyone is the
ecological system—administrators, teachers, the English Learner (EL) student and their
parents—understand this process of reclassifying. Without this awareness, the Long-term
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 126
English Learner (LTEL) student continues to cycle through a system that s/he does not
understand and becomes frustrated in the process. Olsen further recommends that EL and LTEL
students’ “course schedules are monitored to ensure that ELLs have access to the full
curriculum” (p. 33). It is not enough to ensure they reclassify; they must also become college
ready.
Limitations
As with any study, there are limitations that need to be addressed. Since the focus was on
one Long-term English Learner (LTEL) student, this study cannot be generalized to all LTEL
students. The participants stated many comments that the researcher has heard before, but since
this was a focused study, the overall results are not universal to all LTEL students. However, this
study could be replicated in other districts, where the results could be added to this research to
help build generalizability.
This was also an embedded case study that focused on Enrique, the student, his mother,
and one of his teachers. Not all of Enrique’s teachers were interviewed, nor was his school
counselor. Further, none of Enrique’s siblings were interviewed. Although having more input
from others would be valuable, this type of study allowed the researcher to study the “relations
between systems” (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, p. 4) that exist in the Long-term English Learner’s
ecological system. Therefore, only one person per system was selected for the study.
Implications for Practice
From completing an embedded case study, several implications for practice emerged
from the research. In particular, three of these suggestions are offered in this section.
Keeping in mind the student’s ecological system, it is important that communication is
not only presented but that parents and students understand its implications. For example, a case
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 127
carrier could be provided for Long-term English Learners (LTELs) and their parents regarding
the student’s English Learner status. Case carriers could hold parent conferences to discuss an
individual learning plan that indicates the student’s goals towards reclassification and college
readiness. Parents are to be encouraged to participate in the reclassification process, along with
being invited to a meeting with the local education agency to discuss their child’s progress
(CDE, 2016e) but, many times, meetings occur in group settings. To hold an individual parent
conference like this could increase “Latino parents’ college knowledge…in a smaller, more
personal setting” (Martinez et al., 2013, p. 111). The meeting could also include the student’s
school counselor where the LTEL student could be informed of their class choices and the
consequences of taking one course versus another (Callahan, 2005). Parents need to be advised
to seek information from the counselor. In a study by Martinez et al. (2013), a parent commented
that parents do not know they can get college information from the counselor, but “think that you
only go to the counselor when they [students] have a problem at home” (p. 113). Yearly
conferences like this could potentially provide “positive intergroup relationships” (Olsen, 2010b,
p. 37) to build an ecological system that is supportive of the student for both reclassifying and
college preparedness (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Another way to increase communication could be to identify parents who have previous
experience with their children reclassifying. Parents of reclassified students would have rich
stories to share that other parents could identify. Parent to parent instruction could provide a
more meaningful way to communicate this information as many people take notice to what one’s
peers state. Further, parents of reclassified students could present this information in ways that
may be more understandable to the other parents than if a school employee attempted to explain
the process.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 128
A second implication is to implement Long-term English Learner (LTEL) professional
learning communities (PLCs) so teachers can better support these students with access to
academic content. Menken et al. (2012) stated “simply increasing awareness about this student
population among educators seems to positively impact educational outcomes for LTELLs” (p.
136). LTEL students should have “access and exposure to high-quality content-area instruction”
(Callahan, 2005, p. 321). Without this type of PLC, “general misunderstandings and lack of
knowledge of the research about effective practices for Long Term English Learners” (Olsen,
2010b, p. 3) continue to perpetuate. Parents believe teachers need to be supportive in assisting
their children to be college ready (Martinez et al., 2013). This type of support is the kind that
would not only be encouraging to students but would also empower students to work
productively. The district should “invest in teachers’ knowledge and skills and create the
collaborative mechanisms for teachers to work together in the endeavor of designing instruction
for Long Term English Learners” (Olsen, 2010b, p. 38). If given the opportunity for articulation,
it should occur both across and vertically (Olsen, 2010b).
A final proposal would be to encourage Long-term English Learner (LTEL) students to
take a college-prep course like Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID; Olsen,
2010b), where they would learn academic skills that would help them in all their courses. AVID
is a program to assist students, who might not otherwise attend college, to become prepared to
attend. It could also potentially teach LTELs the “explicit instruction in the genre of academic
English used in scientific reports, court documents, public information articles, and the like”
(Callahan, 2005, p. 323). A class like AVID would allow for instruction of study skills and the
opportunity to work with English proficient students (Olsen, 2010b). It would also encourage
student responsibility for coursework. It would provide additional people in the LTEL student’s
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 129
ecological system, such as tutors, who are provided for AVID students. A program like AVID
could enlarge the student’s ecological system, as many AVID programs send students on field
trips to colleges and universities. In the current setting, postsecondary schools are not typically
within the high school student’s microsystem or even mesosystem if they lack social capital.
Being exposed to potential options could immediately change a person’s ecological system. An
LTEL student could be connected to university admission counselors, who then become a figure
within the student’s mesosystem and exosystem.
Recommendations for Research
As the number of Long-term English Learners continue to grow in California and with
California schools soon to be graded on college readiness, research could examine several topics
in this field. Four suggested areas of study are discussed here.
One study that could be completed is to find a school that currently implements
individual learning plans to determine its effectiveness in assisting Long-term English Learners
(LTELs) to reclassify and have access to a college and career curriculum. This type of study
could confirm if having more people in one’s ecological system promotes better outcomes for the
LTEL students. A mixed-methods study would provide both the quantitative data of LTEL
English Learner classification status, plus the rich narrative of a successful LTEL student, and
his/her parents, in how s/he reclassified and became better prepared for college.
Although research has been conducted on college readiness programs, such as AVID,
GEAR UP or Upward Bound, an intriguing study would be to research how it affects Long-term
English Learner students. This could provide data on any effectiveness towards academic
achievement, reclassification and/or college readiness. Once data have been ascertained, they
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 130
could provide districts the knowledge of strategies that allow for the greatest gains with this
population.
The number of Long-term English Learners (LTELs) in California has grown
exponentially to where a quantitative study could take place. An analysis utilizing expectancy-
value theory as a framework could provide invaluable insight. It potentially could be able to
pinpoint specific areas of behavior, such as confidence, motivation, and apathy. For example, the
study could determine how much energy an LTEL student wants to spend on an activity, which
then could assist educators in how they plan curriculum for this population. This type of study
has the potential to provide invaluable information for educators to best help LTEL students.
Lastly, more studies from the perspective of the student and his/her family need to occur
as Wiggan (2007) has suggested. Programs like AVID and providing a case carrier could
potentially be effective for Long-term English Learners; however, if the student and his/her
family do not understand how they work or what their purpose is, it is of little use to the student
and the family. Students and families need to know how to access information. Educators cannot
blame the student or family for “not trying hard enough.” If studies continue to provide
viewpoints from the student and family, then they have become “active investigators” (Wiggan,
2007, p. 324) into their own capacities towards success. Wiggan (2007) states that student-based
research will bolster the literature. Only then, educators may start to see where improvements
need to occur, such as quality of instruction and solutions to improve achievement, that students
believe will assist them towards reclassification and college readiness.
Conclusion
Long-term English Learners (LTELs) are stuck in a perpetual system, never reclassifying,
with graduation and, potentially, college looming on the horizon. LTELs tend to be placed into
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 131
English language development support classes at the cost of college and career prep courses,
which is a multifaceted concern. An ecological systems approach allowed the researcher to
understand the “joint impact of two or more settings” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 523) that the
LTEL student inhabits.
With so many English Learners becoming Long-term English Learners (LTELs), it was
learned that educators should be proactive in working with these students. Explicit academic
literacy should be seen across disciplines (Olsen, 2010b). Educators need to collaborate to
discuss best practices that work with LTELs. Furthermore, educators need to view these students
as bilingual students with much to add to the classroom, not as students with a deficiency
(Callahan, 2005; Menken et al., 2012). Besides teachers, school board members and top district
personnel should be involved. Many times, the data is reported to the school board, but the data
does not demonstrate the struggles that LTELs endure. Change must begin at the top with the
motivation to provide best practices for LTEL students. Only then, if educators are prepared to
remove institutional barriers, like the thought that language is a liability to learning (Menken &
Kleyn, 2010), perhaps more can be done for this population.
Many times, Long-term English Learners (LTEL) students see English language
development support classes as too easy (Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Any type of support class
should support the LTELs’ academic literacy needs, which needs to include preparation for
college. This is especially true, as the fastest growing jobs in the United States require a college
degree (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). Today’s 21st century student, which includes more
than a million students designated as English Learners in California alone, needs to be prepared
academically for college.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 132
Bronfenbrenner advocated for real-life research. He did not believe laboratory science
revealed how humans truly interact. “The ecology of human development must incorporate a
lifespan perspective if it is to do justice to the phenomena within its purview” (Bronfenbrenner,
1977, p. 526). The goal of this study was to conduct real-life research of a Long-term English
Learner (LTEL) student and his perceptions of being college ready. It is hoped that the findings
presented in this study can be added to the overall research of LTELs to help the phenomena of
too many English Learners not reclassifying and not becoming college ready.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 133
References
American Immigration Council. (2012). Public education for immigrant students:
Understanding Plyler v. Doe. Retrieved from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.
org/research/plyler-v-doe-public-education-immigrant-students
American Institutes for Research. (2006). Effects of the implementation of proposition 227 on the
education of English learners, K–12. Findings from a Five-Year Evaluation. Retrieved
from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/227Report_0.pdf
Berk, L. E. (2009). Child development. Eighth edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Boone, J. H. (2011). Ya me fui! when English learners consider leaving school. Education and
Urban Society, 45(4), 415-439. doi:10.1177/0013124511413121
Brendtro, L. K. (2006). The vision of Urie Bronfenbrenner: Adults who are crazy about kids.
Reclaiming children and youth, 15(3), 162-166.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of
childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1-5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1974.tb00552.x
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016). Home page. Retrieved from
http://cccco.edu
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 134
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2015). Student success scorecard. 2015
state of the system report. Retrieved from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/
portals/0/reports/2015-State-of-the-System-Report-ADA-Web.pdf

California Department of Education. (2015). Role & responsibilities – caledfacts. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/mn/rr/index.asp?cef=yes
California Department of Education. (2016a). Adequate yearly progress (AYP). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/
California Department of Education. (2016b). CAASPP description – caledfacts. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ai/cefcaaspp.asp
California Department of Education. (2016c). California career pathways trust (CCPT).
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/pt/
California Department of Education (2016d). California English Language Development Test
(CELDT). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2016e). California English Language Development
Test (CELDT). 2016-17 and 2017-17 CELDT Information Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ep/documents/celdt1618guide.pdf
California Department of Education. (2016f). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#eld
California Department of Education. (2016g). LCFF frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#LCAP
California Department of Education. (2016h). Local control funding formula overview. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.aspCalifornia Department of
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 135
Education. (2017a). California accountability model & school dashboard. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2017b). College/career indicator. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/cci.asp
California Department of Education. (n.d.a). English learners. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/
California Department of Education. (n.d.b). Reclassification. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/
California Secretary of State. (2016a). Prop 58. English proficiency. Multilingual education.
Initiative statute. Retrieved from http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/58/
California Secretary of State. (2016b). Proposition 58 English Proficiency. Multilingual
Education. Semi-Official Election Results. Retrieved from
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/58/
The California State University. (2016). The early assessment program: helping high school
students meet college expectations in mathematics and English. A joint program of
California state university and California public schools. Retrieved from
https://www.calstate.edu/eap/documents/eap_program_description.pdf
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
doi:10.3102/00028312042002305
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2016). What is the SIOP model? Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/siop/about/
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 136
CollegeBoard. (2016). Student brochure – english. Retrieved from https://secure-
media.collegeboard.org/ap-student/pdf/ap-brochure.pdf
¡Colorín Colorado! (n.d.). ELL glossary. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/ell-
basics/ell-glossary#glossary-e
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2015a). Serving English learners. Retrieved from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl622.pdf
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2015b). Teaching credential requirements. Retrieved
from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/req-teaching.html#general
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016a). Development Process. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2016b). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016c). Standards in your state. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016d). Myths vs. facts. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts/
ConnectEd. (2008). Expanding pathways. Transforming high school education in California.
Retrieved from http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/downloads/LL_Expanding_
Pathways.pdf
Cook, H. G., Boals, T., & Lundberg, T. (2011). Academic achievement for English learners:
What can we reasonably expect? The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 66-69.
doi:10.1177/003172171109300316
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 137
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In
Street, B. & Hornberger, N.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2
nd

Edition, Volume 2: Literacy (pp. 71-83). Springer US.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education:
Possibilities and pitfalls. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/new-
resource-library/symposium-on-dual-language-education-3.pdf
Cummins, J. (1980). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. NABE journal, 4(3), 25-
59.
DataQuest. (2017). Data files. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
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. doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787
Gallegos, E. M. (2015). The English language learner: Ensuring nondiscrimination and
Providing FAPE. Retrieved from https://www.region10.org/r10website/assets/File/
Gallegos_E-ELL-Navigating%20the%20Law%20to%20Ensure%20Nondiscrimination%
20and%20Equal%20Opportunity.pdf
Gao, N. (2016). College readiness in California: A look at rigorous high school course-taking.
Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/
publication_quick.asp?i=1205
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 138
Goldenberg, C. (2014). Unlocking the Research on English Learners. The Education
Digest, 79(6), 36.
Goldenberg, C. & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English
learners: a guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hakuta, K., Butler Y.G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Retrieved from http://spot.pcc.edu/~shenness/standards/HowLongdoes%20it
%20taketolearn%20eng.pdf
Hill, JD. and Miller, K.B. (2013). Classroom instruction that works with English language
learners. Second edition. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Researching for Education and
Learning (McREL).
Hudspath-Niemi, H. S. & Conroy, M. L. (2013). Implementing response-to-intervention to
address the needs of English-language learners: instructional strategies and assessment
tools for school psychologists. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hull, E. (1983). Undocumented alien children and free public education: An analysis of Plyler v.
Doe. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 44(2), 409.
Iowa State University (2016). Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-
taxonomy
Kim, W.G. & García, S.B. (2014). Long-term English language learners’ perceptions of their
language and academic learning experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5),
300-312. doi: 10.1177/0741932514525047
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford
University Press.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 139
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: language acquisition in the
classroom. Second impression. London, England: Pearson Education.
Leal, F. (2016). State board backs plans for California’s first college and career readiness
indicator. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2016/state-board-backs-plans-for-
californias-first-college-and-career-indicator/567010
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Linquanti, R. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering
meaningful accountability for English learners. University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute. UC Berkeley: University of California Linguistic Minority
Research Institute. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hw8k347
Los Angeles Unified School District. (n.d.). Investing in lauds. Graduation requirements.
Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/7879
Martinez, M.A., Cortez, L.J., & Saenz, V.B. (2013). Latino parents’ perceptions of the role of
schools in college readiness. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(2), 108-120.
doi:10.1080/15348431.2012.745402
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?
Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy
Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the
educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417. doi:10.1080/13670050903370143
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 140
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on "long-term English language learners":
Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121. doi:10.1080/19313152.2012.665822
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Archives. (2016). The civil rights act of 1964 and the equal employment opportunity
commission. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2014). Title III state profiles.
Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/t3sis/California.php
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (n.d.b). What legal obligations do
schools have to English language learners (ELLs)? Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.us/faqs/view/6
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015a). English learners (ELS) and college and career
readiness. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_FastFacts_
ELsandCRDC_CollegeReadiness.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015b). English learner (EL) students who are
Hispanic/Latino. Fast facts 1 of 2. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/
OELAandWHIEEH_FastFacts_1.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015c). English learner (el) students who are
Hispanic/Latino. Fast facts 2 of 2. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/
OELAandWHIEEH_FastFacts_2_508.pdf
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 141
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015d). Languages spoken by English learners (ELS).
Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_Fast_Facts_All_Languages_
Update_508_11_5_15.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015e). National- and state-level high school
graduation rates for English learners. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/
fast_facts/OELA_FF_HS_GradRates.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015f). Profiles of English learners (ELs). Retrieved
from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_FastFacts_ProfilesOfELs.pdf
Olsen, L. (2011). California’s long-term English learners: Directions for policy, program and
practice. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/41/olsen_dec11.pdf
Olsen, L. (2010a). Changing course for long term English learners. Leadership, 40(2), 30.
Olsen, L. (2010b). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunities
for long term English language learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Paat, Y. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 23(8), 954-966. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.800007
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Santrock, J.W. (2011). Life-span development. Thirteenth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/about/history/
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 142
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2012). AB-2193 long-term English learners.
Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20112
0120AB2193
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2014a). SB-396 public services. Retrieved
from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140
SB396
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2015). SB-750 English language education:
English learners. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB750&search_keywords=long%23%23%23term%23%23%2
3english
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2014b). SB-1174 English language education.
Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=
201320140SB1174
State of California Office of Legislative Counsel. (2016). Senate Bill No. 415. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160S B415
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The bilingual education act: Twenty years later. New focus,
occasional papers in bilingual education, Number 6. New Focus. Retrieved from
https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE021037/Fall88_6.pdf
Sugarman, S. D., & Widess, E. G. (1974). Equal protection for non-English-speaking school
children. California Law Review, 62(1), 157.
United States Courts. (n.d.) Access to education – rule of law. Retrieved from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/access-education-
rule-law
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 143
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Economic news release. Employment projections: 2014-
24 summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
U.S. Department of Education (2004a). A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Developing programs for English language learners:
Lau v. Nichols. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). Developing programs for English language learners:
legal background. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/legal.html
U.S. Department of Education (2015c). Elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/esea
U.S. Department of Education (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
U.S. Department of Education (2015d). Fast facts. Office of English Language Acquisition.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/fast-facts/pel.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). Laws & guidance. Elementary & secondary education.
Subpart 2 – accountability and administration. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg42.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Science, technology, engineering and math: Education for
global leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2016). Poverty guidelines. Retrieved from
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 144
The United States Department of Justice. (2015). Types of educational opportunities
discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-
opportunities-discrimination
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. doi:10.3102/0002831214545110
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.
University of California. (2015). A-G guide. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-
requirements/
School Improvement Network. (n.d.). What is Common Core? The common core standards: The
myths. Retrieved from http://www.whatiscommoncore.org/the-common-core-standards-
the-myths/
Wiggan, G. (2007). Race, school achievement, and educational inequality: toward a student-
based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational Research. 77(3), p. 310-333. doi:
10.3102/003465430303947
Wright, W.E. (2010). Landmark court rulings regarding English language learners. ¡Colorín
Colorado! Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/landmark-court-
rulings-regarding-english-language-learners
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 145
Yamamura, E. K., Martínez, M. A., & Sáenz, V. B. (2010). Moving beyond high school
expectations: Examining stakeholders' responsibility for increasing Latina/o students'
college readiness. The High School Journal, 93(3), 126-148. doi:10.1353/hsj.0.0045
Xenial Unified School District (XUSD). (2015). Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
Retrieved from XUSD.
Xenial Unified School District (XUSD). (2016). School data. Retrieved from XUSD and
California Department of Education Dataquest.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 146
Appendix A
Parent Introduction Letter

Dear Parent and/or Guardian:
Estimado padre y/o tutor:

Your family is being asked to participate in a research study conducted by me, Jeneé Corum,
Doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. I am conducting research that
examines the relationship of Latino/a students who are classified as Long-term English Learners
and their perceptions of being college ready. If you agree to participate, we will set up an
appointment time to be interviewed. If you allow your child to participate, they will be
interviewed after school at an office at school. Participation in this study is voluntary. Your
identity and your child’s identity will remain confidential at all times.

A su familia se le pide participar en un estudio de investigación realizado por mí, Jeneé Corum,
candidata a doctorado en la Universidad del Sur de California. Estoy llevando a cabo una
investigación que examina la relación de los estudiantes Latinos que están clasificados como
Aprendices de Inglés a Largo Plazo y sus percepciones de estar listos para la universidad. Si
acepta participar, estableceremos una cita para entrevistar. Si usted permite que su hijo
participe, ellos serán entrevistados después de la escuela en una oficina en la escuela. la
participación en este estudio es voluntario. Su identidad y la identidad de su hijo permanecerán
confidenciales en todo momento.

Please read the enclosed parental consent form for more detailed information. If you consent,
return the signed form to the Guidance Office at school. Your student will also sign an assent
form before being interviewed.

Lea el formulario de consentimiento paterno adjunto para obtener información más detallada. Si
usted consiente, devuelva el formulario firmado a la Oficina de Orientación en la escuela. Su
estudiante también firmará un formulario de consentimiento antes de ser entrevistado.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at 626-xxx-xxx or at
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu, or my Faculty Sponsor, Dr. Patricia Tobey at 213-xxx-xxxx or at
xxxxx@usc.edu.

Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre este estudio, por favor comuníquese conmigo al 626-xxx-xxxx o
con xxxxxxxx@usc.edu, o con mi Patrocinador de la Facultad, la Dra. Patricia Tobey al 213-
xxx-xxxx o a xxxxx@usc.edu.

Thank you/Gracias,

Jeneé Corum
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 147
Appendix B
Informed Consent: Parent Participant

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
(CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN NO MEDICA)

Parent Participation
(Participación de los Padres)

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS (LTELS) AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF
COLLEGE READINESS UTILIZING AN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK
(APRENDIANTES DE INGLÉS A LARGO PLAZO (LTELS) Y SUS PERCEPCIONES DE LA
PREPARACIÓN DE LA UNIVERSIDAD UTILIZANDO UN MARCO DE SISTEMAS
ECOLÓGICOS)

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Patricia Tobey, Ph.D., Patrick
Crispen, Ed.D., and Jeneé Corum, M.S. at the University of Southern California, because you are
either are a parent of a Long-term English Leader. 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.

Usted está invitado a participar en un estudio de investigación realizado por Patricia Tobey,
Ph.D., Patrick Crispen, Ed.D., y Jeneé Corum, M.S. En la Universidad del Sur de California,
porque usted es o es un padre de un Aprendiz de Inglés a Largo Plazo. Su participación es
voluntaria. Debe leer la siguiente información y hacer preguntas sobre cualquier cosa que no
entienda, antes de decidir si participar. Tómese todo el tiempo necesario para leer el formulario
de consentimiento. También puede decidir discutir la participación con su familia o amigos. Si
decide participar, se le pedirá que firme este formulario. Se le dará una copia de este
formulario.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to better understand the relationship between home, school, and the
students’ perceptions of being college ready. This will be done through interviews, observations,
and reviewing documents, like transcripts.

PROPÓSITO DEL ESTUDIO
El propósito de este estudio es comprender mejor la relación entre el hogar, la escuela y las
percepciones de los estudiantes de estar listos para la universidad. Esto se hará a través de
entrevistas, observaciones y revisión de documentos, como transcripciones.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 148
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to meet for an interview. Questions
will ask about your beliefs about your child’s school, how you have been involved with your
child learning English, and your beliefs about your child’s readiness. The interview should last
approximately 30 minutes to one hour. Participants will be audio recorded, unless you specify
that you wish to be not audio recorded.

PROCEDIMIENTOS DE ESTUDIO
Si se ofrece como voluntario para participar en este estudio, se le pedirá que se reúna para una
entrevista. Las preguntas le harán preguntas acerca de sus creencias acerca de la escuela de su
hijo, cómo usted ha estado involucrado con su hijo aprendiendo inglés y sus creencias sobre la
preparación de su hijo. La entrevista debe durar de aproximadamente 30 minutos a una hora.
Los participantes serán grabados en audio, a menos que especifique que no desea grabar audio.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Some questions may make you think about your past experiences and how you wish you would
have done things differently. Otherwise, there are no potential risks or discomforts associated
with being interviewed.

RIESGOS POTENCIALES E INCOMPATIBLES
Algunas preguntas pueden hacer que usted piense acerca de sus experiencias pasadas y cómo
desea que hubiera hecho las cosas de manera diferente. De lo contrario, no hay riesgos o
molestias potenciales asociados con la entrevista.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefit of this study may be increased understanding to the unique needs of Long-
term English Learners and the factors that need to be considered for their college readiness.

BENEFICIOS POTENCIALES A LOS PARTICIPANTES Y / O A LA SOCIEDAD
El beneficio potencial de este estudio puede ser una mayor comprensión de las necesidades
únicas de los Estudiantes de Inglés a Largo Plazo y los factores que deben ser considerados
para su preparación para la universidad.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will be given a $25 gift card for their participation. Gift cards will be given at the
end of the interview.

PAGO / COMPENSACIÓN POR LA PARTICIPACIÓN
A los participantes se les dará una tarjeta de regalo de $25 por su participación. Las tarjetas de
regalo se entregarán al final de la entrevista.

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
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 149
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 in a locked cabinet or on a password protected computer. Participants
will have the right to review or edit the audio recording or transcript as necessary to ensure their
answers are accurate. Transcribers, a translator, and the principal investigators will have access
to the data associated with this study. All participants will be given a pseudonym (i.e. a fictitious
name) that will identify the participant to their audio recording. When the results of the research
are published or discussed, no identifiable information will be included.

Data will be kept for a minimum of three years after the completion of the study. After this time,
all data will be destroyed.

CONFIDENCIALIDAD
Mantendremos sus registros confidenciales para este estudio en la medida en que lo permita la
ley. Sin embargo, si la ley nos exige hacerlo, divulgaremos información confidencial sobre
usted. Los miembros del equipo de investigación y el Programa de Protección de Sujetos
Humanos (HSPP) de la Universidad del Sur de California pueden acceder a los datos. El HSPP
revisa y monitorea los estudios de investigación para proteger los derechos y el bienestar de los
sujetos de la investigación.

Los datos se almacenarán en un gabinete cerrado o en un equipo protegido con contraseña. Los
participantes tendrán el derecho de revisar o editar la grabación de audio o transcripción como
sea necesario para asegurar que sus respuestas son exactas. Los transcriptores, un traductor y
los investigadores principales tendrán acceso a los datos asociados con este estudio. A todos los
participantes se les dará un seudónimo (es decir, un nombre ficticio) que identificará al
participante a su grabación de audio. Cuando se publiquen o discutan los resultados de la
investigación, no se incluirá ninguna información identificable.

Los datos se mantendrán por un mínimo de tres años después de la finalización del estudio.
Después de este tiempo, todos los datos serán destruidos.

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.

PARTICIPACIÓN Y RETIRO
Su participación es voluntaria. Su negativa a participar no implicará ninguna penalidad o
pérdida de beneficios a los cuales usted tiene derecho. Usted puede retirar su consentimiento en
cualquier momento y suspender la participación sin penalización. Usted no está renunciando a
reclamaciones legales, derechos o recursos debido a su participación en este estudio de
investigación.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 150
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-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxx@usc.edu. Or you may also contact Dr. Patrick
Crispen, Faculty Sponsor, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, by
phone at 323-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxxxxx@usc.edu. You may also contact the Co-
Principal Investigator, Jeneé Corum by phone at 626-xxx-xxxx or by email at
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu.

INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DEL INVESTIGADOR
Si tiene alguna pregunta o inquietud sobre la investigación, por favor comuníquese con la Dra.
Patricia Tobey, Patrocinadora de la Facultad, Universidad del Sur de California, Escuela
Rossier de Educación, por teléfono al 213-xxx-xxxx o por correo electrónico a xxxxx@usc.edu.
O también puede comunicarse con el Dr. Patrick Crispen, Patrocinador de la Facultad,
Universidad del Sur de California, Escuela de Medicina Keck, por teléfono al 323-xxx-xxxx, o
por correo electrónico a xxxxxxxx@usc.edu. También puede comunicarse con la Investigadora
Principal, Jeneé Corum, por teléfono al 626-xxx-xxxx o por correo electrónico a
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu.

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

DERECHOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN PARTICIPANTE – INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DEL
IRB
Si tiene preguntas, inquietudes o quejas sobre sus derechos como participante de investigación o
la investigación en general y no puede ponerse en contacto con el equipo de investigación, o si
desea hablar con alguien independiente del equipo de investigación, comuníquese con
University Park Institutional Junta de Revisión (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street # 301, Los
Ángeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 o upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
FIRMA DEL PARTICIPANTE DE INVESTIGACIÓN

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.

He leído la información proporcionada anteriormente. Se me ha dado la oportunidad de hacer
preguntas. Mis preguntas han sido contestadas a mi satisfacción, y estoy de acuerdo en
participar en este estudio. Me han entregado una copia de este formulario.

AUDIO / AUDIO
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 151

□ I agree to be audio-recorded / Estoy de acuerdo en ser grabado en audio

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded / No quiero grabar audio

Name of Participant / Nombre del participante

Signature of Participant / Firma del participante Date / Fecha

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.

Jeneé A. Corum
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 152
Appendix C
Youth Assent-Parental Permission Form

YOUTH ASSENT-PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PERMISO CONVOCATORIA-PARENTAL DE LA JUVENTUD PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN
NO MÉDICA

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS (LTELS) AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF
COLLEGE READINESS UTILIZING AN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK
(APRENDIANTES DE INGLÉS A LARGO PLAZO (LTELS) Y SUS PERCEPCIONES DE LA
PREPARACIÓN DE LA UNIVERSIDAD UTILIZANDO UN MARCO DE SISTEMAS
ECOLÓGICOS)

Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Patricia Tobey, Ph.D.,
Patrick Crispen, Ed.D., and Jeneé Corum, M.S. at the University of Southern California, because
you are either are a parent of a Long-term English Leader. Your child’s participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate.

Su hijo es invitado a participar en un estudio de investigación realizado por Patricia Tobey,
Ph.D., Patrick Crispen, Ed.D., y Jeneé Corum, M.S. En la Universidad del Sur de California,
porque usted es o es un padre de un Aprendiz de Inglés a Largo Plazo. La participación de su
hijo es voluntaria. Debe leer la siguiente información y hacer preguntas sobre cualquier cosa
que no entienda, antes de decidir si participar.

Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be asked
his/her permission. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow participation.
You and/or your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you and/or
your child decide to participate, you will both be asked to sign this form. You will be given a
copy of this form.

Tómese todo el tiempo necesario para leer el formulario de consentimiento. A su hijo también se
le pedirá su permiso. Su hijo puede negarse a participar, incluso si está de acuerdo en permitir
la participación. Usted y / o su hijo también pueden decidir discutirlo con su familia o amigos.
Si usted y / o su hijo (a) deciden participar, se les pedirá que firmen este formulario. Se le dará
una copia de este formulario.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to better understand the relationship between home, school, and the
students’ perceptions of being college ready. This will be done through interviews, observations,
and reviewing documents, like transcripts.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 153
PROPÓSITO DEL ESTUDIO
El propósito de este estudio es comprender mejor la relación entre el hogar, la escuela y las
percepciones de los estudiantes de estar listos para la universidad. Esto se hará a través de
entrevistas, observaciones y revisión de documentos, como transcripciones.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate in this study, your child will be asked to meet for an interview.
Questions will ask about your child’s beliefs about their school, what it was like to learn English
and their goals for college and career. The interview should last approximately 30 minutes to one
hour and will be held after school in the Guidance Office. Participants will be audiotaped, unless
you specify that you wish to be not audio recorded.

PROCEDIMIENTOS DE ESTUDIO
Si acepta participar en este estudio, se le pedirá a su hijo que se reúna para una entrevista. Las
preguntas le harán preguntas acerca de las creencias de su hijo sobre su escuela, lo que fue
aprender inglés y sus metas para la universidad y la carrera. La entrevista debe durar
aproximadamente de 30 minutos a una hora y se llevará a cabo después de la escuela en la
Oficina de Orientación. Los participantes serán grabados en audio, a menos que especifique que
no desea grabar audio.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Some questions may make you think about your past experiences and how you wish you would
have done things differently. Otherwise, there are no potential risks or discomforts associated
with being interviewed.

RIESGOS POTENCIALES E INCOMPATIBLES
Algunas preguntas pueden hacer que usted piense acerca de sus experiencias pasadas y cómo
desea que hubiera hecho las cosas de manera diferente. De lo contrario, no hay riesgos o
molestias potenciales asociados con la entrevista.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits of this study may include understanding why you are in a support class
and how to better prepared for college.

BENEFICIOS POTENCIALES A LOS PARTICIPANTES Y / O A LA SOCIEDAD
Los beneficios potenciales de este estudio pueden incluir entender por qué usted está en una
clase de apoyo y cómo prepararse mejor para la universidad.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will be given a $25 gift card for their participation. Gift cards will be given at the
end of the interview.

PAGO / COMPENSACIÓN POR LA PARTICIPACIÓN
A los participantes se les dará una tarjeta de regalo de $25 por su participación. Las tarjetas de
regalo se entregarán al final de la entrevista.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 154
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 in a locked cabinet or on a password protected computer. Participants
will have the right to review or edit the audio recording or transcript as necessary to ensure their
answers are accurate. Transcribers, a translator, and the principal investigators will have access
to the data associated with this study. All participants will be given a pseudonym (i.e. a fictitious
name) that will identify the participant to their audio recording. When the results of the research
are published or discussed, no identifiable information will be included.

Data will be kept for a minimum of three years after the completion of the study. After this time,
all data will be destroyed.

CONFIDENCIALIDAD
Mantendremos sus registros confidenciales para este estudio en la medida en que lo permita la
ley. Sin embargo, si la ley nos exige hacerlo, divulgaremos información confidencial sobre
usted. Los miembros del equipo de investigación y el Programa de Protección de Sujetos
Humanos (HSPP) de la Universidad del Sur de California pueden acceder a los datos. El HSPP
revisa y monitorea los estudios de investigación para proteger los derechos y el bienestar de los
sujetos de la investigación.

Los datos se almacenarán en un gabinete cerrado o en un equipo protegido con contraseña. Los
participantes tendrán el derecho de revisar o editar la grabación de audio o transcripción como
sea necesario para asegurar que sus respuestas son exactas. Los transcriptores, un traductor y
los investigadores principales tendrán acceso a los datos asociados con este estudio. A todos los
participantes se les dará un seudónimo (es decir, un nombre ficticio) que identificará al
participante a su grabación de audio. Cuando se publiquen o discutan los resultados de la
investigación, no se incluirá ninguna información identificable.

Los datos se mantendrán por un mínimo de tres años después de la finalización del estudio.
Después de este tiempo, todos los datos serán destruidos.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child’s participation is voluntary. Their refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss
of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You or your child 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.

PARTICIPACIÓN Y RETIRO
La participación de su hijo es voluntaria. Su negativa a participar no implicará ninguna
penalidad o pérdida de beneficios a los cuales usted tiene derecho. Usted o su hijo pueden
retirar su consentimiento en cualquier momento y suspender la participación sin penalización.
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 155
Usted no está renunciando a reclamaciones legales, derechos o recursos debido a su
participación en este estudio de investigación.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

ALTERNATIVAS A LA PARTICIPACIÓN
Su alternativa es no participar.

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-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxx@usc.edu. Or you may also contact Dr. Patrick
Crispen, Faculty Sponsor, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, by
phone at 323-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxxxxx@usc.edu. You may also contact the Co-
Principal Investigator, Jeneé Corum by phone at 626-xxx-xxxx or by email at
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu.

INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DEL INVESTIGADOR
Si tiene alguna pregunta o inquietud sobre la investigación, por favor comuníquese con la Dra.
Patricia Tobey, Patrocinadora de la Facultad, Universidad del Sur de California, Escuela
Rossier de Educación, por teléfono al 213-xxx-xxxx o por correo electrónico a xxxxx@usc.edu.
O también puede comunicarse con el Dr. Patrick Crispen, Patrocinador de la Facultad,
Universidad del Sur de California, Escuela de Medicina Keck, por teléfono al 323-xxx-xxxx, o
por correo electrónico a xxxxxxxx@usc.edu. También puede comunicarse con la Investigadora
Principal, Jeneé Corum, por teléfono al 626-xxx-xxxx o por correo electrónico a
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, 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

DERECHOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN PARTICIPANTE – INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DEL
IRB
Si tiene preguntas, inquietudes o quejas sobre sus derechos como participante de investigación o
la investigación en general y no puede ponerse en contacto con el equipo de investigación, o si
desea hablar con alguien independiente del equipo de investigación, comuníquese con
University Park Institutional Junta de Revisión (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street # 301, Los
Ángeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 o upirb@usc.edu

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 156
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT (If the participant is 14 years or older)
FIRMA DEL PARTICIPANTE DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN (Si el participante tiene 14 años o
más)

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.

Name of Participant (Student)

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)/LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

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 allow my child participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

He leído la información proporcionada anteriormente. Se me ha dado la oportunidad de hacer
preguntas. Mis preguntas han sido contestadas a mi satisfacción, y estoy de acuerdo en permitir
que mi hijo/a participe en este estudio. Me han entregado una copia de este formulario.

AUDIO

□ I agree my child can be audio taped / Estoy de acuerdo en que mi hijo puede ser
grabado en audio

□ I do not want my child to be audio taped / No quiero que mi hijo sea grabado en audio

Name of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative
Nombre del padre / tutor

Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Date
Firma del padre / tutor Fecha

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 157

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s)/Legally Authorized
Representative, and answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Jeneé A. Corum
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 158
Appendix D
Assent Form: Student

ASSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS (LTELS) AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF
COLLEGE READINESS UTILIZING AN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

Jeneé Corum, a student at University of Southern California, wants to learn about Latino/a
students, who are classified as Long-term English Learners, and their beliefs about being college
ready. One way to learn about it is to do a research study; the people doing the study are called
researchers.

Your mom/dad/guardian has told us we can talk to you about the study. You also can talk this
over with your mom or dad. It’s up to you if you want to take part, you can say “yes” or “no”.
No one will be upset with you if you don’t want to take part.

If you do want to take part, you will be asked to meet for an interview after school in the
Guidance Office for approximately 30 minutes to an hour. I also would like your consent to
audiotape the interview. A small gift card will be provided for your participation.

Researchers don’t always know what will happen to people in a research study. We don’t expect
anything to happen to you, but you might not like some of the questions that will be asked. If you
feel uncomfortable answering a question, feel free to decline to answer. Your answers will not be
shared with your teachers or counselor. Only the researchers will see your answers.

If you have any questions, you can ask the researchers.

If you want to take part in the study, please write and then sign your name at the bottom. You
can change your mind if you want to, just tell the researchers.

___________________________________
Name of Participant/Student

____________________________________ ____________________
Participant’s Signature Date

___________________________________
Name of Parent/Guardian Consenting
(Nombre del Padre / Guardián Consentimiento)

___________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian Consenting Date
(Firma del Padre / Guardián Consentimiento) Fecha
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 159
Appendix E
Informed Consent: School Personnel Participant

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
School Personnel Participation

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS (LTELS) AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF
COLLEGE READINESS UTILIZING AN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Patricia Tobey, Ph.D., Patrick
Crispen, Ed.D., and Jeneé Corum, M.S. at the University of Southern California, because you
support LTELs in your position within the school district. 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 better understand the relationship between home, school, and the
students’ perceptions of being college ready. This will be done through interviews, observations,
and reviewing documents, like transcripts.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to meet for an interview. Questions
will ask about your profession, your knowledge of Long-term English Learners, and your views
on college readiness. The interview should last approximately 30 minutes to one hour.
Participants will be audiotaped, unless you specify that you wish to be not audiotaped.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Some questions may make you think about your past practices and how you wish you would
have done things differently. Otherwise, there are no potential risks or discomforts associated
with being interviewed.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefit of this study may be increased understanding to the unique needs of Long-
term English Learners and the factors that need to be considered for their college readiness.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will be given a $25 gift card for their participation. Gift cards will be given at the
end of the interview.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 160
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 in a locked cabinet or within an encrypted file on the computer.
Participants will have the right to review or edit the audio recording or transcript as necessary to
ensure their answers are accurate. Transcribers, a translator, and the principal investigators will
have access to the data associated with this study. All participants will be given a pseudonym
(i.e. a fictitious name) that will identify the participant to their audio recording. When the results
of the research are published or discussed, no identifiable information will be included.

Data will be kept for a minimum of three years after the completion of the study. After this 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.

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-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxx@usc.edu. Or you may also contact Dr. Patrick
Crispen, Faculty Sponsor, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, by
phone at 323-xxx-xxxx, or by email at xxxxxxxx@usc.edu. You may also contact the Co-
Principal Investigator, Jeneé Corum by phone at 626-xxx-xxxx or by email at
xxxxxxxx@usc.edu.

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.

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 161
AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS

□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to be audio-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.

Jeneé A. Corum
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 162
Appendix F
Semi-structured Interview Question
Interview Questions for Parents/Guardians

Preguntas de entrevista semiestructuradas

Preguntas de la entrevista para los padres / tutores

Interview Question Concept Reference
Share with me what you son/daughter is
like at home today. (Comparte conmigo
como es su hijo / hija en su casa hoy.)
Background

Ecological Systems
Theory
Patton, 2002

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986
Share with me what your son/daughter
was like when s/he was younger.
(Comparte conmigo como era su hijo /
hija cuando él / ella era más joven.)
Background Patton, 2002
What are you hopes for your
son/daughter’s future? (¿Cuáles son las
esperanzas para el futuro de su hijo / a?)
Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What language do you usually speak to
your child? What language does your
child usually speak to you? (¿Qué idioma
habla usualmente con su hijo? ¿Qué
idioma habla habitualmente su hijo (a)?)

Background

Home Language to
Promote Academic
Skills

Language &
Literacy Skills
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b
How many books do you have at home?
How often did you read to your child
when s/he was young? (¿Cuántos libros
tiene en casa? ¿Qué tan seguido le leía a
tu hijo cuando era joven?)

Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences

Language &
Literacy Skills
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Cummins, 2005;
Goldenberg, 2014;
Goldenberg &
Coleman, 2010
What kinds of topics are discussed at your
dinner table? (¿Qué tipos de temas se
discuten en su mesa de cena?)

College Readiness

Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences
Kim & García, 2014

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What is your opinion of the school your
child attends? (¿Cuál es su opinión sobre
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 163
Interview Question Concept Reference
la escuela a la que asiste su hijo?)
What are your child’s strengths in school?
Their weaknesses? (¿Cuáles son las
fortalezas de su hijo en la escuela? ¿Sus
debilidades?)
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
What kind of support do you provide to
your child to be successful in school? (For
example, elementary support vs. high
school support.) Has that support
continued or has it changed? (¿Qué tipo
de apoyo le brinda a su hijo para tener
éxito en la escuela? (Por ejemplo, apoyo
elemental vs. apoyo de la escuela
secundaria.) ¿Ha continuado el apoyo o
ha cambiado?)
Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences

Boone, 2011;
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002

What do you wish you knew about school
in order to help your child? (¿Qué desea
saber sobre la escuela para ayudar a su
hijo?)

Ecological System
Theory

Opinions/Values
Boone, 2011;
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What does the term “college readiness”
mean to you? (¿Qué significa para usted
el término “preparación universitaria”?)

College Readiness

Knowledge
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What kinds of information do you need to
have in order to help your child be ready
for college? (¿Qué tipo de información
necesita tener para ayudar a su hijo a
estar listo para la universidad?)

College Readiness

Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values

Recommendations
for Practice
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Boone, 2011; Gao,
2016
How do you believe teachers support your
child in meeting his/her college goals?
How about other school personnel? (i.e.
community liaison, counselor, etc.)
(¿Cómo cree que los maestros apoyan a
su hijo / a en el cumplimiento de sus
metas? ¿Qué hay del otro personal de la
escuela? [Es decir, enlace comunitario,
consejero, etc.])
College Readiness

Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Boone, 2011;
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What kinds of things do you see your College Readiness Gao, 2016; Kim &
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 164
Interview Question Concept Reference
child do that you believe are college-
going? (¿Qué tipo de cosas ve usted hacer
a su hijo que usted cree que son para ir a
la universidad?)

Knowledge
García, 2014

Patton, 2002

How have you been involved with your
child’s school? What kind of involvement
do you have with your child’s current
school? (¿Cómo se ha involucrado con la
escuela de tu hijo? ¿Qué tipo de
participación tiene usted con la escuela
actual de su hijo?)
Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences
Boone, 2011;
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
Do you know your child’s language
classification? (¿Conoce la clasificación
del idioma de su hijo?)

Knowledge

Language Policy
Patton, 2002

Olsen, 2010a
Has anyone explained the language
reclassification process to you? (¿Alguien
le ha explicado el proceso de
reclasificación?)
Knowledge

Language Policy
Patton, 2002

Olsen, 2010a

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 165
Appendix G
Semi-structured Interview Questions
Interview Questions for Student

Interview Question Concept Reference
Tell me your experience about learning
English in school.
Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What are the rewards and frustrations of
learning a second language?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
If someone who speaks English perfectly is
a 10 and someone who doesn’t speak
English is a 1, where you do place yourself
on that scale? Why?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
Think of someone who learned English as a
second language and whom you consider
has very good skills in English. Tell me
about this person. What is it about him/her
that makes you believe they have good
English skills?
Language &
Literacy Skills

Opinions/Values

Goldenberg, 2014

Patton, 2002

How often did a parent or other family
figure read to you when you were young?

Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences

Language &
Literacy Skills
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Cummins, 2005;
Goldenberg, 2014
What kinds of topics are discussed at your
dinner table?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
How often do you speak English during the
day? Spanish?
Background

Ecological Systems
Theory

Language &
Literacy Skills
Patton, 2002

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Goldenberg, 2014

What was your best learning experience? Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
I noticed you are in a support class. What
does your support class “support”? (e.g.
what does it help you with? What kinds of
activities or assignment do you do?)
Common Practices

Goldenberg, 2014;
Kim & García,
2014

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 166
Interview Question Concept Reference
Ecological Systems
Theory

Language &
Literacy Skills

Meaningful
Language
Instruction

Opinions/Values
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Goldenberg, 2014

Lau v. Nichols,
1974

Patton, 2002
How has this class helped you with
academic English? (the type of English you
need to write, read, and understand for
school assignments)
College Readiness

Common Practices

Language &
Literacy Skills

Meaningful
Language
Instruction

Opinions/Values
Gao, 2016: Kim &
García, 2014

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a,
2010b; Kim &
García, 2014

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a,
2010b

Lau v. Nichols,
1974

Patton, 2002
Why do you think you’re in a support
class?
Common Practices

Opinions/Values
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b: Kim
& García, 2014

Patton, 2002
How do you feel about being placed in a
support class?
Feelings Patton, 2002
What do you wish you were learning in
your support class?
Opinions/Values

Recommendations
for Practice
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b; Kim
& García, 2014

Please describe what you believe would be
the ideal support program for students who
are learning English. (If you were the
teacher, for example.)
Opinions/Values

Recommendations
for Practice
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b; Kim
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 167
Interview Question Concept Reference
& García, 2014

What class do you wish you had instead of
a support class? Why?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
What would be your ideal schedule? (i.e.
classes to take)
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
What English class are you enrolled in? Background

Language &
Literacy Skills
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b
What do you want to be when you grow
up?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
How do you plan to become a/an (career)? College Readiness

Knowledge
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What kinds of classes have you taken that
support your college goals?
College Readiness

Experiences
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002

How have your teachers supported you in
meeting college goals?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values

Sense of Belonging
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002

Boone, 2011
Do you feel like your teachers know you?
How so?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Feelings

Sense of Belonging
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Boone, 2011
How do your parents support you in
meeting college goals?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values
Boone, 2011;
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986; Kim &
García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What is your definition of success? Knowledge Patton, 2002
What is your motivation to learn? Feelings Patton, 2002
What does the term “college readiness”
mean to you?
College Readiness

Boone, 2011; Gao,
2016; Kim &
García, 2014
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 168
Interview Question Concept Reference

Knowledge

Patton, 2002
What do you wish you would have known
as a freshman that would have helped you
today?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
Describe your experience taking the
CELDT every year?
Experiences

Language Policy
Patton, 2002

Olsen, 2010a
What is your language classification? EL/LTEL
Definition

Knowledge
Olsen, 2010a,
2010b

Patton, 2002
Has anyone explained the language
reclassification process to you?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Knowledge

Lack of Academic
Support
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Olsen, 2010b;
Boone, 2011
Tell me what you what you know about the
term English Learner.
EL/LTEL
Definition

Knowledge
Olsen, 2010a; Kim
& García, 2014

Patton, 2002
Tell me what you know about the term
Long-term English Learner?
EL/LTEL
Definition

Knowledge
Olsen, 2010a

Patton, 2002

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 169
Appendix H
Semi-structured Interview Questions
Interview Questions for School Personnel

Interview Question Concept Reference
How long have you been teaching? (or in
your current position?) How long have you
been at this school?
Background

Ecological Systems
Theory

Teacher Experience

Patton, 2002

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Linquanti, 2001;
Olsen, 2010a
What classes are you teaching this year?
(Teachers only)
Background Patton, 2002
Share with me about your class goals,
objectives, and vision for what you’re
trying to accomplish. (Teachers only)
Opinions/Values

Patton, 2002
How would you describe your students? In
what area are they strongest? In what areas
do they struggle?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
How do you define an English learner? A
Long-term English Learner?
EL/LTEL Definition

Knowledge
Olsen, 2010b

Patton, 2002
How well do you think an LTEL student
speaks / understands / reads / writes
English? (Ask as separate questions.)
Language &
Literacy Skills

Opinions/Values
Goldenberg, 2014

Patton, 2002
What language do you usually hear LTEL
students speak?
Knowledge Patton, 2002
Which language do you think LTEL
students are strongest in? Why?
Language &
Literacy Skills

Opinions/Values
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a

Patton, 2002
What insight do you have into the LTEL
student’s peer world? Who do they hang
out with? What language do they use when
interacting with peers?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Knowledge

Sense of Belonging
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Boone, 2011
What concerns about LTEL students do
you have, if any?
Opinions/Values Patton, 2002
What do you imagine an LTEL’s life will
be like next year? In 10 years?
College Readiness

Boone, 2011; Gao,
2016; Kim & García,
2014
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 170
Interview Question Concept Reference

Ecological Systems
Theory

Opinions/Values

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What are the district goals when it pertains
to Long-term English Learners?
Common Practices

Ecological Systems
Theory

Knowledge
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What kind of professional development do
you receive to support your LTELs?
Common Practices

Ecological Systems
Theory

Experiences
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010b

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002
What kind of PD do you wish you would
like to have?
Opinions/Values

Recommendations
for Practice
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014:
Olsen, 2010b
Tell me what you know about the CELDT. Knowledge

Language Policy
Patton, 2002

Olsen, 2010a
What ELD materials exist to support
LTELs?
Common Practices

Knowledge
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a, 2010b

Patton, 2002
What is your opinion of using primary
language in instruction for LTELs?
Home Language to
Promote Academic
Skills

Opinions/Values
Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a: Kim
& García, 2014

Patton, 2002
What do you believe should be the type of
instruction for LTELs?
Opinions/Values

Recommendations
for Practice
Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a;
Boone, 2011; Kim &
García, 2014

At what age/grade do you believe ELs
should be identified to ensure they do not
become an LTEL? Why?
EL/LTEL Research

Opinions/Values
Olsen, 2010a, 2010b

Patton, 2002
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 171
Interview Question Concept Reference

Recommendations
for Practice

Goldenberg, 2014:
Olsen, 2010a, 2010b
Explain the reclassification process to the
best of your ability.
Knowledge Patton, 2002
What does the term “college readiness”
mean to you?
College Readiness

Knowledge
Boone, 2011; Gao,
2016; Kim & García,
2014

Patton, 2002
What lessons do you teach to improve your
student’s college readiness?
College Readiness

Common Practices

Experiences

Language &
Literacy Skills
Boone, 2011

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a

Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a
What kinds of things do you see parents do
to encourage college readiness? If nothing
or not known is the response, what do you
wish parents would do to encourage
college readiness?
Ecological Systems
Theory

Home Language to
Promote Academic
Skills

Knowledge

Recommendations
for Practice
Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a

Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a, 2010b
What kinds of things do you see LTELs do
to become college ready? If nothing, what
kinds of things do you wish they would do
to encourage their own college readiness?
College Readiness

Ecological Systems
Theory

Knowledge

Recommendations
for Practice
Gao, 2016; Kim &
García, 2014

Bronfenbrenner,
1977, 1986

Patton, 2002

Goldenberg, 2014;
Olsen, 2010a, 2010b

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 172
Appendix I
Parent Coding

Open Codes
1. Afterschool activities that my child participates
2. Child’s areas of need
3. Child’s behavior
4. Child’s strengths
5. Confidence that my child exhibits
6. Ecological System
7. L1 and how often it is used
8. Opinion of child at school
9. Opinion of child overall
10. Parent needs to understand school
11. Parent’s hopes for child
12. Parental involvement in school
13. Parent perceptions of college readiness
14. Reading when child was younger
15. Reclassification and what it means

Axial Codes
1. Parent beliefs of Child’s attributes
2. How the parent and child interact (Microsystem)
3. How the parent and school interact (Macrosystem)
4. Parent’s attributes

Selective Codes
1. The micro and macro systems of the parent/child/school relationship
2. Parent involvement in school
3. What ultimately the parent believes about her child’s success and needs in school

LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 173
Appendix J
Student Coding
Open Codes
1. 4 year plan and what its purpose is
2. Advice for high school younger self
3. Areas of concern if student is ready for college
4. CELDT testing for many years
5. Citizenship in the U.S.
6. Confidence of English
7. Finding success in all classes
8. Goal of reading aloud
9. How often reading occurred as a child
10. How the student interacts with his parent
11. How the student interacts with his teacher
12. L1 and where it is used primarily
13. Language classification
14. Learning how to write better
15. Looking ahead at college and career
16. Looking at how motivation has changed
17. Rewards of being bilingual
18. Student’s college goals
19. Student’s college plans
20. Student not being placed into electives
21. The student understanding what it means to be an EL
22. The student understanding what it means to be an LTEL
23. Support class enrollment
24. Traits of a good EL
25. Use of English and where

Axial Codes
1. Academic support to have better access to curriculum
2. College readiness to be better prepared for college
3. Confidence towards studies
4. Definitions of school terms
5. EL characteristics
6. Explanation of reclassification process
7. Micro and Macro systems of student/parent/teacher

Selective Codes
1. Preparing for college
2. Micro and meso systems of an LTEL
3. Years of “learning” English
4. The confidence the LTEL student exhibited
LTELS AND COLLEGE READINESS 174
Appendix K
Teacher Coding

Open Codes
1. Definitions of key EL terminology
2. EL characteristics
3. EL info to know
4. English as a second language
5. How to instill success with my students
6. How to support academics
7. Information Meetings and how they could be improved
8. Lack of confidence among students
9. Language deficiencies seen in student writing
10. Perceptions of ELs and LTELs
11. Wanting more Professional Development
12. Student frustrations
13. Students not thinking about college
14. Support for EL teachers
15. Teacher challenges of a new teacher
16. Teacher lack of EL knowledge
17. Teaching strategies for ELs

Axial Codes
1. Academic Support for all LTEL students
2. Building awareness for college
3. Building self-efficacy with her students
4. Definitions of Educational terms
5. EL characteristics
6. Teacher Pedagogy & Support

Selective Codes
1. Support for college readiness for LTELs
2. Wanting to Instill Confidence through instruction
3. Knowledge and understanding of English Learners & Long-term English Learners
4. Micro and Meso support for ELs and LTELs

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Common Core State Standards were meant to increase college and career readiness. Long-term English learners (LTELs) face many obstacles to meeting these new standards. Utilizing Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) as the theoretical lens, this qualitative case study explored the micro and meso systems of an LTEL and the perceptions of college readiness that exist among him, his mother, and one of his teachers. Understanding how an LTEL’s ecological system supports his college goals is paramount. The researcher conducted interviews and document reviews. Data analysis occurred through the constant comparative method. The study measured perceived perceptions among interviewees as well as compared perceptions to documents to determine congruency. Findings include positive ecological systems support for the student, but more can be done to assist the student in being college ready.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

""Having the right info"": College readiness as college knowledge among minoritized students in an urban education setting

PDF

Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department

PDF

Policies, procedures, and beliefs that affect English learner reclassification

PDF

Food insecurity and the impact on community college students

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of academic advisors of the impact of over involved parents on the advisor-student relationship at a liberal arts unit of a 4-year research university

PDF

Relationships between academic and psychosocial skills of community college students

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Latino/a college student-athletes: Influences on recruitment, enrollment and degree completion

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

Assessing college and career readiness through the Senior Project program

PDF

The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Corum, Jeneé Annette (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/22/2017

Defense Date 08/15/2017

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

Tag college readiness,ecological systems,long-term English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crispen, Patrick (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email jenee.corum@gmail.com,jeneecor@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-432361

Unique identifier UC11264165

Identifier etd-CorumJenee-5746.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-432361 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CorumJenee-5746.pdf

Dmrecord 432361

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Corum, Jeneé Annette

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