University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 1

A CAPSTONE GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT AT
A SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOL: A FOCUS ON TEACHER COLLABORATION AND
CULTURAL COMPETENCE

by

Merle Ann Bugarín

__________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Merle Ann Bugarín
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 2

Dedication
To my parents, Héctor and Evelyn who have always given me their unconditional love
and support. Mamí, you have shown me the true value of family. Your personal sacrifices,
patience and tenderness mean the world to me. Thank you for the countless hours you spent
teaching me how to read and write in Spanish when we moved to Puerto Rico so that I could
succeed in school. Papí, you have always been a fighter in the face of adversity and set the bar
high. I learned that any great accomplishment in life requires hard work, determination and
passion. You have both been instrumental in helping me become the person that I am today.
To my loving husband, Ole who has shown me that there are many paths to achieving
one’s dreams. Thank you for embarking with me on this journey. You have been there with me
every step of the way, cheering me on and doing extra duties so that I could study. You knew
when I needed a break and gave some balance to my life. It was amazing to see how much we
bonded with my fellow Trojans. I especially enjoyed your excitement at football games, sitting
in the student section. We were both transformed by this experience. You will forever be my
best friend and soul mate.
To all the children that have touched my life: my students, nieces and nephews and
godchildren. You are my biggest inspiration! Know that the possibilities are endless and
DREAM BIG!
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 3

Acknowledgments
I am thankful to my inquiry teammates, Dr. Carlos Avila and Dr. Julie Shah for their
professionalism and commitment. The collaboration needed to successfully complete the inquiry
project would have not been possible without their insightful discussions and individual
expertise.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Robert Rueda
for his encouragement, immense knowledge and deep insight. His guidance and continuous
support throughout this process was instrumental for me to successfully complete my
dissertation. I would also like to thank the rest my dissertation committee members, Dr. Darline
Robles and Dr. Kenneth Yates for their feedback and professional advice.
My sincere appreciation to the principal and staff at RHS, for their warm welcoming and
openness in sharing with the inquiry team.
There are many others I would like to thank for supporting me in this process: my
principal Shannon Malone, the members of Team Rueda, Dr. Sharon Bennett, and all the
excellent professors at USC that pushed me to think critically and gain new perspectives. A
special thank you to my in-laws, Lupe and Genaro, for being so understanding.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Kristina Turley and Dr. Issaic Gates for
carpooling, getting together for many writing and study sessions, sharing treats, and making sure
we always had some fun. I will always cherish their friendship.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 4

Table of Contents

Dedication 2

Acknowledgments 3

List of Tables 7

Abstract 8

Preface 9

Chapter 1: Introduction 10
The Problem 10
Importance of the Problem 11
Purpose 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
English Learner Population 13
Major Educational Considerations 15
English learner academic achievement 15
Classification: A California perspective 19
Redesignated to fluent English proficient 19
Long-term English learners 20
Newcomers 22
Quality teaching 23
Historical Framework and Legislation 27

Chapter 3: Methodology 32
An Overview of the Gap Analysis 32
Goals and Gaps 37
Measures and Procedures 37
Initial meeting with the leadership team 38
School data analysis 39
Scanning interviews and data analysis 40
Validating interviews and data analysis 42

Chapter 4: Findings 44
An Overview of the Community, District, and School 44
Community 44
District 45
School 46
Assets of RHS 49
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 5

Student achievement 49
Administrative team 49
Teaching staff 50
School environment 50
Students 50
The Six Primary Causes for LTEL Underachievement at RHS 51
Goal alignment 52
Teacher collaboration 54
Teaching strategies 55
Placement options 57
Systemic support for LTELs 58
Perspectives on cultural differences 60
Conclusion 62

Chapter 5: Literature Review – Possible Solutions 63
Teacher Collaboration 63
Professional learning communities 65
Lesson Study 69
Video Clubs 71
Factors that impact collaboration 72
Time 72
Trust 73
Clear goals 74
Self-efficacy 74
Cultural Proficiency 75
Critical reflection 77
Funds of knowledge 79
Conclusion 81

Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions 83
Teacher Collaboration 83
Professional Learning Communities 84
Increasing Cultural Proficiency 90
Critical reflection 90
Funds of knowledge 92
Evaluation of the Implemented Plan 93
Cautions and Limitations 95
Conclusion 97

References 99

Appendices 113
Appendix A: Project Timeline 113
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 6

Appendix B: Exhaustive List of Possible Causes 115
Appendix C: Prioritized Causes Organized by Stakeholder 117
Appendix D: Possible Causes Organized by Theme 119
Appendix E: Second-Round Interview Questions 120
Appendix F: Presentation to the Principal of Prioritized Causes and Other
Findings 122
Appendix G: Rigor High School (RHS) Bell Schedule 128

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 7

List of Tables

Table 1: Annual Expectations for ELs 21

Table 2: Alignment of the Methods to the Gap Analysis Process 37

Table 3: Sample Goals of the Stakeholders at RHS 50

Table 4: Findings Related to Goal Alignment 51

Table 5: Findings Related to Teacher Collaboration 53

Table 6: Findings Related to Teaching Strategies 54

Table 7: Findings Related to Placement Options 55

Table 8: Findings Related to Systemic Support for LTELs 57

Table 9: Findings Related to Perspectives on Cultural Differences 58

Table 10: Four Levels of Evaluation 89

Table 11: Sample Inquiry Frameworks 92

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 8

Abstract
LTELs are students that have been classified as English learners for six or more years and
have failed to make progress towards English proficiency. This project addressed the
achievement gap of Long Term English Learners (LTEL) at a high-performing high school in
Southern California using a modified version of Clark & Estes’ gap analysis model; a problem
solving approach used to improve performance and attain organizational goals through the lens
of knowledge, motivation and organizational factors. An inquiry team of three doctoral students
collaborated in this project. The initial steps in this project included understanding the school’s
goals and identified gaps, reviewing research-based literature and analyzing the school’s data.
Next, the inquiry team interviewed school personnel, hypothesized root causes, validated root
causes and provided research-based solutions. Six primary root causes were validated: 1) need
for improved goal alignment, 2) need for increased teacher collaboration, 3) lack of varied
teaching strategies targeting LTELs, 4) scheduling practices that do not meet the needs of
LTELs, 5) need for systemic support for LTELs, and 6) need to increase cultural proficiency.
Recommendations about solutions for the performance gaps focused on teacher collaboration
and cultural proficiency. Professional learning communities engaged teachers in collaboration to
promote student achievement. Cultural competence was strengthened through critical reflection
and considering students funds of knowledge through a culturally responsive curriculum.
Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation were recommended to assess the effectiveness of the
solutions implemented.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 9

Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Carlos Avila and Julie Shah. We three doctoral students met with Rigor High School (RHS)
with the aim of helping the school resolve a genuine problem. However, the process for
dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address the needs of RHS (see Avila,
2013; Shah, 2013).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 10

Chapter 1
Introduction
Authors: Carlos Avila, and Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
1

The Problem
Rigor High School
2
(RHS) is a high-achieving school, but it continues to face the
problem of English Learner (EL) underachievement. The issue of EL underachievement is not
unique to RHS but is a systemic and long-term educational problem at the national level. EL
students represent 10.5% of the total student population enrolled in U.S. public schools, and 34%
of California’s students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). The graduation rate
for this significant subgroup in California is 56%, considerably below the state’s overall
graduation rate of 74% (CDE, 2011a). Despite representing one-third of the student population
in California, the educational system has failed to meet the academic needs of ELs as they
consistently trail behind their non-EL counterparts in achievement. The issue of EL
underachievement is also prevalent at RHS. For example, ELs at RHS have a graduation rate of
83%, compared to 90% school wide. In 2010-2011, the EL population achieved an Academic
Performance Index (API) of 710, compared with the school API of 827, and was the only
subgroup that experienced a significant decline in its API. The obvious achievement gap
between the EL and the total school populations at RHS deserves investigation.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. This chapter
was predominantly written by Julie Shah. Significant contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín.
2
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 11

In spite of the disparity between the achievement of ELs and the overall school
performance, RHS upholds a mission to serve all of its students. The mission of RHS is as
follows:
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they
engage in the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of
society.

In order to reach its mission of serving all students, the goal of RHS is to increase its ELs’
achievement.
Importance of the Problem
The problem of EL underachievement is important at the national level because the
number of ELs in the United States continues to grow. In 1999, about 3.5 million ELs were
enrolled in grades pre-K through 12 in the United States (National Clearinghouse for Language
Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs [NCELA], 2011). By 2009, the
number of ELs reached over 5.3 million students, demonstrating an increase of 51% while the
total school population increased by only 7.2% in the same timeframe (NCELA, 2011). About
61% of ELs are concentrated specifically in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and
Arizona (Payán & Nettles, 2008). In California, there are about 1.6 million ELs enrolled in K-
12, more than any other state (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2010; Payán & Nettles,
2008). However, ELs are also migrating to suburban and rural regions of the United States at a
rapid rate (Payán & Nettles, 2008). As ELs have become a significant part of the U.S. student
population, schools can no longer ignore the needs of this subgroup.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 12

In the nation’s best interest, it is the responsibility of schools to ensure that all segments
of the population are literate and contribute positively to society. Accordingly, RHS has a desire
and a responsibility to develop students who will become productive members of their
community. No Child Left Behind requires schools to report the achievement of all significant
subgroups. ELs represent 26% of the student population at RHS. As a significant subgroup,
their progress is instrumental to the overall performance of the school.
Purpose
A gap analysis framework was used to investigate specific causes that could be addressed
by appropriate targeted interventions. The two questions that directed the focus of this capstone
project are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are
barriers to achieving the stakeholder’s goal?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
This gap analysis focused on helping RHS understand the goal-setting process, identify gaps,
hypothesize causes, validate those causes, and identify research-based solutions. Specifically,
this project focused on investigating possible causes for the underperformance problem related to
long-term English learner achievement and recommend research-based solutions. The following
chapter provides a background on the population of interest as well as the major educational
issues related to this study from both a national and local perspective.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 13

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
3

English Learner Population
4

In this section, EL demographics are described at the national and state levels. These
data highlight the vastness and heterogeneity of the EL population in the United States.
Considering the complexity of this significant subgroup, implications for the educational system
are also discussed.
The face of our nation is changing. The ethnic diversity of the U.S. population has
dramatically increased in the 21
st
century. According to the 2010 Census, the Latino and Asian
segments of the population grew most rapidly during the last decade. Latinos experienced a
growth of 43% and account for 50.5 million people in the United States, 13% of the total
population (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). The Asian population also grew by 43%, from
10.2 million to 14.7 million, during the same 10-year period. The 2010 Census also indicates
that one of every three people reported their race ethnicity to be something other than non-Latino
white alone. The shift in demographics has impacted schools across the United States. The EL
student population increased 51% in 1999 to 2009, from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, while the
overall student population grew only by 7.2% to 49.5 million during the same period (National
Clearinghouse for Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs, 2011).

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
4
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 14

The substantial increase of language minority students requires educators to evaluate their
instructional practices to meet the needs of the changing student body (Calderón, Slavin, &
Sanchez, 2011; Nelson-Barber, 1999).
ELs attend public schools all across the nation. The seven states with the greatest number
of ELs are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Arizona, and Colorado (Payán &
Nettles, 2008). Recently there has been an influx of ELs in other states, with 22 states showing a
growth of over 100% in the decade between 1995 to 2005 (Payán & Nettles, 2008). The
substantial increase of ELs in states like South Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky brings new
challenges to education. These newly impacted areas often lack bilingual teachers prepared with
culturally responsive pedagogy and appropriate resources to meet the needs of language minority
students. Many schools are not prepared to serve the changing student population and are
anxiously trying to find solutions. Addressing the complex needs of ELs requires the
participation of all stakeholders (Calderón et al., 2011; Garcia, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009).
ELs are a heterogeneous group with diverse needs. Over 450 different home languages
are present in schools across the nation (Payán & Nettles, 2008). Spanish, the dominant
language, is spoken by 77% of EL students, followed by Chinese (1.8%), Vietnamese (1.4%),
Hmong (1.0%), and Arabic (1.0%). All other languages represent less than 1% of the EL
population. However, the multitude of languages is only one factor contributing to the diversity
of ELs. Students vary in language proficiency, prior schooling, socioeconomic status, culture,
race, and ethnicity (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2011; Garcia et al., 2009). Students with limited
formal education may be placed in the same classroom as newcomers with high literacy skills in
their native language. Although both are classified as ELs, their educational needs are very
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 15

different. It is essential for teachers to have a good understanding of the different backgrounds
of their students in order to help them achieve academic success.
California educates the largest number of ELs in the nation, 1.6 million students or one-
third of the total U.S. EL population. One of every three students enrolled in California is an EL
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). In addition, 85% of the language minority
students are economically disadvantaged. The primary language of 85% of California’s ELs is
Spanish. Various Asian languages follow: Vietnamese is spoken by 2.8%, Cantonese by 1.7%,
Tagalog by 1.6%, Hmong by 1.3 %, Mandarin by 1.0%, and Korean by 1.0%. All other
languages account for less than 1.0% of the EL population in California. Improving the
academic performance of diverse students in California is critical for the socioeconomic
development of the state (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
Major Educational Considerations
English learner academic achievement.
5
ELs trail behind their non-EL counterparts in
academic achievement measured by standardized testing and graduation rates. In elementary
schools, ELs have scored lower on state and national exams on both reading and mathematics
assessments, and the achievement gap widens once these students reach high school (Castro-
Olivo, Preciado, Sanford, & Perry, 2011). According to Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Chinn, and
Ratleff (2011), in 2009 only 3% of ELs in 8
th
grade scored proficient or advanced on the 2009
National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), compared to 34% of non-ELs. For 12
th

graders, Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, and Murry (2010) found that ELs scored 50% below grade

5
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 16

level on the NAEP. Further, the Academic Performance Index (API) for all students in the state
of California is 778 while the API for ELs is only 707 (CDE, 2011a).
At the high-school level, many states have implemented a basic skills test that students
must pass to receive a diploma. For example, California administers the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). ELs have achieved only a 50% pass rate on the mathematics portion of
the CAHSEE and a 39% pass rate on the English Language Arts (ELA) portion, compared to
their English-only counterparts who maintain a 77% pass rate on each section (CDE, 2011a).
The low test scores resemble the low graduation rates of ELs. ELs who have some fluency are
three times as likely to drop out as their English-only peers, and ELs with very limited English
are five times as likely to drop out (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010). The graduation rate for ELs in
California is only 56%, significantly below the state average of 74% (CDE, 2011a).
Instructional and systemic factors contribute to the augmentation of the achievement gap
for ELs as they continue through the educational system. Most ELs have the difficult task of
learning not only a different language, but they also have to master the content in their subject
areas. Having a dual responsibility in their learning slows their language acquisition and delays
learning new content (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Echevarria et al., 2011). Another problem
that ELs encounter is that most states only provide language development support in the
elementary levels. Limited instructional and support time stifles students’ academic growth as
they already have the dual responsibility of language acquisition and content mastery (Bowman-
Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis & Arias, 1993). Moreover, the supports that they receive tend to come
from teachers who are under qualified to meet their educational needs, as these teachers are
usually inexperienced or lack appropriate training regarding the learning needs of EL students
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 17

(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Even without the experience or
training, effective professional development can supplement the teachers’ gaps in knowledge and
skill, but this is usually unavailable (Gándara et al., 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Last,
teachers lack the appropriate curriculum, materials, and resources to adequately teach and
prepare students (Gándara et al., 2003).
As ELs trudge along in the education system mired with ineffective teachers and lack of
resources, they are often funneled into systems or tracks that determine their academic success.
Often placed together in classes, ELs are limited by weak curriculum that also stymies their
academic and language development. Naturally, the tracking and grouping of these students
segregates them at their schools. Olsen (2010) describes this predicament as “socially segregated
or linguistically isolated” (p. 19). Their isolation stifles their language development because ELs
need access to proficient English speakers in order to improve their oral language skills
(Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis & Arias, 1993; Gándara et al., 2003). Immersion into the
English-speaking world would facilitate their language development and acquisition. Instead,
students are limited to mix within their groups where very little English is spoken and where they
receive insufficient feedback from appropriate peer models (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis
& Arias, 1993; Gándara et al., 2003).
ELs struggle to advance and improve their skills in an education system that fails to
adequately support them. Because EL students fail to improve, they are often misdiagnosed and
placed into special education programs. ELs are more likely to be diagnosed with special needs
and are given a special education program (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Castro-Olivo et al.,
2011; Echevarria et al., 2011). They are often diagnosed because of their low reading skills and
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 18

oral communication skills. Special education programs can be viewed as another form of
tracking when a large group is disproportionately represented in the program (Bowman-Perrott et
al., 2010; Gándara et al., 2003). Like the EL classification, a special education classification can
function as a gatekeeper; once students are diagnosed, it is highly unlikely that they can ever exit
the program. Students in special education are less likely to access adequate curriculum and
graduate, thus limiting their chances to complete high school and go to college (Bowman-Perrott
et al., 2010; Castro-Olivo et al., 2011; Echevarria et al., 2011).
Castro-Olivo et al. (2011) argue that as EL students are historically misdiagnosed with
special needs, their social and emotional development also often go ignored. The low social and
emotional development of EL students also impedes their academic progress and language
acquisition. EL students struggle while learning a new culture, acquiring a new language, and
making new friends in school. The Castro-Olivo et al. study examined the social and emotional
problems of ELs and found a strong correlation between time classified as EL and social and
emotional development. The self-efficacy and self-esteem of a student is vital for academic
success, but Castro-Olivo et al. found that for ELs, issues of self-worth and motivation worsen as
they continue in the EL program. Thus, as ELs need support for their language acquisition, they
also need social and emotional support to achieve academic success (Castro-Olivo et al., 2011).
Despite the challenges that ELs encounter, they are expected to pass the CAHSEE in
order to graduate. The CAHSEE assesses students’ basic skills in reading, writing, and
mathematics. Because of their limited English skills and other issues described previously, ELs
often fail to pass the exam before their graduation date. Students first take the CAHSEE during
their 10
th
-grade year and have up to eight attempts to pass it by the end of their 12
th
-grade year,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 19

although students who maintain enrollment in an adult education program may continue to take
the CAHSEE until they pass it. There are numerous examples of EL students who have passed
the necessary coursework that qualifies them for a diploma but fail to pass the CAHSEE,
prohibiting them from earning a high school diploma (Gándara et al., 2003). ELs are enrolled
into the system that functions as a gatekeeper to academic achievement and high school
graduation. Tracking and enrollment into EL programs have restricted ELs from opportunities to
succeed and have delayed the language development of students (Castro-Olivo et al., 2011;
Echevarria et al., 2011). It puts them on the path to lower wages and continued poverty.
Classification: A California perspective.
6
The EL population represents a
heterogeneous group with diverse needs. This section provides an overview of three types of
ELs—redesignated to fluent English proficient (R-FEP), long-term English learners (LTEL), and
newcomers. While the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) is the primary
assessment used to classify ELs in California, students within each classification share other
commonalities.
Redesignated to fluent English proficient. In order to reclassify a student as R-FEP,
districts must use several measures, such as results from the CELDT and the California
Standards Test (CST), teacher evaluation, and parent opinion (Cal. Ed. Code § 313). The use of
multiple criteria protects the EL population from being reclassified too quickly and losing
support before students are ready. However, districts are allowed to determine their own
reclassification criteria, creating nationwide inconsistencies in classification (Abedi, 2004;

6
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 20

Abedi, 2008; Parrish et al., 2006). At Rigor High School
7
(RHS), in order for students to begin
the reclassification process, they must achieve the following: 335+ (high basic) on the ELA and
300+ (low basic) on the Mathematics CST; an overall CELDT score of Early Advanced or better,
with no subtest score below Intermediate; and grades of C or better in all core subjects, although
options are available if a student has low grades but obtains teacher recommendation for
reclassification.
R-FEP students have closed the achievement gap by outperforming their English-only
counterparts (Parrish et al., 2006). Although this observation is pleonastic in that most districts
require high academic achievement in order to be reclassified, it highlights that the most
advanced ELs are ultimately moved out of the EL subgroup, making it more challenging for
districts to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and API targets for their EL population
(Abedi, 2004; Parrish et al., 2006). Currently in California, 9-11% of ELs are reclassified each
year (CDE, 2011a). For RHS, 12.5% of ELs were redesignated in 2010-2011.
Long-term English learners. Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000) concluded that it takes
ELs 3 to 5 years to develop oral proficiency, and 4 to 7 years to attain academic English
proficiency. However, Parrish et al. (2006) found that after 10 years of instruction, less than 40
percent of California’s EL population was redesignated. This led to the development of a new
classification of ELs called long-term English learners (LTEL). LTEL refers to an EL who has
been in U.S. schools for 6 or more years, struggles academically, and has reached a plateau in
progress toward English language proficiency (Olsen, 2010). Olsen (2013) describes the annual

7
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 21

progress that ELs are expected to make, getting them to proficiency within six years (see Table
1). As a result, ELs taking longer than six years are deemed LTELs. In California, 59% of ELs
in grades 6-12 are LTELs (Olsen, 2010). At RHS, 62% of ELs are considered LTELs, of which
65% are Latino and 28% are Asian.
Table 1
Annual Expectations for ELs
Years in
US
1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years
CELDT Beginning Early
Intermediate
Intermediate Intermediate Early
Advanced
Advanced
CST ELA Far Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Below Basic
or better
Basic or
better
Proficient
or better
CST
MATH
Far Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Basic or
better
Proficient
or better
Proficient
or better
Adapted from Olsen, L. (2013, January). Programs, policies and practices for meeting the
needs of long-term English learners in an era of the Common Core Standards. Presentation at
the Long-Term English Learner Institute Conference, Riverside, CA.

Although the LTEL population is numerically significant, these students often go
unnoticed by educators as they are high functioning in social situations and have basic oral
proficiency comparable to native speakers (Menken & Kleyn, 2010). However, LTELs struggle
to perform academically, often falling several grade levels behind in ELA and mathematics
(Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Olsen, 2010). Olsen calls the issue of schools producing LTELs a civil
rights issue of this era (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). She argues that these ELs came
into the U.S. school system with their home language and, in the process of their schooling, do
not reach English language proficiency and also lose proficiency in their home language (Olsen,
2010).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 22

In order to rectify this loss of language and academic underperformance, many schools
will place LTELs in double blocks of ELA and mathematics. However, these students then have
reduced access to the A-G courses needed for admissions into four-year universities (Parrish et
al., 2006). Further, LTELs are often enrolled into courses that are not designed to meet their
specific learning needs. Instead, they are placed in mainstream courses with no EL support or in
English Language Development courses intended for newly immigrated ELs (Olsen, 2010).
Schools should educate LTELs separately from new immigrants, as their needs are different. For
LTELs, the focus needs to be on literacy development (Menken & Kleyn, 2009).
Newcomers. No single definition exists to describe ELs who are recent immigrants or
newcomers (Short & Boyson, 2012). For the purposes of this gap analysis, newcomers refer to
immigrant students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for less than 12 months (CDE,
2011b; Wright & Li, 2008). Forty-three percent of adolescent ELs are foreign-born, although the
data is unclear as to what percent of these students are newcomers and what percent arrived in
early childhood but maintained EL status (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). Seven percent of the
ELs at RHS are newcomers.
The newcomer population represents a heterogeneous group. Some newcomers come to
the United States with strong content-area knowledge in their native language and generally only
need to gain English language proficiency in order to transfer these academic skills (Boyson &
Short, 2003; Callahan, 2005a). Nonetheless, a significant portion of ELs immigrates to U.S. high
schools after having missed two or more years of schooling (Boyson & Short, 2003; Ruiz-de-
Velasco & Fix, 2000). These students face the challenging task of learning English and filling
their content-area gaps in the limited time they have left before graduation. Consequently, newly
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 23

immigrated high school students are at an increased risk of dropping out compared to their U.S.-
born counterparts (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Short & Boyson, 2012).
In order to meet the specific needs of newcomers, several school districts throughout the
United States have established newcomer programs, which are “specialized academic
environments that serve newly arrived, immigrant English language learners for a limited period
of time” (Short & Boyson, 2012, p. V). These transitional programs aim to provide foundational
English skills, fill some gaps in core content areas, assist students in the acculturation process,
and improve native language literacy (Short & Boyson, 2012). Supporting newcomers in these
four areas will likely reduce their risk for dropping out of high school (Short & Boyson, 2012).
Quality teaching.
8
Access to quality teaching has a positive impact on student
achievement and in closing the achievement gap. Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) indicate
that quality instruction can offset the gap minority students experience due to poverty, parents’
educational levels, language proficiency, and other issues. Quality teachers are a valuable
resource needed in classrooms across the nation.
Unfortunately, underprepared teachers often abound in schools serving disadvantaged
students (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Peske and Haycock
(2006) report on how poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality, and they
show the mal-distribution of teachers across the nation’s schools. A secondary student in a high-
poverty, high-minority school has a one in three chance of being taught by an out-of-field
teacher, whereas secondary students in more affluent schools have only about a one in five

8
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 24

chance of having a teacher out of field (Jerald & Ingersoll, 2002). Although years of experience
and deep content knowledge do not assure quality teaching, the research indicates that these
qualities do enhance teacher performance (Jerald & Ingersoll, 2002). Schools with high
populations of ELs are known to have the most inexperienced teachers.
A study conducted by the Educational Foundation in Tennessee revealed that teacher
effects are cumulative (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Students receiving instruction from highly
effective teachers for three consecutive years outscored their peers who had less effective
teachers by more than 50 percentile points. Students with comparable initial scores can
experience different learning outcomes based on teacher effectiveness (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Teacher quality is determined by multiple measures rather than using a single indicator in
isolation (Peske & Haycock, 2006). Measures include years of experience, pedagogical skills,
subject matter competence, and teaching credentials earned. In addition, No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) specifies that a “highly qualified teacher” must hold at least a bachelor’s degree,
appropriate state licensure, and demonstrate subject matter competency (CDE, 2011c). Further,
the U.S. Department of Education requires states to develop “equity plans” to prevent
disadvantaged students from being taught overwhelmingly by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-
of-field teachers (Peske & Haycock, 2006). All students should have an equal opportunity to a
quality education.
Another issue with teacher quality is the lack of prepared educators to meet the needs to
ELs. According to Harper and de Jong (2004), there is the misconception that simply modifying
instruction designed for native English speakers will suffice to meet the needs of ELs.
Professional development for mainstream content teachers reinforces this concept because EL
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 25

strategies are presented with no reference to theoretical foundations. Teachers believe that
strategies for ELs are just “good teaching” (Harper & de Jong, 2004). However, “good teaching”
in one context does not necessarily transfer to another (Nelson-Barber, 1999).
Good teaching strategies are important, but teachers must also know how to address the
language demands of their lessons (Harper & de Jong, 2004). ELs in mainstream content
classrooms cannot master the complex subject matter without students possessing the language
skills to perform the challenging grade-level tasks. Teachers are most comfortable with selecting
target vocabulary, using visuals, and simplifying language during instruction, but they lack the
knowledge on how to address students at different levels of language proficiency and literacy
skills. Along with aiding students with their language acquisition, teachers must learn strategies
to help ELs acquire deep content knowledge (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2011; Harper & de
Jong, 2004).
Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) conducted a study of 5,300 educators,
which were representative of the teachers in California. The study consisted of gathering
information through a survey and four focus groups. The majority of teachers’ feedback
revealed that “they were eager to help their English learner students and were sincerely interested
in obtaining the tools to do so” (Gándara et al., 2005, p. 6). However, many challenges were
cited as well. The most significant challenge expressed by secondary teachers was the language
and cultural barriers, followed by difficulty in motivating students. Other concerns included
students’ ability to meet graduation requirements, the diverse needs of multiple levels of EL and
English-only students grouped in the same classrooms, and the need for quality professional
development that focuses on instructional strategies to teach academic subjects. In addition,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 26

several teachers in the study expressed a preference for ongoing professional development that
provides opportunities to collaborate, time to plan effective instruction, and cultural insights.
The study concluded that teacher preparation is essential to offer a quality education that meets
the needs of ELs (Gándara et al., 2005).
ELs benefit from teachers that have an understanding of the linguistic, ethnic, and racial
diversity of their students since they are more likely to create learning environments that reflect
students’ experiences and values. They also facilitate students’ ability to make connections
between content knowledge and their personal experiences. Culturally responsive teachers tend
to be more knowledgeable and reflective about their practice (Gándara et al., 2003; Nelson-
Barber, 1999).
Teacher preparation programs need strengthening so they can equip teachers to
effectively work with diverse learners and become culturally responsive teachers. Many
educators instructing teachers have minimal first-hand experiences in working in diverse
settings. This is problematic because teachers lack the skills to successfully interact and
communicate with individuals from other racial, ethnic, or cultural groups, but are expected to do
this with their students. Most teachers are well intentioned, which does not solely result in
effective pedagogical practices with ELs (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Gándara et al.,
2003; Nelson-Barber, 1999). It is the responsibility of teacher education programs and the
schools to harness their good intentions and transform them into effective culturally responsive
pedagogical practices.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 27

Historical Framework and Legislation
9

As NCLB places a spotlight on the performance of ELs, it is important to understand the
historical framework of bilingual education and other policies that have impacted the education
of ELs. This section provides an overview of major policies that have shaped the context in
which ELs learn.
Historically significant events during the mid-twentieth century, such as the influx of
refugees from Cuba and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (1965), transformed
the United States to an increasingly diverse nation (Lyons, 1990; Suarez-Orozco, 2001;
Waldinger, 1989). The composition of American classrooms changed dramatically. To meet the
needs of ELs, the Bilingual Education Act (1968) was written into law as Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; Lyons, 1990). This Act also initiated the
controversy behind whether bilingual education should serve a culturally pluralistic or
assimilationist purpose (Lyons, 1990; Secada, 1990). Those in favor of the culturally pluralistic
perspective argued that “bilingual children should develop equal competence in their native
language and in English and that they should understand and appreciate their own cultures and
those of others” (Secada, 1990, p. 87). Supporters of the assimilationist perspective purported
that the culturally pluralistic model would result in the segregation of ELs and that the goal
should be to transition them into mainstream English-only classrooms as quickly as possible
(Secada, 1990).

9
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 28

In 1974, the landmark case of Lau v. Nichols followed by the enactment of the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) established educational rights for ELs. In Lau v. Nichols
(1974), the families of over 1800 Chinese-speaking students filed suit against the San Francisco
Unified School District. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the District failed to meet the
language needs of these students and, therefore, denied them equal access to education, a
violation of their civil rights (Gándara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004; Lyons, 1990). Subsequently,
Congress passed the EEOA to ensure that all federally funded agencies address the needs of
those limited in English proficiency (Gándara et al., 2004). Neither the case of Lau v. Nichols
(1974) nor the EEOA addressed the process in which the needs of ELs were to be met; they only
expressed that agencies’ actions should not result in discrimination based on language (Gándara
et al., 2004; Secada, 1990). This vagueness allowed schools flexibility in how to meet the needs
of ELs, further perpetuating the bilingual education debate (Secada, 1990).
In 1994, Californian voters passed Proposition 187 with 59% in favor of the anti-
immigrant legislation (Martin, 1995). The initiative argued that undocumented immigrants were
an economic burden and should be denied access to any publicly funded services, including
public education (Martin, 1995). In their study, Alvarez and Butterfield (2000) found that the
primary reason voters supported Proposition 187 was their belief that undocumented immigrants
were to blame for the poor economic conditions in California. In addition to denying services,
Proposition 187 required any organization receiving public funding to first verify the legal status
of its beneficiaries (Martin, 1995). This included that all public schools first verify the legal
status of their students and students’ parents. Opponents of Proposition 187 argued that denying
children education would force them to the streets and increase gang violence, which would
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 29

prove more expensive to society in the long run (Johnson, 1995; Martin, 1995). Although the
U.S. District Court overturned Proposition 187 in 1997, the xenophobic climate in California
remained evident, and immigrants’ mistrust of social service agencies lingered (Bosniak, 1996).
The push for anti-immigrant legislation continued after the courts denounced Proposition
187. The bilingual education debate that originated with the Bilingual Education Act of 1968
came to a virtual standstill for Californians in 1998 when Proposition 227 passed (Ellern, 1999).
According to the initiative, instruction needed to be “overwhelmingly” in English with the goal
of transitioning ELs from sheltered classrooms to mainstream English-only classrooms within
one year (Parrish et al., 2006; Torrez, 2001). Bilingual education using primary language
instruction dropped from 30% to 8% of ELs (Parrish et al., 2006). Valeria v. Wilson (1998) was
filed to challenge Proposition 227, however the court held that presenting “curriculum in
English, but at a level appropriate for students who are still learning English . . . to be a policy
issue with legitimate differences of academic opinion and therefore not a legal question” (Ellern,
1999, p. 2). Although the incentive behind Proposition 227 is debatable, some contend that the
initiative was California’s response to the underachievement of ELs and presumed failure of
bilingual education (Ellern, 1999; Santosuosso, 1999).
In 2002, ESEA was reauthorized as NCLB, which campaigned for the academic success
of all children regardless of their background (Thomas & Brady, 2005). This legislation rests on
four basic principles, known as the four pillars—increased accountability, flexibility in spending,
a focus on research-based practices, and parental choice (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Students are assessed annually for academic growth, and schools are expected to meet the AYP
criteria. If a school or district fails to meet AYP for two consecutive years, they are considered
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 30

in need of program improvement and subject to corrective actions or other sanctions (CDE,
2011d). Although the accountability component of the legislation has aroused much
controversy, even opponents of NCLB agreed that one positive element of the law was that it
brought new attention to the plight of EL underachievement (Gándara & Baca, 2008). NCLB
forced schools, even successful ones, to disaggregate their data and account for the achievement
of the EL subgroup; schools could no longer ignore the performance of their EL population.
The historical and legislative background discussed in this section provided a context for
RHS, since over a quarter of its student population is EL. State and federal legislation, such as
Proposition 227 and NCLB, shape the educational policies implemented at the school level. For
example, Proposition 227 deters students’ access to bilingual education programs, but
researchers have found that the development of primary and secondary languages in tandem is
most effective for developing English language proficiency (Cummins, 1981; Menken & Kleyn,
2010). Because of Proposition 227, RHS will have to develop another strategy for leading its
students to language proficiency. Moreover, NCLB legislation also directly impacts RHS as it
holds the school accountable for the academic achievement of its ELs. Although RHS is a high-
performing school, it has failed to meet AYP for its EL subgroup in 2010-2011. If ELs fail to
meet AYP for two consecutive years, they may be subject to federal sanctions (Kim &
Sunderman, 2005). Understanding legislation and its impact on RHS facilitates identifying
possible causes and solutions to RHS’s problem of EL academic underachievement.
This chapter reviewed literature on ELs and the academic achievement gap that persists
at RHS. First, demographic information on ELs at the national and state levels were presented,
as well as the complexities that such a significant subgroup can create within the educational
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 31

system. Second, major educational considerations for ELs were discussed, specifically academic
achievement, classification of ELs in California, and access to quality teaching. Lastly,
implications of historically significant events were explored regarding ELs.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 32

Chapter 3
Methodology
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
10

An Overview of the Gap Analysis
11

This project applied the gap analysis process to help Rigor High School
12
(RHS) improve
its instruction and program for English Learners (EL). Rueda (2011) describes the gap analysis
as “a systematic problem-solving approach to improve performance and achieve organizational
goals” (p. 73). By identifying the specific goals of the organization, this problem-solving
approach helps determine the gaps that lie between the school’s desired results and its current
performance. More importantly, it helps organizations discover the causes of the gaps, which are
rooted in one or a combination of knowledge or skill-based, motivation, or organizational factors
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis model requires organizations to look at research-based
solutions to help close the gaps and reach their desired results.
The gap analysis is a five-step cyclical process (see Figure 1). The first step in the gap
analysis model is defining clear measurable goals that reflect the vision of the organization.
Often times the mission statement or global goals can be large, overarching, and immeasurable.
Although the global goal or mission statement provides a framework or vision for the
organization, short-term and long-term measurable goals for groups, departments, and

10
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
11
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
12
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 33

individuals are critical guideposts that allow everyone in the organization to reach the desired
results. In other words, goals give individuals and organizations a roadmap to reach their
mission. For RHS, goals developed by the school should cascade from its mission statement.

Figure 1. Summary of the gap analysis process. Adapted from Rueda, R.
(2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the
right solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.

Measurable goals allow organizations to determine if they are making progress and
evaluate whether changes need to occur. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that goals should be
concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
). Concrete goals refer to goals that are “clear, easily
understandable, and measurable” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.26). Goals should also be challenging
enough to focus and motivate individuals, but reachable so that they do not discourage workers.
1. Define/Clarify Goals
2. Determine Gaps
3. Hypothesize,
Validate, and Prioritize
Causes (K-M-O)
4. Identify and
Implement Research-
Based Solutions
5. Evaluate
Implemented Solutions
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 34

Goals should be current so workers view them as more applicable. Weekly and monthly short-
term goals are more effective and current for individuals as opposed to quarterly or annual long-
term goals. Clark and Estes (2008) promote short-term weekly goals because it requires
individuals to focus on their work for that week. However, the authors caution that too many
goals can cause cognitive overload for individuals. They state, “Current evidence suggests
people can think about approximately three to five new chunks or items at once, and that number
decreases as stress increases” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 27). For maximum impact, individuals
and groups should only focus on a few short-term goals that are aligned with the global goal.
Determining the performance gaps is the next step; it specifically quantifies gaps between
desired goals and current performance. Once the gaps are determined, hypothesizing the root
causes for the existence and persistence of the gaps should follow. The organization should
distinguish whether the causes are from knowledge or skill-based, motivation, or organizational
barriers. An organization may have one or more barriers that are contributing to the gaps, and it
is critical that organizations delve into understanding the root causes.
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that gaps stem from knowledge or skill-based, motivation,
and organizational factors that inhibit organizations from meeting desired results. Knowledge
factors refer to people’s skills or ability, which they may lack in order to reach desired results.
Motivation refers to an individual’s or a group’s enthusiasm to achieve the goal. Organizational
barriers refer to tangible or intangible structures that inhibit individuals from reaching their
goals. For example, tangible structures can be the lack of computers at a school and intangible
structures can be the policies that restrict schools from receiving funding. As specific causes are
ruled out and the list is narrowed, the organization can determine the problem areas for what is
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 35

likely causing the performance gaps; solutions can be targeted specifically to address these root
causes (Rueda, 2011).
Next, the organization needs to validate and prioritize the causes for the gaps (Rueda,
2011). Organizations should investigate the hypothesized causes and narrow it down to only a
few. There are many ways to investigate and analyze the hypothesized causes, and traditional
qualitative methods can accommodate the process. Interviews, surveys, focus groups, informal
conversations, and observations are helpful tools, but only if the methods are replicable, reliable,
and valid. The organization should narrow the list to a few that are the root causes, but also
focus on the few that are pragmatic and fixable (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Identifying and implementing research-based solutions for the root causes is the next
step. Organizations should investigate research-based solutions that directly address the
validated and prioritized causes. Organizations should turn to research studies found in peer-
reviewed journals. Before making a selection on the solutions, organizations should consider
four aspects—affordability, adoptability, acceptability, and substitutability (Rueda, 2011, p. 84).
Affordability refers to whether the solution is affordable and cost effective. Adoptability is
whether an organization is capable of using the solution. Acceptability refers to whether the
individuals in the organization will agree to use it. Last, substitutability is the program that the
new solution would replace in order to devote new energy. Once the organization has selected
the solutions that meet the aforementioned criteria, the organization should create incremental
C
3
-goals concurrent with the selected solutions; this will help close the gap and reach the global
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 36

Finally, the organization would evaluate the solutions implemented (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Critical to the gap analysis is determining whether the solutions derived and
implemented have worked in closing the gaps. There are four levels of evaluation: reaction,
impact, transfer, and bottom-line results. Reaction refers to the stakeholders’ motivation to
implement the solutions and program. It focuses on measuring the enthusiasm and satisfaction
of the participants while implementing the solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Impact
concerns the effectiveness of the program during implementation on knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational gaps. Specifically, it assesses whether there were changes made
in those particular areas identified as root causes (Rueda, 2011). Next, transfer alludes to the
program’s effectiveness after implementation. At this level of evaluation, assessing the
sustainability after the initial implementation can help determine the effectiveness of the
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Last, bottom-line results relates to the solution’s
or program’s contribution to the achievement of the overall global goal. Evaluation at this level
determines whether the solutions failed to affect the overall goals. At any rate, Rueda (2011)
notes that assessing a solution’s impact may vary in time because of the complexity of “global
goals with the variety of cascading goals and range of validated causes in all three areas” (Rueda,
2011, p. 89). He cautions, “If the target of the solution is a long-standing and well-entrenched
belief, attitude, or practice, impacting the goal may take more time than other targets, which
might show progress more rapidly” (Rueda, 2011, p. 89).

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 37

Goals and Gaps
13

An organization’s global goal often derives from its mission statement. The mission
statement of RHS is as follows:
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they
engage in the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of
society.

Although the mission statement seeks to meet the needs of all students, a significant gap exists
between the academic performance of EL students and the rest of the RHS student population.
When the inquiry team met with the RHS leadership team, we discussed that the beginning and
early-intermediate levels of ELs were showing consistent progress. However, the intermediate
and early advanced ELs demonstrated stagnation; in other words, the long-term English learners
(LTEL) were keeping the EL subgroup from making significant gains. Since LTELs make up
the majority of the EL subgroup and are the portion of the population making the least amount of
positive movement, the inquiry and RHS leadership teams decided that focusing on the LTEL
population would help close the gap. Currently, the EL subgroup has an Academic Performance
Index (API) of 710 while the schoolwide API is 827, resulting in a gap of 117 points.
Measures and Procedures
14

The purpose of this section is to describe the measures and procedures used to perform a
gap analysis at RHS. Table 2 illustrates how the methods of this inquiry aligned to the gap

13
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
14
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 38

analysis framework. Based upon the description of this project as a problem-solving effort
intended primarily for RHS, the USC University Park Institutional Review Board concluded that
this project did not qualify as Human Subjects Research and was not subject to further review.
Table 2
Alignment of the Methods to the Gap Analysis Process
Gap Analysis Inquiry Team’s Methods Date
Define/Clarify Goals • Initial meetings with the principal
and leadership team
• November 2011 and
January 2012
Determine Gaps • Initial meetings with principal and
leadership team
• Analysis of school data
• November 2011 and
January 2012
• Data Analysis –
December 2011 through
March 2012
Hypothesize Causes
(K-M-O)
• Scanning Interviews • April 2012
Validate and Prioritize
Causes (K-M-O)
• Validating Interviews • May 2012
Identify Research-
Based Solutions
• Researched solutions that address
the 6 validated causes
• June 2012 through
January 2013
Implement Solutions • School’s discretion • Ongoing by school
Evaluate Implemented
Solutions
• School’s discretion • Ongoing by school

Initial meeting with the leadership team. The purpose of the initial meeting with the
leadership team was to introduce the inquiry team and establish trust, to explain the gap analysis
model, and to gain a better understanding of the needs of the school. Members of the leadership
team provided an overview of the school and their personal insights into the problems. The
inquiry team needed two sessions to accomplish the purpose of the initial meeting, and these
meetings helped the inquiry team with the direction of the project.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 39

The first meeting was on November 29, 2011 (see Appendix A for the project timeline).
The inquiry team and Dr. Rueda, the dissertation chair for the inquiry team, met at RHS with the
principal. The principal gave an overview of the school, sharing its strengths and weaknesses.
The principal identified four problem areas regarding ELs—the general academic achievement
of ELs; the academic achievement of LTELs; ELs’ access to AP and Honors courses; and the
general sense that the faculty and staff ignored the EL population, considering EL
underachievement an issue isolated to the English Language Development Department.
The second meeting involved the inquiry team and the entire leadership team on January
30, 2012. The meeting focused on presenting an overview of the gap analysis, the goal of the
study, and the role of the inquiry team. The meeting also focused on narrowing the scope of the
study. The team shared the four areas that the principal presented in the initial meeting. After a
discussion of each area, the leadership team recommended that the inquiry team focus on
studying the academic achievement of LTELs.
School data analysis. The purpose of the school data analysis was to understand the
academic performance of ELs on standardized tests and to determine the gaps that exist between
ELs’ and the overall school’s results. By analyzing the data from standardized tests, the team
clearly saw the gaps and determined the areas of need.
From November 2011 to January 2012, the inquiry team reviewed achievement data from
the California Department of Education website and RHS’s School Accountability Report Card.
The team primarily focused on the school’s API scores, performance on the California Standards
Test, data from the California English Language Development Test, and results on the California
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 40

High School Exit Exam. The data analysis revealed that ELs, particularly the LTELs,
consistently and significantly underperformed on all three measures of achievement.
Scanning interviews and data analysis. The purpose of the scanning interviews was to
investigate the knowledge and skill-based, motivation, and organizational barriers to LTEL
achievement. The scanning interviews provided the inquiry team with a broad but in-depth
understanding of the various causes affecting LTEL achievement. By analyzing the interview
notes and disaggregating the data, the team narrowed the scope of causes to the few that seemed
highly problematic and needed further investigation.
In March 2012, the team compiled a list of teachers to interview by reviewing the
teaching assignments on the school’s website. The team provided the principal with a list of
teachers they wished to interview, to which he added counselors and administrators. To explore
the possible knowledge and skill-based, motivation, and organizational barriers to LTEL
achievement, the inquiry team developed the following five open-ended questions:
1. Can you tell me about your EL students and your EL classroom?
2. Does the school have formal goals in place for improving EL achievement?
3. What does RHS do particularly well for EL students?
4. What are the barriers to EL achievement, specifically LTEL achievement, and what
perpetuates these barriers?
5. Is there anything that I missed that you would like to add?
The first question addressed the participants’ knowledge of ELs in their classrooms. The second
question helped the team understand whether stakeholders were aware of the goals for ELs and
to check for consistency in their responses. The third question assisted the team in learning the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 41

assets of the school, but also helped create a level of comfort and confidence while participants
shared. The fourth question helped the team gain understanding of the knowledge, motivation,
or organizational barriers to LTEL achievement. The last question allowed the participants to
reflect and share other areas that may not have surfaced during the interview.
In April 2012, the inquiry team conducted informal interviews with 17 staff members at
RHS. The interviews were an average of 30 minutes long. The team used a combined approach
of conversational strategy and interview guide to encourage a natural and comfortable setting
that enabled the participants to share freely; however, the team used an interview guide to ensure
that each topic was addressed. Moreover, this type of interview approach allowed greater
flexibility to probe with follow-up questions. To promote a natural, free-flowing, and
comfortable conversation, the team did not audio record the interviews; instead, the team took
notes on the participants’ responses. We later typed the notes and discussed our thoughts and
observations with one another.
Through the end of April, the inquiry team analyzed the data from the interviews. The
team created a comprehensive list of possible causes (see Appendix B). The causes were
organized into an Excel spreadsheet by stakeholders and type of barrier (knowledge, motivation,
or organizational), and color-coded based on priority (see Appendix C). Priority was determined
by the frequency in the responses, emphasis, and feasibility. Frequency refers to the number of
times an issue was referred to or discussed. Rueda (2011) explains feasibility by stating,
“Causes should be prioritized based on cost and how central the gap is to the problem” (p. 79).
Emphasis refers to how strongly participants communicated that factor as a primary cause and
the depth of the participant’s discussion.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 42

Through the data analysis, six high-priority themes appeared. It is important to note that
while the traditional gap analysis model maintains a lens of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers to identify causes, this gap analysis deviated from the traditional model
because of the themes that emerged. In this investigation, the assumed causes were originally
categorized by the type of barrier; however, data analysis revealed six high-priority themes that
shared an overlap of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (see Appendix D). These
themes were further investigated through new interview questions (see Appendix E). Based on
the participants’ responses and their role at the school, the team determined which personnel to
interview a second time.
Validating interviews and data analysis. The purpose of the validating interviews was
to further investigate and affirm the prioritized causes. While the scanning interviews served to
gauge all of the possible causes inhibiting LTEL achievement, the validating interviews served to
further explore the prioritized causes and affirm whether they were the most feasible to address
and would have the most impact on LTEL achievement.
In late May 2012, nine staff members participated in the second round of interviews. At
the end of every interview, the team showed the participants the six themes that emerged from
the scanning interviews, asked if they agreed that the six themes were central to the
underachievement of LTELs, and asked them to prioritize the themes. Each participant affirmed
that the six themes were the major deterrents of academic achievement for LTELs at RHS. The
findings were presented to the principal, who reaffirmed the six root causes (see Appendix F).
The interview notes were analyzed to check for validation. Validation was determined by
frequency and emphasis. Thus, based on the participants’ responses and the data analysis, the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 43

team determined that the six themes were the main causes. In June, the inquiry team divided the
themes, and each team member began investigating the literature for research-based solutions
(see Appendix A).

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 44

Chapter 4
Findings
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
15

The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings from the data collected at Rigor High
School
16
(RHS) in relation to the underachievement of long-term English learners (LTEL). The
intent of the data collection and analysis was to rule out or validate the root causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS, which then served as the basis for solutions. In this chapter, the
inquiry team first describes the RHS community, district, and school. Next, we describe the
assets of RHS. We also discuss the broad list of possible causes for LTEL underachievement
generated from the literature, interviews, and data analysis; the process for narrowing this broad
list; and the six root causes that resulted from the analysis.
An Overview of the Community, District, and School
17

This section presents a detailed picture of RHS, beginning with a description of the
community and district in which it exists.
Community. Rigor Hills is a suburban community in Los Angeles County. Originally,
the city was largely comprised of animal farms and orange groves until the development of the
nearby freeway, which stimulated its development. Predominantly a Latino community, in the

15
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
16
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
17
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 45

1990s, Rigor Hills experienced a significant growth with an influx of a large Asian community.
Today, the Asian population is highly represented within the city leadership and governance.
The total population of Rigor Hills is approximately 50,000. Fifty-nine percent of the
total population is Asian, while Latino and Whites represent 27% and 23%, respectively. A large
portion of the population is foreign-born (55%) and 77% of its residents speak a language other
than English in their home. Eighty-five percent of Rigor Hill’s residents are high school
graduates and 34% have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to the state’s 80% high-school
graduates and 30% college graduates. Rigor Hills is primarily a commuter community where the
average resident’s drive to work is 33 minutes, longer than both Los Angeles County and the
state’s average (29 and 27 minutes, respectively). Sixty-three percent of all owned firms are
Asian and the most common businesses and industries are manufacturing (14%), retail trade
(13%), and wholesale trade (11%).
District. Rigor Unified School District (RUSD) is a distinguished PK-12 district that
serves multiple cities within Los Angeles County. Its many achievements include four National
Blue Ribbon Schools and sixteen California State Distinguished Schools; it leads other districts
in the region with State Golden Bell awards. With approximately 16,000 students, the diverse
student population is comprised of 60% Latino, 20% Asian, 8% Filipino, 5% White, and 7%
other. An estimated 4,900 or 30.9% of the students are designated as English learners (EL). At
the secondary level, there are 1,067 ELs and 2,327 redesignated fluent English proficient
students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2011a).
The District’s 2010-11 Academic Performance Index (API) of 792 exceeds the
performance of the county (762) and the state (778). However, RUSD is currently in year three
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 46

of Program Improvement (PI). Title I schools that fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress for two
consecutive years in the same area are identified as PI schools. The required percent of students
proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics should continue to increase
annually, with the expectation that 100% of the students are proficient by the year 2014. For
RUSD, the subgroups that have not met the annual measurable objectives (AMO) are EL, Latino,
African American, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities (CDE,
2011c). The achievement gap among low socioeconomic, minority students at RUSD is
representative of the majority of districts across the state (Garcia, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009;
Johnston & Viadero, 2000; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2009).
School. RHS is one of two comprehensive high schools in RUSD. The school currently
operates on a 180-day school year from August to June and has 55-minute classes during the
school day. The school has a late start at 8:45 a.m. on Mondays to allow for faculty meetings
(see Appendix G). The school has seven class periods with the first period starting at 7:10 a.m.
and the last period ending at 3:03 p.m. This extended day allows students to take extra classes
and to participate in programs such as Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate,
Advancement via Individual Determination, Career Certification, Regional Occupational
Program, the performing arts, and athletics. Twenty-four AP courses are offered at the school
and 6% of the school population is enrolled in such courses. In recent years, RHS has been
recognized twice as a California Distinguished School and has been awarded the National Blue
Ribbon.
The school currently employs 184 people—5 administrators, 87 teachers, 12 certificated
staff, 28 classified staff, 47 part-time classified staff, and 40 walk-on coaches. Ninety-one
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 47

percent of the faculty is fully credentialed and 100% of the faculty is No-Child-Left-Behind
compliant. The faculty and staff currently serve approximately 2,400 students with an ethnic
breakdown of 44% Asian, 36% Latino, 9% Filipino, 6% White, and 2.3% African-American.
There has been a gradual increase in the Asian student population along with a gradual decrease
of White students for the last eight years. Half of the school’s population is classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged, 26% as EL, and 8% as students with disabilities.
California ranks schools according to two rankings systems. The first compares all
California schools on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest; the second compares schools
with similar demographics on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest. The CDE currently
ranks RHS as an 8 school based on API and an 8 compared to schools with similar
demographics. In the 2010-2011 academic year, RHS scored an API of 827, with the Asian
population scoring 896 and the Latino population scoring 748. Students considered
socioeconomically disadvantage scored 786 and ELs scored 710. All subgroups met their target
growth area with the exception of the Asian population, which dropped by one point, and the EL
population, which dropped 11 points (CDE, 2011a).
Student performance varied when the data was disaggregated by subgroup and
proficiency levels for each core subject area on the California Standards Test (CST). The most
significant gaps were in the Latino subgroup, scoring only 17% proficient or higher in
mathematics, and the EL subgroup, scoring only 15% proficient or higher in both the ELA and
science portions of the CST. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results for RHS
have 87% of the school population passing the ELA exam and 90% passing the mathematics
portion. Seventy-one percent of the student population scored proficient on both the ELA and
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 48

Mathematics CAHSEE. When the data is disaggregated by the performance of each significant
subgroup and their proficiency rates, a telling gap in the data indicates that only 16% of the EL
subgroup was proficient (CDE, 2011a).
RHS currently enrolls 391 ELs and 1,240 fluent English proficient students, which means
that English is a second language for 68.2% of RHS students. In addition, 243 students are
considered LTELs. The EL subgroup failed to meet the AMO targets during the 2010-11 school
year in both ELA and mathematics. During the same period, ELs did not meet the API
performance goal of 726 as they achieved a score of 710.
The graduation rate of RHS is 90%, compared to the district rate of 82% and the overall
state rate of 74% in 2011. Asians graduated at the highest rate (96%); Latinos and ELs had a
graduation rate of 83%. The graduation rate of RHS is higher when compared to the state’s
average, especially when focusing on the EL student population. Only 56% of the EL population
in the state graduate. Although the graduation rate at RHS is higher than the state average, the
gap between Asian students and Latino and EL students is considerable (CDE, 2011a).
The data of the community, district, and school indicate that Rigor Hills and RHS are
culturally, ethnically, and linguistically rich. The data reveal an achievement gap for ELs,
specifically for Latino students when compared to their Asian peers. Using the gap analysis, the
inquiry team helped RHS examine the problems and solutions to help resolve the EL
achievement gap.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 49

Assets of RHS
18

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the problem of LTEL
underachievement at RHS. However, the inquiry team found many assets at RHS during the
data collection process. Before discussing the root causes in depth, this section outlines a few of
the several strengths RHS has to celebrate.
Student achievement. To begin, RHS is a high-performing school that has consistently
increased its API since 2007, growing from 769 in 2007 to 824 by 2011. Further, the percent of
tenth-grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the CAHSEE has increased steadily since
2008. In 2007-2008, 63.4% of students scored at least proficient in ELA and 66.6% in
mathematics; by 2011, 71% of students scored at least proficient in ELA and mathematics.
Administrative team. In order to continue moving the school forward, RHS is led by a
highly motivated principal who is knowledgeable about the school’s data, the school site, and the
community. The principal is receptive to new ideas, intelligent, patient, and well respected by
his staff and the school community. These qualities were apparent to the inquiry team and
mentioned by the staff members during interviews. The principal is supported by an equally
talented and receptive administrative team. The administrative team also intentionally creates
opportunities for its teaching staff to grow professionally. For example, the administrative team
pulled out several teachers to walkthrough classrooms so that they could witness tangible
strategies, which teachers could in turn apply in their own classrooms.

18
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 50

Teaching staff. The teaching staff at RHS is predominantly composed of caring
professionals who seek to improve their instruction and students’ achievement. They are self-
motivated to write grants, which the administrative team shows support for, and many teachers
participated in Communities of Practice (COP). In the COPs, teachers select a classroom-
relevant topic, read and discuss current research on that topic, and develop strategies to improve
student learning. For example, one COP was related to LTELs attending RUSD schools.
Teachers looked at their students’ cumulative files to identify LTELs and to learn about their
history. They also interviewed their students and tracked their progress during the school year.
Ultimately, the teachers participating in the COP created and implemented an action plan to
improve the achievement of their LTELs.
School environment. RHS offers students a safe, clean, productive learning
environment. Walking through campus, the inquiry team found virtually no trash or graffiti.
Several posters were taped up throughout the school to promote school events and involvement.
Moreover, in spite of the current budget crisis, RHS still maintains many career technical options
for students, including culinary arts, child development, and automotive technology. RHS also
creates many opportunities for parent involvement and pays special attention to language needs
by offering bilingual headsets and translators during meetings.
Students. During the interviews, participants consistently stated that RHS is fortunate to
have such a respectful and involved student population. The inquiry team observed a
predominantly integrated student body during nutrition and lunch breaks. Minimal discipline
issues were seen during the inquiry team’s visits to RHS. They observed no bullying, minimal
profanity, and minimal dress code violations. Only a few students were seen using their
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 51

electronic devices. These finding were confirmed by the staff during second-round interviews.
Although every school has its share of behavioral misconduct, one asset of RHS is that it can
focus on students’ achievement because it is not overwhelmed with student discipline issues.
Members of the administrative team stated that RHS has done much to promote school
spirit and involvement. For example, RHS students currently develop a weekly Raider Report
video production, which is presented throughout the school most Fridays. The production is a
visually engaging way to inform students of opportunities for school involvement and other
announcements.
The Six Primary Causes for LTEL Underachievement at RHS
The inquiry team first generated an extensive list of possible causes for the
underachievement of LTELs at RHS (Appendix B). This list of 40 possible causes was based on
an initial review of the literature, relevant educational theories, the inquiry team’s educational
and professional experiences, existing RHS data, and an initial scanning interview of 17 key
RHS staff members. The inquiry team then organized these possible causes into a spreadsheet,
categorizing them by stakeholder and type of cause (i.e., knowledge, motivation, organizational;
see Appendix C).
Through the data analysis and prioritization process, the team grouped similar causes
together, ultimately developing a list of six primary possible root causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS. These six causes were validated by key staff members at the school
site. The purpose of this section is to discuss the data that lead to the identification of each root
cause.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 52

Goal alignment.
19
Not having clear, defined, and communicated goals for ELs led to
LTEL underachievement at RHS. Because goal development is such an integral aspect of the
gap analysis model, the team asked a question regarding goals for ELs. Teachers and
administrators gave a variety of responses, demonstrating that EL goals were not effectively
communicated to the entire staff, they were unaware of the goals, or that they failed to create
goals. For example, the principal and one teacher were the only ones who referenced the
school’s version of the gap analysis as the goal system used at RHS. Both individuals accessed
the website that included the gap analysis at RHS and shared it with the inquiry team. Although
the gap analysis revealed that all teachers participated in goal development, the fact that only one
teacher mentioned it demonstrates the lack of accountability and knowledge of how to
implement the goal system. It seemed that teachers only completed the goals because of the
requirement established by the administration; however, they did not apply it to guide their daily
practice, suggesting a lack of motivation and teacher buy-in.
A closer examination of the RHS version of the gap analysis revealed problems in their
goal system. The global goal was clearly stated, but missing were the cascading goals critical in
detailing the ways that RHS could reach its global goal. Despite skipping the organization goal,
their gap analysis did have intermediate goals and performance goals for some stakeholders (see
Table 3). However, the performance goals lacked consistency and alignment to the overarching
global goal and department goal. Last, the performance goals needed to be concrete and current.
Most of the goals were lengthy, wordy, and not measurable. For example, the performance goal

19
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 53

for ELs was 177 words long with no quantifiable objective. The goals were also based on yearly
benchmarks, which forced the departments and staff to revisit their goals only once a year,
resulting in a lack of accountability and follow through. Table 4 displays a summary of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers related to goal alignment.
Table 3
Sample Goals of the Stakeholders at RHS
Mission
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they engage in
the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of society
Organization Goal
None provided
Intermediate Goal For ELD Department
From August to June, the number of 9th, 10th and 11th graders in the identified subgroups will
increase the number of proficient students by 5% in English Language Arts in the area of
vocabulary development.
Students
None
Provided
Teachers
The ELD teachers employ
strategies that focus on
literacy to develop reading
and ELD. Reading teachers
apply strategies to maximize
student learning potential at
the levels necessary for
understanding and accessing
the core curriculum.
Administrators
Continue to
enhance a system
that allows for
more teacher
choice and is
relevant to teacher
and student needs.
Counselors
None
Provided
Parents
None
Provided

Table 4
Findings Related to Goal Alignment
Knowledge • School personnel were unaware of the goals
Motivation • Teachers did not buy into the goal-setting process
Organizational • RHS goals lacked alignment among various goal levels
• RHS lacked accountability with goals currently in place
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 54

Teacher collaboration.
20
Limited opportunities for teacher collaboration emerged as a
concern during the scanning interviews. More information was gathered during follow-up
interviews to validate how infrequent teacher collaboration affects the performance of LTELs at
RHS. The inquiry team found that several factors affected teacher collaboration.
First, while RHS had structured collaboration time allotted, content departments would
meet only once a month. Participants mentioned that the allocated time was insufficient for in-
depth conversations or meaningful dialogue. Teachers did not have enough time to discuss
curriculum alignment and planning, learn of new teaching strategies from peers, and analyze
student data.
Second, teachers’ vertical and horizontal articulation seldom occurred and only in
isolated situations. Some teachers took the initiative to communicate with teachers of other
departments, but no formal time was set aside for this articulation. Teachers stated that cross-
departmental collaboration was challenging because some teachers lacked the desire to meet and
collaborate with Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and English
Language Development (ELD) teachers. Consequently, SDAIE and ELD teachers felt ignored
and isolated from the rest of the staff. In fact, a teacher commented that ELD is frequently
viewed as a “stepchild” by the District. Teachers in other departments demonstrated minimal
desire to collaborate, a motivation issue resulting from lack of value. Some teachers expressed
their belief that little could be done to make a difference for LTELs, especially since this
population maintains a reputation of being apathetic toward school.

20
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 55

Third, RUSD supported professional learning communities, the COPs, one of which
focused on LTELs. Unfortunately, COPs were discontinued due to lack of funding. Many of the
positive outcomes that came from the LTEL COP faded as the opportunity for collaboration
ended. For example, during the COP, teachers became grounded on current LTEL research.
Teachers felt the collaborative experience gave them a space to research, dialogue, reflect, and
learn on issues related to LTELs. Without the support of the COP, teachers found it difficult to
sustain their work. Many teachers expressed that they would like the opportunity to collaborate
with their peers in a structured setting such as the COP. Table 5 illustrates the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers related to teacher collaboration.
Table 5
Findings Related to Teacher Collaboration
Knowledge • Teachers did not know how to effectively collaborate
(especially with teachers unwilling to collaborate)
Motivation • Few teachers took the initiative to collaborate vertically
and horizontally
• SDAIE and ELD teachers felt that mainstream teachers did
not want to collaborate with them
• Some teachers did not value collaboration
Organizational • Teachers felt that RHS has not provided sufficient
opportunities for collaboration
• Lack of funding resulted in the cessation of COPs

Teaching strategies.
21
During the interviews, teachers described instructional strategies
they use to address the needs of their LTELs. Such strategies included using visuals to facilitate
instruction, slowing down the pace, and using Thinking Maps (graphic organizers) to organize

21
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 56

and scaffold instruction. Three teachers mentioned the use of sentence frames and frontloading
academic vocabulary to support students with speaking and writing. Regardless, most teachers
stated that they did not know what strategies they could employ to reach their LTELs. With this
lack of knowledge, many teachers also stated that they had a low sense of self-efficacy in
meeting the needs of LTELs.
A primary concern revealed through the interview was that teachers felt unprepared to
differentiate instruction for a large class of ELs with abilities ranging from beginning to
advanced. In such a setting, LTELs often became a disruptive element by monopolizing the
classroom conversations and discounting beginning-level ELs. However, these classroom
conversations lacked academic vocabulary, and LTELs’ grades and test scores highlighted that
they had not achieved academic proficiency, therefore, preventing them from exiting the SDAIE
support classes. Again, teachers conveyed a need for strategies they could use to differentiate
instruction for various levels of ELs, specifically LTELs.
Moreover, the teaching staff highlighted the need for instructional models. Teachers
expressed that they need a demonstration of practical strategies that they could immediately
begin implementing in the classroom. For example, instead of being told to develop students’
“BICS and CALP,” teachers wanted to know how to improve students’ social and academic
language.
In summary, teachers at RHS feel they have insufficient tools to work effectively with the
LTEL population. They need sustained, on-going professional development of strategies
specifically geared toward increasing LTEL achievement. Table 6 outlines the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors related to teaching strategies.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 57

Table 6
Findings Related to Teaching Strategies
Knowledge • Teachers did not know a variety of teaching strategies that would
meet the needs of LTELs
• Teachers did not know how to differentiate instruction for five levels
of ELs in one classroom
Motivation • Teachers expressed a low sense of self-efficacy in teaching LTELs
Organizational • Teacher felt they needed instructional models to demonstrate
effective teaching strategies

Placement options.
22
As mentioned in the previous section regarding teaching
strategies, RHS placed students of all EL levels into the same class for every content area except
ELA. For ELA, beginning and early intermediate students took ELD courses, while
intermediate, early advanced, and advanced ELs took ELA courses. Through the interviews,
RHS staff members discussed several concerns they had about current student placement
methods for ELs.
First, by placing five levels of ELs into class sizes of up to 36 students for content
courses, SDAIE teachers faced a new challenge of differentiating instruction enough to meet the
diverse needs of their students. Second, by tracking intermediate, early advanced, and advanced
students in SDAIE courses, RHS was limiting students’ access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses.
Teachers described SDAIE classes as watered-down versions of A-G courses; they feared that
LTELs were not being exposed to the rigorous coursework that their English-only counterparts
received. Finally, keeping students in SDAIE classes together and hindering their access to other
courses limited the integration of the student body as a whole. By being tracked in SDAIE

22
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 58

courses, LTELs lacked English-only peer models. They were denied examples of native-
speaking, high-performing students. Table 7 highlights the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers related to placement options.
Table 7
Findings Related to Placement Options
Knowledge • Teachers did not know how to differentiate instruction for five levels
of ELs in one classroom
• Administration unaware of better placement options for LTELs
Motivation • Teachers believed that LTELs were not motivated to leave SDAIE
courses
Organizational • LTELs in SDAIE courses lacked access to A-G curriculum
• Current placement led to large class sizes (up to 36 students) of high-
need students

Systemic support for LTELs.
23
RHS has limited systems in place to help LTELs
achieve academic success. For example, although LTELs and newcomers have significantly
distinct needs, the school does not differentiate between the various types of ELs. This causes
many LTELs to disengage or lose interest in school. In many instances, LTELs become
disruptive and have disciplinary problems. Further, LTELs do not possess the self-regulation
skills or learning skills necessary to stay motivated to excel in school.
Another systemic support LTELs need is to understand the importance of the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT). Some students have taken the CELDT since
early elementary school but they demonstrate stagnate or declining scores. The CELDT is
mostly administered during the summer by the EL coordinator and some of the ELD teachers.

23
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 59

Most of the staff is unfamiliar with the content of the CELDT or the standards that are tested.
The lack of knowledge and narrow involvement of the staff make it difficult to communicate to
students the importance of showing yearly progress on the CELDT or the degree of elaboration
needed to be successful on the test.
Studies show that one common characteristic of LTELs is that they struggle academically
(Olsen, 2010). This is also the case at RHS, where many LTELs earn low or failing grades.
Although RHS offers a mandatory lunchtime program, called Opportunity, to help failing
students, some teachers stated that students view participation as punitive. In the six-week
Opportunity Program, students experience study skill workshops and tutoring. Unfortunately,
there is a lack of follow through with content area teachers, and little change takes place from
student participation in the program.
The school does not have a system in place to monitor LTELs. In fact, teachers
interviewed could not identify which of their current students were LTELs and, therefore, could
not monitor the progress of these students. Previously, the district had a COP that addressed the
needs of LTELs. Teachers who participated in the COP went through students’ cumulative
records to identify LTELs and evaluated their performance on a regular basis. The COP no
longer exists due to a lack of funding, and the practices developed during the LTEL COP also
ceased. Changes in district priorities made it difficult to sustain the focus on LTELs. Table 8
displays a summary of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes related to lack of
systemic support for LTELs.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 60

Table 8
Findings Related to Systemic Support for LTELs
Knowledge • Teachers believed that students do not have the self-regulation skills
to be successful in school
• Students did not know the importance of the CELDT or the degree
of elaboration needed for success
• Teachers did not know who their LTELs were
Motivation • Teachers were not motivated to continue the LTEL COP without
funding
Organizational • RHS did not have a system in place to monitor LTELs
• LTEL COP ended due to a lack of funding

Perspectives on cultural differences.
24
Another root cause for LTEL underachievement
stems from the teachers’ and administrators’ cultural deficit perspective. In the initial scanning
interview, we asked teachers and administrators if they could identify barriers that perpetuated
the underachievement of ELs, specifically LTELs. Both stakeholders were quick to blame
students, parents, and family life. Some of the reasons cited by the participants for the lack of
progress included the following: low student motivation, low parent involvement, parents’ lack
of knowledge and tangible skills to assist their children, parents’ language skills, and students’
low socioeconomic status. One participant explained that she believed that Latino LTELs were
“cognitively deficient.” Many compared the Latino LTEL population with the progress made by
Asian students at the school and pointed to the differences in cultural values. Few alluded to
causes within the education system and structures at the school site as causes of the problem.
Even fewer participants self-reflected on how their own practices and beliefs perpetuated the
problem of LTEL underachievement.

24
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 61

As the inquiry team analyzed the results of the initial interviews, a theme of cultural
deficit perspective emerged. In the second interview, the team wanted to validate that theme by
developing a question that addressed the possibility of RHS staff members harboring a cultural
deficit perspective. When RHS staff was asked the question about what assets their LTELs
offered, teachers and administrators struggled to name any. One participant clearly stated that
LTELs did not have any assets. Only a few participants listed bilingualism, their cultures, and
their stories as assets. At the end of each interview, the team presented the six causes of LTEL
underachievement, with cultural deficit perspective listed as a “need to increase cultural capital.”
All participants agreed that RHS staff members needed to recognize that LTELs have something
to contribute to their school community. Table 9 outlines the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors related to perspectives on cultural differences.
Table 9
Findings Related to Perspectives on Cultural Differences
Knowledge • Teachers did not know how their instructional practices may have
contributed to LTEL underachievement
• Teachers did not know what assets or contributions their LTELs
could make
Motivation • Teachers were quick to blame parents and students for low student
achievement
Organizational • RHS and RUHSD offer inconsistent trainings to increase cultural
capital

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 62

Conclusion
25

In conclusion, this chapter presented the findings that validated the primary six root
causes for the LTEL achievement gap at RHS. First, the context of RHS, including the
community and district, was described. Next, the inquiry team reported the school’s strengths
that emerged during the investigation. Finally, the six primary causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS were discussed. The next chapter will provide a second review of the
literature for solutions for two of the six root causes—the need for varied teaching strategies and
the need for placement options that better meet the needs of LTELs. The dissertations of Avila
(2013) and Shah (2013) discuss solutions on the remaining four of the six root causes.

25
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Carlos Avila; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 63

Chapter 5
Literature Review – Possible Solutions
Author: Merle Bugarín
In the Gap Analysis Model, it is crucial that solutions are in alignment with the validated
root causes (Clark & Estes, 2008, Rueda, 2011). As discussed in the previous chapter, the
inquiry team validated six primary root causes for the underachievement of LTELs. For the
purpose of this project, each member of the inquiry team focused on developing solutions for
two root causes based on their area of interest and expertise. I have consulted the research for
the areas of teacher collaboration and cultural proficiency. However, it is important to note that
all six root causes are interrelated and that solutions need to be implemented jointly (For
solutions on goal alignment and systemic support for LTELs, see Avila, 2013; for solutions
teaching strategies and mainstreaming, see Shah, 2013).
This review of the literature refers to current research-based practices and theories to help
develop solutions that are feasible for Rigor High School
26
(RHS) to close the achievement gap
for LTELs. The solutions address issues of knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational/cultural barriers. My goal as I reviewed the literature was to find alternatives that
can be sustained at the school level.
Teacher Collaboration
The increased accountability resulting from NCLB and the demands to meet the needs of
a diverse student population require that educators rethink the structure of schools. School

26
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participant, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 64

environments have been notorious for promoting isolation, with teachers spending most of their
day in the privacy of their own classroom; engaging in peer collaboration is mostly an individual
choice and is not a requirement to demonstrate professional excellence. However, experts
throughout the literature propose structured teacher collaboration is essential to improve student
achievement (Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008; Little, 2002; Schmoker, 2006). The
twentieth century factory-model schools are no longer a sensible option to prepare diverse
learners to compete in the twenty first century, which require individuals to think critically,
problem solve, and communicate and collaborate within a global society.
Most teacher collaboration is informal and initiated by choice. For example, teachers
interact with their colleagues to discuss topics of common interests and possibly share resources.
In many instances, structured, formal teacher collaboration is limited and difficult to sustain in
predominately traditional settings (Saywer & Rimm-Kaufman, 2007). Saywer and Rimm-
Kaufmann conducted a study to examine the characteristics and predictors of teacher
collaboration since limited research exists in these areas. Teachers at participating school sites
reported increased collaboration, greater involvement in school decision-making, a sense of
shared educational goals and values, and appreciated collaboration more than teachers at the
comparison schools. The collaboration was based on teaching practices that integrated social
and academic learning for students. A primary goal was to develop a school-wide community by
enhancing the interactions in the workplace, which were thought to affect individuals’ beliefs
and attitudes. Data was collected through questionnaires completed by teachers, administrators
and other staff members. The study is relevant because the participating schools have a large
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 65

number of students considered “at-risk” and with limited English proficiency. However, the fact
that only elementary schools participated in the study is a limitation.
The goal of formal teacher collaboration should be to promote change in student
achievement by providing teachers with structured opportunities to challenge their belief system,
and build their pedagogical knowledge through meaningful interactions with peers. Teachers
cannot continue to learn in isolation, during their free time, or outside of school if organizational
change is expected (Desimone, 2011; Elmore, 2002; Schmoker, 2006). In many instances, the
teachers that need the most learning are the ones that opt out of professional development
activities (Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001). The underachievement of ELs requires
that school teams work towards the common goal of educating all students (Montague and
Warger, 2002, Schmoker, 2006).
Unfortunately, very little collaboration takes place between ELD and content area
teachers at RHS. Collaboration facilitates teachers learning from each other. The national trend
indicates that only 29.5% of content area teachers in the United States have received any training
to work with ELs (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008). Content
area teachers can gain much needed knowledge to support the instructional needs of English
Learners by collaborating with their ELD counterparts (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). In addition,
collaboration can facilitate the curriculum alignment required to provide ELs with a cohesive
instructional program at RHS.
The next section describes research-based strategies that have proven to enhance teacher
collaboration and as they engage in learning and building capacity.
Professional learning communities. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are an
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 66

effective way for teachers to collaborate to improve practice (Darling Hammond, 2000; Graham,
2007). PLCs provide a structured space to collaborate about student learning. Participants of a
PLC engage in inquiry, analyze data, examine student work and progress, discuss and reflect on
instructional practices, and problem solve (DuFour, 2004). A PLC facilitates sharing effective
instructional practices while working towards a common vision or goal. Another purpose of
PLCs is for teachers to continue to develop subject matter competency by keep up with the
changes in their disciplines. The “continuing intellectual development” emphasizes teachers as
life-long learners of their subjects (Grossman et al., 2001).
It is important to consider group formation as part of the PLC process. According to
Grossman, Wineburg and Woolworth (2001), “face-to-face interactions, dialogue, trust and
commitment are necessary ingredients to building cohesion” within a community. This does not
happen instantly, rather it takes time for groups to develop a common history around which their
work revolves. Communities need to establish norms that will guide their discussions and
interactions with one another (Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001; Lee, 2009). Norms are
especially helpful in handling the tensions that new learning and disagreements may bring.
Orientation and trust building are two important stages in creating school teams (Lee,
2009). In the orientation phase, participants come together to find out what is the purpose of the
team and learn why they were included to participate in the group. If members do not
understand how they will contribute to the group, they may become withdrawn or distant from
the group. This will result in feelings of confusion or group dysfunction (Lee, 2009). Resolving
issues that arise during this stage requires explicitly stating the reasons for creating the team, and
having individuals identify and articulate knowledge and skills they bring to the team. Another
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 67

aspect of the orientation phase is to engage individuals in imaging the possibilities of what can
be accomplished through the strength of a team that would be difficult for an individual to
undertake.
Setting a foundation of trust is important for team performance. Trust develops over time
as teachers share experiences and get to know each other as thinkers and learners (Grossman et
al., 2001; Lee 2009). There is much team leaders can do to start building trust. First, they need
to model honesty, integrity and transparency. For example, any current conditions that affect
availability of resources, time limitations or restrictions are discusses upfront. There are no
hidden agendas. Second, creating a safe environment that protects different opinions and give
everyone a voice is essential. It is important that different opinions are valued and respected.
Ideas are clarified so group members can appreciate multiple perspectives. Third, participants
are engaged in learning further about each other’s history, priorities, needs, and teaching styles.
Making assumptions about others can lead to misunderstandings that can harm building trust.
A challenge to moving forward a professional learning community is the emergence of a
pseudocommunity. A pseudocommunity, or behaving as if everyone is in agreement develops
when conflict is suppressed (Grossman et al., 2001). The discussions of dominant individuals
remain unchallenged even though there isn’t agreement among the team. No effort is made to
elicit the thoughts of the whole group. Interactions within the community maintain the status
quo. However, this results in some individuals acting one way in front of the group and
performing differently behind close the doors of their classrooms. Avoiding the tensions and
conflicts that arise in groups will give a fall sense of security and put at risk accomplishing the
goals agreed upon.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 68

Pawan and Ortloff (2011) conducted a study that examines how to sustain collaboration
between ESL and content-area teachers. The focus is on interpersonal and organization factors
needed to support collaboration. The study provides information on the key players, and
opportunities, tensions and conflicts that arise as the two groups of teachers collaborate. In
addition, emphasis is placed on how the education of ELs needs to be a shared effort between the
two groups of teachers since students developing English skills are present in many mainstream
classrooms. This requires that teachers be adequately prepared to meet their needs. Seeking
solutions on how to instruct ELs in mainstream classes is a relatively new endeavor in many
districts across the nation that has resulted from the high stakes accountability present in the
NCLB Act. Content-area teachers are faced with the challenge of gaining the skills and
knowledge needed to meet the needs of ELs. School administrators play an important role in
sustaining collaborative efforts of teachers by establishing structural supports. For example, a
school organized into five PLCs integrated the ELD teacher into the math PLC rather than the
ELD department being on its own (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). Administrators supported
collaboration by providing regular meeting times for the PLCs and ensured that collaboration
was not viewed as a mandated process. Instead, the content area teachers attributed the
collaborative efforts to the interdependence and trust that emerged from interactions with ELD
teachers.
Supportive school administrators can develop a culture of collaboration by including
teachers in decision-making process. For example, teacher created agendas rather than mandated
agendas form the structure for learning communities (Calderon & Minaya-Rowe, 2011). In
addition, collaboration time is allocated during the workday and is scheduled as part of the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 69

school’s calendar. Teachers meet on a regular basis to adjust their instructional practice to
achieve better results (Calderon & Minaya-Rowe, 2011). However, it is crucial that
administrators have knowledge of second language acquisition.
A three-year study by Calderon and Marsh (1988) described the impact of professional
development on bilingual teachers and other school staff that participated in them. The purpose
was to (a) integrate theory/research on oral language, reading, and writing in different contexts;
(b) demonstrate principles of effective professional development and coaching; (c) allow time for
practice of the instructional strategies during training sessions; and (d) support the use of the new
strategies by providing feedback through the use of checklists and coaching. The findings
showed how ongoing, consistent professional development with opportunities to interact with
peers and receive ongoing support resulted in improved achievement for ELs. However, the
findings reported lack of administrative support for teacher opportunities to learn from other
teachers through coaching, and administrators limited knowledge of bilingual instruction as the
two areas needing the most improvement.
The literature documents various models of teacher collaboration, which will be
examined in the following section. The models selected provide teachers with ongoing
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues in various settings. The use of technology to
facilitate collaboration is also included. At the end of the following section, I will consider in
more detail how time, trust, goal setting and self-efficacy impact teacher collaboration.
Lesson study. A lesson study is one type of PLC that employs a teacher-led approach
(Fernandez, 2002; Perry, Lewis, & Akiba, 2002). In a typical lesson study a small group of
teachers meet to engage in inquiry, solve a problem of practice and collectively plan a research
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 70

lesson. The team agrees beforehand on the focus of lesson. One of the team members teaches
the lesson in a classroom setting. The other members observe the lesson to collect data. After
the lesson, the team debriefs by analyzing the lesson and discusses implications for student
learning. Revisions are made based on the feedback from the team. New questions that surface
are considered in the next steps of the lesson study cycle. Teachers work together regularly to
solve problems of practice and improve students’ academic achievement. During the different
phases, teachers take on the roles of being “experts or novices” depending on their content
knowledge and skills at any given time. Teachers build collegial relationships as they share
information with each other in an egalitarian setting (Lewis, Perry, Hurd, & Fisher, 2011).
Empirical studies on the effects of lesson studies on student learning are limited. Lewis,
Perry and Murata (2006) suggest that the value of lesson studies derives from the ability of a
group to measure their effectiveness based local data, and make any improvements necessary to
the process. Lewis, Perry and Hurd (2004) acknowledge seven key pathways to instructional
improvement resulting from successful lesson studies. The information was gathered from over
ten years of interviews from teacher participants in Japan and the United States. The seven keys
include: increased knowledge of subject matter, increased knowledge of instruction, increased
ability to observe students, stronger collegial networks, stronger connection of daily practice to
long term goals, stronger motivation and sense of self-efficacy, and improved quality of
available lesson plans. Lesson studies promote an educational system that enables continued
growth, interpersonal resources, and the motivation to improve instruction (Lewis et al., 2004).
Perry, Lewis and Akiba (2002) documented collaboration between researchers and
practitioners as a lesson study was implemented in a school district in California. The purpose
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 71

was to provide information about the supports needed and challenges encountered as lessons
studies emerge in our nation’s schools. For example, four participating teachers envisioned
lesson studies as a vehicle to reform professional development within the district “to build
teacher-driven, collaborative learning and instructional improvement” (Perry, Lewis, & Akiba,
2002, p. 4). During the implementation, leaders created a safe environment by allowing different
degrees of teacher participation. Teachers were not required to teach a lesson. The goal was to
get as many teachers as possible interested in the process. However, the flexible guidelines
resulted in various levels of implementation. Even then teachers felt lesson studies were
valuable. A teacher commented, “ I think the best part of it was the ability to sit and discuss the
lesson with the four of us. Being able to debrief and talk about it and what went right and what
could be improved. That kind of thing, to me, was the most valuable” (Perry et al., 2002, p.13).
After the first year of the study, leaders realized that collaboration was much more difficult than
they anticipated and that teachers needed to learn collaboration skills. The SMFC case study
confirms that teachers will engage in collaborative structures once they see first-hand the
benefits of collaboration.
Video clubs. The use of technology facilitates teacher collaborative learning. A
research-based format is video clubs. Teachers participating in a video club have classroom
lessons recorded to facilitate learning for the team. Usually, the classroom teacher and a
facilitator select a short excerpt from the video to share with the team at a future meeting.
During the team meeting, teachers discuss features of the lesson related to their area of focus.
Research conducted by Sherin and Han (2004) suggests that video clubs engage teachers in
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 72

collaborative reflection, encourage inquiry, and promote a critical stance. Through questioning
and discussions, members try to develop a better understanding of teaching and learning.
Throughout the ten sessions of the study there was a shift from discussing teachers’
actions to focusing on student contributions and thinking processes. For example, in the first
three meeting sessions, at least fifty percent of the discussions were coded as pedagogy or
focused on teaching behaviors. By the seventh session 86% of the discussions revolved around
student conceptions and only fourteen percent on pedagogical issues. The dialogue progressed
from making general statements about what students said to analyzing students contributions and
answers. Teachers developed the ability to perceive and interpret classroom interactions in a
more sophisticated manner (Sherin & Han, 2004). In a later study, Sherin and van Es (2006)
found that skills of attending to students’ contribution during a video club transferred to the
classroom.
Video clubs offer teachers an opportunity to collaborate in a setting where instances of
teaching and learning can be reviewed repeatedly without having the demands of trying to
capture the many elements of a lesson in real time (Sherin & Han, 2004). Nevertheless, it
requires teachers to step out of their comfort zone of private practice and be open to other
perspectives.
Factors that impact collaboration. Various factors that impact teacher collaboration
frequently appeared in the literature. This section will discuss issues related of time, trust, the
importance of clear goals, and self-efficacy.
Time. The demands on teachers’ time have increased during this era of high stakes
accountability (Elmore, 2002). The number one reason teachers at RHS gave for not
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 73

collaborating was insufficient time during the school day. Finding time to collaborate requires
school leadership to think of innovative ways to make time and use their resources more
effectively (Khorsheed, 2007). School leadership and staff need to evaluate their priorities and
determine which activities have the greatest impact on student learning, and what tasks can be
completed by someone else. The goal is to find a common block of time each week for teachers
to collaborate (Khorsheed, 2007; Nordmeyer, 2008). Some schools bank time by having
students arrive late or leave early once a week. However, working together during the school
day gives teachers the opportunity to participate in peer observations or modeling. Effective
collaboration is ongoing and should involve engaging in practice with students in the classroom,
and having professional conversations with peers (Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 2002; Wilson &
Berne, 1999).
Trust. Developing trusting relationships is a crucial factor for meaningful collaboration.
According to San Martín-Rodríguez, Beaulieu, D’Amour, and Ferrada-Videla (2005) trust in the
abilities of others to contribute happens over time and repeated instances of positive experiences
working together. The willingness of teachers to share knowledge, practices and responsibilities
is based on mutual trust. Individuals are willing to place more trust in others they deem as
competent (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). For example, in a study about sustaining collaboration
amongst ESL and content area teachers, trust increased when a respected individual became the
ESL coordinator. “Daisy is doing a great job . . . I would say that bit by bit more teachers trust
Daisy…She is our bridge to each other”(Sasha 3-29-07 p.7 as cited in Pawan & Ortloff, 2011,
p.467). However, one of the challenges many ESL teachers encounter is that they are not viewed
as equals when working with their content area colleagues. ELD specialists and teachers need to
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 74

assert themselves to demonstrate their capabilities to make valuable contributions to improve
student learning in content area classes. In fact, Risko and Bromley (2001) posit,
“…collaboration reduces role differentiation among teachers and specialists, resulting in shared
expertise for problem solving that yields multiple solutions to dilemmas about literacy and
learning” (p.12).
Clear goals. Teachers working collaboratively need clear goals to stay focused and be
efficient. When goals are ambiguous, time is spent trying to make sense of the purpose of the
task, decreasing productivity (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals need to receive feedback to
ensure that the teams are moving in the right direction to meet the desired objectives for the
organization. Without clear goals, motivation decreases (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief or confidence people have in their capabilities to
accomplish a desired outcome (Bandura, 1997). A teacher’s self-efficacy can predict the
teaching behaviors he or she will engage in based on personal judgments of strengths and
weaknesses needed to accomplish a given task (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran
& McMaster, 2009). According to the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition
(2008), many content area teachers have received minimal professional development in working
with ELs. Moreover, meaningful collaboration between high school mainstream teachers and
their ELD counterparts is the exception rather than the norm (DelliCarpini, 2008).
Underprepared mainstream teachers, do not possess the skills to adequately meet the needs of
LTELs. Lack of confidence to contribute to the group may inhibit teachers from collaborating
with other colleagues (Montague & Warger, 2001). Teachers experience different levels of self-
efficacy depending on the context. For example, a teacher might feel more efficacious teaching
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 75

a specific content area or a particular group of students (Goddard et al., 2000).
A study of collective teacher efficacy found that “collective teacher efficacy is positively
associated with the differences in student achievement that occur within schools” (Goddard et
al., 2000, p. 501). Collective teacher efficacy is the effect of shared beliefs that teams
interactions can produce results (Bandura, 1997). Specifically, the collaborative efforts of the
faculty will positively impact student achievement.
Teacher collaboration can increase self-efficacy through vicarious experiences by
providing opportunities for teachers to observe a competent model perform a skill or strategy.
Nevertheless, the most influential source of efficacy is mastery experiences. In a collaborative
setting, teachers have the opportunity to share information, observe models, practice and receive
constructive feedback (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009).
Cultural Proficiency
Another validated root cause for the underachievement of LTELS at RHS is the need to
further develop a better understanding of other cultural groups. The changing demographics in
public schools require schools to reexamine their policies and practices. School leaders need to
help their staff understand that despite many years of exemplary work, new skills and ways of
thinking are needed to effectively educate a diverse student population (Nuri-Robins, Lindsey,
Terrell, & Lindsay, 2007).
Cultural proficiency refers to the ability to interact effectively in a variety of cultural
environments (Nuri-Robins et al., 2007). Cultural proficiency requires individuals to learn about
their own values and beliefs, to promote inclusiveness, and seek to understand and discuss
differences in a manner that shows respect for individuals and their cultures. In school systems,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 76

it requires educators to have deep cultural knowledge and an asset-based perspective about the
students and families they serve. Deficit perspective thinking results when there is of fear of the
unknown, or differences are assumed to be negative (Nelson & Guerra, 2012).
The Multicultural Education Consensus Panel participated in a four-year project that
reviewed and synthesized research related to diversity (Banks, Cookson, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto,
Ward Schofield, & Stephan, 2001). The essential principles resulting from this study inform
practice related to diversity. The article addresses the need for continuous teacher learning to
uncover personal attitudes related to the race, ethnicity, language, and culture of the students
with whom they interact, and how these categories become more complex as they consider
differences in social class, religion, geographical regions and even gender. The knowledge
teachers acquire allows them to offer students a culturally responsive curriculum, which engages
diverse learners and gives them the opportunity to achieve academic success.
According to Gay (2002), “ culturally responsive teaching is defined as using the cultural
characteristics, experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for
teaching more effectively” (p. 106). Including the students’ cultural and experiential frames of
references make learning academic knowledge and skills more meaningful and relevant, which
results in improved academic achievement. Teachers’ cultural knowledge base essential for
teaching should include: patterns of interaction and communication, values, and contributions of
ethnic groups to various fields (Gay, 2002). It is important not to get caught up in cultural
stereotypes or superficial knowledge gained trough pop culture and the media. Instead,
culturally responsive teaching ought to include a thorough and critical analysis of how the media
and pop culture portray ethnic groups and their experiences. Teachers need to acquire a
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 77

knowledge base about the diverse ethnic and cultural groups they work with so they can integrate
multiple perspectives throughout teaching and learning. In addition, teachers need to learn how
to transfer cultural knowledge into teaching strategies and lessons. Gay (2002) suggests that
teachers examine instructional materials for strengths and weaknesses in multicultural
perspectives. Another recommendation is that classroom and school wall displays should reflect
cultural diversity because what is present within the school environment is valued and what is
absent is devalued. Above all, teachers need to learn about the communities in which they work,
who their students are, and what their students will need to have access to the curriculum and
become successful learners (Crow, 2008).
Critical reflection. Deep critical reflection is a complex concept, which is not clearly
defined for teachers (Jay & Johnson, 2000). Reflecting critically on specific topics can help
teachers gain a better understanding of the implications of their decisions. Dewey (1933, cited in
Jay & Johnson, 2000) initially defined reflection as “the active, persistent and carefully
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that
support it and the future conclusions to which it tends” (p.74). Reflection requires that educators
make judgments about their practice as they consider the social, moral and political ramifications
of their actions. Zeichner and Liston (1996) elaborate on what it means to reflect. They state
“reflective teaching entails a recognition, examination and rumination over the implications of
one’s beliefs, experiences, attitudes, knowledge, and values as well as the opportunities and
constraints provided by the social conditions in which the teacher works (Zeichner & Liston,
1996, p. 20). Howard (2003) affirms that critical reflection is essential in culturally relevant
teaching. Teachers confront prevalent deficit perspectives and issues of equity as they seek to
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 78

meet the needs of underperforming students such as LTELs.
Critical reflection is a process that should lead to change. Engaging in dialogue with
colleagues provides multiple perspectives and expands the frames of thought. Although,
reflection is frequently practiced privately, schools can benefit when individuals reflect with
each other and find common grounds to reach organizational goals.
The University of Washington’s Teacher Education Program has classified the reflective
process in a typology with three levels of reflection: descriptive, comparative and critical (Jay &
Johnson, 2000). The descriptive dimension asks questions that help define the problem or
“puzzlement”. The main question is, “What is happening?” Teachers should seek to describe
significant details and avoid jumping to conclusions. The comparative dimension asks question
that frames the problem from multiple perspectives, and involves searching for new insights
from others’ points of view. At this point it would be wise to consider culture, race, and personal
histories as sources of information, however teachers can be apprehensive to venture into these
areas. The critical dimension examines the implications of the various courses of action and
involves making judgments. Critical reflection requires that we ask, “What is the best way of
understanding, changing of doing this? What is the deeper meaning of what is happening in
terms of public democratic purposes of schooling?” For example, a best practice that worked
with one group in the past might be inappropriate in a different cultural setting. These questions
are important to grapple with in today’s culturally diverse schools. The decisions educators
make have an effect on student learning and the broader context of education.
According to Yost, Senter, and Folenza- Bailey (2000), “ teachers of the future must have
the intellectual, moral and critical thinking abilities to meet the challenges of 21
st
century
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 79

schools.” Three levels of reflection include reflection-for-action or future action, reflection-in-
action or in the midst of an event, or reflection-on-action or on one’s past actions (Schon, 1987).
Reflection at all levels can help teachers identify and incorporate the assets their students bring
to the learning process. Students are not empty vessels, on the contrary, they possess valuable
knowledge and a rich cultural history that serve as a foundation for new learning (Stones, 1994).
Unfortunately, students with limited academic knowledge are often perceived as not being
capable learners, with little to contribute to classroom instruction. Most reflection reveals only
superficial understanding of a determined problem or concern and does not result in meaningful
changes (Yost et al., 2000). Therefore, critical reflection on one’s own experiences is necessary
for changes that will result in improved instruction.
Funds of knowledge. It is important to recognize the different funds of knowledge
students possess and how they shape their Discourses (Gee, 1996). The social language people
are able to produce, not just recognize, is what Gee calls Discourse with big “D”. “Discourses
integrate ways of talking, listening, writing, reading, acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and
feeling in the service of enacting meaningful socially situated identities and activities” (Gee,
2001, p.719). Gee refers to discourse with little “d” as simply language in use. It is important to
know how these Discourses can shape literacy learning at school. Teachers need to consider the
resources students bring from their homes, communities, peer groups, pop culture, and other
influential sources (Moll, Velez-Ibanez, & Greenberg, 1989). Students in secondary school
require a complex use of language to access concepts in content areas. This is extremely
demanding for students whom do not share common experiences with their teachers or peers that
are from other cultural backgrounds (Moje, Ciechanowski, Kremer, Ellis, Carrillo, & Collazo,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 80

2004). Teachers need to intentionally integrate the different funds of knowledge students bring
to school with school experiences, however teachers often do not capitalize on students funds of
knowledge from outside of school. It is important to emphasize that the key part is not to just
recognize funds of knowledge, but to integrate them in to instruction to promote academic goals
and academic achievement.
Moje, Ciechanowski, Kremer, Ellis, Carrillo, and Collazo (2004) conducted a study that
integrates content area learning in science with students’ funds of knowledge. The study took
place in a predominately Latino neighborhood in the Detroit area. All participants belonged to
low-income or working class families, and were bilingual and bi-literate in English and Spanish.
This study highlights how curriculum aligned with mostly middle-class European American
perspectives need to create a space where all voices can be included. Teachers need to build
their cultural proficiency so they can access the experiences of students from diverse
backgrounds and help them make meaningful connections between their learning inside and
outside of school.
The purpose of this study was to document how funds of knowledge and discourse
shaped students interactions in the classroom as they engaged in reading, writing and talking
about science in the classroom (Moje et al., 2004). The researchers believed that students’ funds
are generally not accessed because the connections to content area learning are not clearly
evident in many instances. For example, a unit on air and water quality also included
environmental issues. Although some students from Mexico had a wealth of information about
air and water quality, the connections did not surface in the classroom discussions. However
during formal interviews, the researchers learned that the students had first hand experience with
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 81

the unit themes. Some students had information about the effects of water pollution in the
Mississippi and Rio Grande Rivers from their experiences in traveling across different regions.
Another student stated he wanted to become an ecologist to improve the quality of the air
because he had personally been affected by poor air quality in Mexico City and Detroit.
Although the student was interested in the unit of study, he did not share his experiences or
question any the information provided through the lessons. Teachers need to create spaces that
bridge students’ funds of knowledge with traditional knowledge found in school texts. Students
do not know how to make these connections on their own and need teachers to facilitate the
process. The research findings noted that students rarely shared their experiences that had a
direct connection with subject matter being taught in the classroom, but when students were
asked to share their experiences, they enthusiastically talked about their experiences. Teachers
also need to plan to offer safe place where many different perspectives are acknowledged and
respected. Lastly, “ school policies need to shift from a focus on learning content information or
routine literacy processes to a recognition that secondary school is as much about learning to
navigate and negotiate the oral and written texts of multiple Discourse and knowledge
communities as it is about learning particular concepts” (Moje et al., 2004, p. 68).
Conclusion
This chapter explored research-based solutions to address the validated root
causes for the LTEL achievement gap. The two areas of focus included teacher collaboration
and developing cultural proficiency. Previous studies support the implementation of professional
learning communities as an effective form of teacher collaboration. Structures described include
lesson studies and video clubs. Next, factors that impact collaboration such as time, trust,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 82

establishing clear goals and self-efficacy are discussed. Elements of group formation were also
considered. Finally, critical reflection and students funds of knowledge offered viable options to
increase the cultural capital of the school community.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 83

Chapter 6
Proposed Solutions
Author: Merle Bugarín
This chapter recommends specific solutions in the areas of teacher collaboration and
cultural proficiency to close the achievement gap for Long Term English Learners (LTELs) at
Rigor High School
27
(RHS). The research-based solutions and theories from the previous
chapter guide the solutions implemented for the issues identified by taking into consideration the
unique needs of RHS. Finally the last step of the gap analysis, which is to evaluate the results
using Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation, is discussed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teacher Collaboration
Student academic success is a priority for the majority of the teaching staff at RHS.
Many of the teachers we interviewed expressed a desire to collaborate with their peers to
improve the academic achievement of ELs. For example, teachers stated that a district sponsored
communities of practice offered a valuable opportunity to work with colleagues to develop
teaching strategies to improve student learning. Although the experience was meaningful,
teachers have found it difficult to sustain their efforts since district level support is no longer
available.
The social and cultural contexts of schools are critical to teacher learning and
collaboration (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Although teachers and
administrators at RHS belief that ongoing collaboration is key to improving student achievement,

27
In order to maintain confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 84

they have struggled to do so. The school team has not set a clear purpose for teachers to
collaborate. Individual perspectives on what it means to collaborate impacts how teachers work
together and with whom they engage (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). A common
language needs to be developed. In this section, I will propose how teacher collaboration can be
effectively structured to provide opportunities for teacher learning that can be sustained.
Professional learning communities. RHS has a stable, long-term staff. Individual
teachers take pride in demonstrating subject area competency. However, changes in
demographics require that teachers engage in refining their practice to meet the academic needs
of students whom have not mastered English, and other students considered at-risk. PLCs offer
an effective way to meet the on going learning necessary for educators to succeed in the twenty
first century and build teacher capacity at the school level (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Little,
2002).
A study by Pawan and Ortloff (2011) examined how to sustain collaboration between
ESL and content-area teachers. The study emphasized that the education of ELs needs to be a
joint effort between the two groups of teachers. EL students at RHS spend only one out of seven
periods a day in ELD classes. The school also offers some content-area SDAIE classes; however
educating ELs should be the responsibility of the entire school community. EL students placed
in mainstream classes continue to need language support, even ELs that have achieved higher
levels of fluency or have speaking skills similar to native English speakers (Calderón & Minaya-
Rowe, 2011). Many LTELs are placed in intervention classes that do not qualify for university
approved A-G credit. LTELs should have access to rigorous college preparation courses with
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 85

appropriate supports in place (Olsen, 2010). Teacher collaboration through the implementation
of PLCs is a viable option to gain the needed skills to support all learners.
Pawan and Ortloff (2011) conducted a study that focused on the interpersonal interactions
and the organizational factors that sustain or hinder collaboration. One issue that has surfaced
throughout research is the unequal status EL teachers are perceived to have when working with
their content-area counterparts. However, during the collaborative process, EL teachers
demonstrated the ability to facilitate student learning by engaging students in inquiry, providing
scaffolds and guiding students to complete tasks. Content-area teachers frequently used a direct
instruction method to transmit information. Another opportunity for teachers to collaborate on
an equal status is through “collaborative talk”. EL teachers demonstrated their expertise by
engaging in dialogue in which both groups take turns in leading topics of discussion. Each
individual contributed on the basis of his or her areas of strengths. EL teachers at RHS need to
be given the opportunity to contribute their expertise to the learning of LTELs in content-area
classes.
Administrators and school leaders are crucial to support and motivate individuals to
collaborate (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011; Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2011). Administrators develop
a culture of collaboration by including teachers in the decision-making process. The principal at
RHS exhibits this quality in his leadership style. Likewise, he has allocated some time for
teacher collaboration during early start Mondays, once a month. But because of many competing
demands, the topic of LTELs has not been consistently addressed. Also, teachers expressed that
the allocated time was insufficient for meaningful collaboration to happen around student
learning. One way to increase teacher collaboration is by having common prep periods for
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 86

teachers that share cohorts of LTELs. This would allow teachers to monitor student progress,
discuss students’ areas of strengths and challenges and strengthen teaching strategies. The
structure of LTEL cohorts is described in detail in the affiliated chapter on Parameters and
Guidelines for Successfully Mainstreaming LTELs at RHS, authored by team member Shah
(2013). School leaders, such as the EL coordinator can play an important role in facilitating
collaboration. Study participants stated that the ELD coordinator served a bridge between
content area teachers and ELD teachers. She was highly respected for her expertise and ability
to work with team members. The role of ELD coordinator at RHS needs to shift from a
department head to a school wide instructional leader that can facilitate learning for the entire
team and provide practical teaching strategies that content area teachers can implement.
Another strategy implemented to sustain collaboration, grouped teachers into PLCs. The
ELD teacher was part of the math PLC and met with the team weekly (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011).
RHS can use a similar approach and group ELD teachers in a PLC with teachers from a targeted
department such as math or science. This would allow students to get support in subject areas
that are typically challenging for ELs. PLCs can start with one department and eventually roll
out to other departments, as the collaborative process is refined.
PLCs have been implemented for many different purposes. A specific type of PLC that
would meet the needs of RHS is a lesson study. A lesson study is a teacher-led collaborative in
which a small group of teachers meet to engage in inquiry, solve problems of practice and
collectively plan a lesson (Fernandez, 2002; Perry, Lewis & Akiba, 2002; Watanabe, 2003). The
first step is for the team to agree on the purpose of the lesson. The lesson should include content
area objectives and language objectives (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010). An example of matched
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 87

content and language objectives for a social studies lesson follows (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010, p.
99):
• Content Objective – Students will explore how the world is made up of major
geographical and cultural differences, with a focus on the geography, climate, and
culture of each student’s native country or region through the creation of postures
and culture boxes.
• Language Objective – Students will write about their native country’s geography,
climate, and culture on a poster board. Students will also create a culture box,
which contains five items paired with a tiered activity. Depending on the
proficiency level, the student should (a) only label the items, (b) write one
descriptive sentence for each item, or (c) write a descriptive paragraph for each
item. Students will present their boards and box to small groups. Students will
complete outcome sentences as a culminating activity.
Next, the team collaboratively plans the lesson. Once the lesson planning is complete, the team
members decide if only one team member will teach the lesson, or if it will be co-taught by the
content area teacher and the ELD teacher. Co-teaching the lesson allows the ELD to
demonstrate how EL strategies are embedded in the lesson. The other group members observe
the lesson, and collect data based on previously agreed upon elements of the lesson the team has
decided to focus on. After the lesson has been presented, the team meets to debrief. The data
collected is analyzed and implications for student learning are discussed. The team makes any
adjustments needed to the lesson and considers next steps for their collaborative work. It is
suggested that teachers take turns performing the different roles required to execute a lesson and
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 88

that all group members feel there is equal participation. It is the goal that a lesson study offers an
opportunity to build teacher capacity by providing an environment in which teachers are
motivated to share their resources and knowledge to improve student learning.
The use of technology can offer another alternative for teachers to collaborate at RHS. A
video club is a research-based structure that engages participants in collaborative reflection,
inquiry and promotes a critical stance (Sherin & Han, 2004). In a video club, a lesson is
recorded and a short excerpt of the video is shared and discussed with other participants. The
excerpts selected show an area of focus that has been determined by the team. Videos selected
did not necessarily show exemplary teaching, but instead were intended to afford teachers the
opportunity to question, reflect and learn about teaching. The video club format does not seem
to require a large amount of time to meet. One example in the study stated that the clip viewed
lasted approximately six minutes and the discussion took forty minutes after school. This
particular group met once a month for a total of ten sessions throughout the school year. The
initial sessions predominately focused on teacher behavior and pedagogy, but as the meetings
continued there was a shift to analyzing student learning. One benefit of video clubs is that it
allows repeated viewings of a lesson segment in a relative short amount of time, without the
pressure of trying to remember all the details had the lesson been observed in the classroom
setting. However, videotaping lesson requires a great deal of trust among the participants and
being open to constructive feedback.
The formation of PLCs at RHS requires that all stakeholders involved share a common
purpose or goal. Lee (2009) explains that setting the foundation of an effective PLC includes
orientation and trust building as two key factors necessary for any future work to take place. An
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 89

initial orientation informs participants of the purpose of the team. It seeks to answer the
questions, “Why was this team formed, and why am I here?” Understanding the group purpose
will keep individuals focused on the task. Another important element is developing trust. Trust
in the ability of others is built over time and through positive interactions while working together
(San Martin-Rodríguez, Beautlieu, Amour, & Ferrada-Videla, 2005). Teachers at RHS will be
more willing to share their knowledge, practices and responsibilities with people they trust.
Moreover, teachers will trust those they consider to be competent. In the initial stages, decisions
need to be made regarding scheduling meeting times. Some possible alternatives are before or
after school, during common planning periods, or lunchtime. In addition, administrators can
support more in depth PLC work on staff development days or by hiring substitute teachers to
offer release time during the school day. Some communication can even take place online.
High functioning teams at RHS would require commitment, collaboration, cooperation,
accountability to the desired outcomes and a safe and trusting environment. Group facilitators or
leaders need to pay careful attention to the development of each of these elements to support
team development. In addition, it is important to recognize that some level of conflict will arise
due differences in beliefs, attitudes, perspectives and values individuals bring to the group
setting. Participants should be engaged early on in learning more about each other’s history,
needs, priorities, and teaching styles. This will provide insight about the strengths that members
bring to the team and will help avoid misunderstandings later on. Also, this helps individuals
understand how they can contribute to the group. If group members are not clear of their
functions, they can become withdrawn or bring negative attitudes to the group.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 90

Increasing Cultural Proficiency
Promoting equity and access in education is one of the main responsibilities of educators
serving diverse student populations. Changes in demographics have impacted RHS. The school
staff attributed the low achievement of LTELs to factors such as low student motivation, learning
difficulties and lack of parental involvement rather than because of deficiencies in instruction.
Educators need to acquire new skills and examine how their values and beliefs impact teaching
and learning (Robins, Lindsey, Terrell, and Lindsay, 2007). The school community at RHS
would benefit from an adopting an asset-based perspective towards all students, and including a
culturally responsive curriculum to facilitate closing the achievement gap for LTELs. A
culturally responsive curriculum includes students’ cultural frames and experiences to make
learning more meaningful (Gay, 2000). It is also necessary for teachers to develop a
multicultural perspective about patterns of interaction and communication, values and
contributions of ethnic groups representative of LTELs. The research suggests that critical
reflection and funds of knowledge are instrumental in developing cultural proficiency and
improving instruction for diverse student populations.
Critical reflection. Critical reflection requires that educators make judgments about
their teaching and consider the social, moral and political implications of their decisions (Jay &
Johnson, 2000). Developing teachers’ critical reflection is a process that should result in change.
Teachers have very little practice engaging in critical reflection. Most teacher reflection happens
at a superficial level, with only partial understanding of what is happening and doesn’t result in
meaningful changes. Jay and Johnson (2000, p. 77) proposed three phases of reflection. The first
one is descriptive. Some typical questions asked are:
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 91

• What is happening?
• Is this working and for whom? How am I feeling?
• What do I not understand?
• Does this relate to any of my stated goals, and to what extent does it relate?
Next, the comparative phase involves considering different alternatives or points-of-view. As
mention previously, engaging in dialogue with colleagues provides multiple perspectives and
expands the frame of thought. Questions may include:
• What are alternative views of what is happening?
• If there is a goal, what are some other ways to accomplish it?
• From each perspective and alternative, who is served and who is not?
Critical reflection is a process that involves careful consideration of the problem and analyzes the
implications of different courses of action. It requires we ask some of the following questions:
• What are the implications of the matter when viewed from these alternative perspectives?
• What is the deeper meaning of what is happening in terms of the public democratic
purposes of schooling?
• How does this reflective process inform and renew my perspective?
• Given the various alternatives, their implications, and my own values and ethics, which is
the best for this particular matter?
As teachers engage in deeper, critical reflection, they consider the historical, political and
moral context of schooling. For example, the history on inequity in schools can impact the
decisions or courses of actions taken.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 92

Funds of knowledge. An asset-based perspective considers students funds of knowledge.
Teachers that build relationships with their students and get to know them are better equipped to
meet students’ learning needs. Teachers need to learn about students’ culture, language
backgrounds and histories. They need to consider the resources students bring from their homes,
their communities, peer groups, pop culture and other influential sources (Moll, Velez-Ibanez, &
Greenburg, 1989). It is important to know how students’ discourses can shape their literacy
learning at school. Accessing content area concepts requires an understanding of complex
academic language structures that many LTELs have not yet developed. This can be challenging
for students that do not share similar backgrounds with their teachers. Unfortunately, teachers
often do not capitalize on the funds of knowledge students bring to school because in many cases
the connections are not evident (Moje et al., 2004). Moje and colleagues conducted study in a
school in Detroit in which the students were mostly Latinos, from low-income working class
families. The qualitative study documented how teachers missed opportunities to incorporate
students’ funds of knowledge when teaching a unit on air and water quality. The curriculum
aligned mostly with middle-class European American perspectives. Although some students
from Mexico had a wealth of information about air and water quality, they did not share their
knowledge or make connections. But later during formal interviews, the researchers discovered
that that the students had first hand experiences with the unit theme. Some students had
information about the effects of water pollution on the Rio Grande and Mississippi River from
their experiences in traveling across different regions. Another student stated he wanted to
become an ecologist to improve the quality of the air because he had personally been affected by
poor air quality in Mexico City and Detroit. In all instances teachers failed to create a space that
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 93

allowed for all students to participate and contribute to the lesson. Students did not know how to
make connections on their own, however shared extensively their knowledge when prompted by
the researcher. Teachers need to create learning environments where there is a stance of inquiry
and students feel that diverse perspectives are valued.
Evaluation of the Gap Analysis Process
Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation are recommended to assess the impact of the
solutions on the performance gap (Kirkpatrick, 1998). The first level checks the reactions of the
participants. This can be done by anonymously asking questions about the value, utility and
motivational qualities of the program. The second level of assessment checks the impact of the
program implementation and if learning is taking place. The third level checks for transfer and
the effectiveness of the program after it is implemented. A major problem is that skills learned
are not applied on the job. It is important to monitor on a regular basis to verify implementation,
especially after the novelty has worn off. The fourth level checks the impact of the program on
the bottom line (Kirkpatrick, 2001; see Table 10).
Table 10
Four Levels of Evaluation
Level 1
Reactions
How do people feel about the solution?
Level 2
Impact
Did the solution result in changes in the learning (knowledge and
skill), motivation, and organizational gaps identified earlier?
Level 3
Transfer
Did the solution continue to be implemented and be effective
after the solution was first introduced?
Level 4
Bottom-Line Results
Did the solution contribute to meeting the overall global goal?
Adapted from Kirkpatrick, D. (2001). The four-level evaluation process. In L. L. Ukens (Ed.),
What smart trainers know: The secrets of success from the world’s foremost experts (pp.122-
132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 94

Teachers’ reactions should be monitored formally and informally throughout the
implementation of the different phases of the program. An anonymous survey can be used to
check teachers’ reactions to implementing the research-based strategies after the
recommendations are shared with the staff. Teacher buy-in is extremely important to move
forward and it is best to address any concerns early on. Informal feedback on reactions can be
gathered through conversations with teachers. Teacher reactions can also be assessed during
collaborative sessions, from feedback received after instructional walkthroughs and after
implementing recommended strategies in the classroom. Data should be used to make any
adjustments to the program along the way. However, level 1 only measures an individual’s
motivation to move forward and not if the recommended solutions will be successful (Clark &
Estes, 2001).
During level 2, teachers can be asked to fill out a questionnaire and describe research-
based strategies that were presented during training to evaluate if learning is taking place.
Teachers can also report how the new learning will impact the achievement of LTEL. Teachers
should be given the opportunity to practice the new skills with a partner. For example, partners
can examine a lesson text and make adjustments necessary to make the lesson culturally relevant
for their students. Opportunities to practice new skills and strategies should be available on an
ongoing basis during, as teachers and administrators engage in professional learning
communities and follow-up workshops.
Level 3, transfer can be checked using a weekly monitoring log and an observation tool. It
is important that the teachers use recommended strategies during instruction and as they engage
in collaborative learning. Evidence of transfer will also be observed during instructional
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 95

walkthroughs. Peer support between content area teachers and ELD teachers will be
instrumental to facilitate transfer of strategies into the classroom and impact the academic
achievement of LTELs.
Level 4, the impact of using research-based teaching should be evaluated by reviewing
student results on assessments. Data team meetings scheduled regularly throughout the school
year can provide ongoing feedback on the impact of the strategies on student learning. Results
from the CST, CASHEE and CELDT will ultimately determine if progress was made in the
performance of LTELs at RHS.
Cautions and Limitations
28
This project was based on a modified version of the gap analysis model developed by
Clark and Estes (2008). As with all problem-solving approaches, this investigation had several
limitations. First, if this study used a different framework, it may have yielded different results.
Other possible frameworks include community action research, positive deviance,
benchmarking, program theory evaluation, policy analysis, and data-driven decision making
(Malloy, 2011; see Table 11). Another limitation is that the study was conducted in a relatively
short period, from December 2011 through June 2012. During that time, the primary mode of
data collection included interviews and an examination of school documents and data reports.
The emphasis was placed on interviewing school personnel, such as administrators, counselors,
and teachers. These primary stakeholders will be responsible for implementing any solutions
recommended to support the academic growth of LTELs. Input was gathered predominantly

28
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; the authors
are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 96

from teachers serving ELs. Most of the interviewees were ELA and ELD teachers; limited
interviews were conducted with content-area teachers.
Table 11
Sample Inquiry Frameworks
INQUIRY
FRAMEWORK
REFERENCE DESCRIPTION
Gap Analysis Clark & Estes, 2002 An inquiry process that identifies the
causes of performance gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and
organizational processes. The model
provides strategies for implementing the
appropriate solutions.
Community Action
Research
Stringer, 1999 A framework for including community
members in a highly collaborative
process of gathering data, analyzing and
interpreting data, and planning,
implementing, and evaluating solutions.
Positive Deviance Pascale, Sternin, &
Sternin, 2010
As asset-based, problem-solving, and
community-driven inquiry approach that
enables a community to discover the
successful behaviors and strategies of
“positive deviants.”
Benchmarking Tucker, 1996 A team-based inquiry approach to
studying and transferring exemplary
practices, measures, and processes from
one organization to another.
Program Theory
Evaluation
Weiss, 1997; Wholey,
1994
An approach to identifying and
collecting data to examine the inputs or
resources of a program, program
activities, intended outputs of the
program, and intended outcomes.
Policy Analysis Bardach, 2005 An eight-step process for determining
and evaluating potential policy options.
Data-Driven Decision
Making
McEwan & McEwan,
2003
A framework for using research to make
key decisions about adopting new or
sustaining existing programs, policies,
and interventions.
Adapted from Malloy, C. L. (2011). Ten steps to effective practitioner-led inquiry. Edge, 6(4),
6-16.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 97

It is important to note that students were not interviewed or formally observed.
Information gathered on students consisted primarily of public knowledge data disaggregated by
grade level or subgroups reported for state accountability purposes. The inquiry team informally
observed parents and had informal conversations with several parents one evening during a
Hispanic Parent Meeting. Although the process was limited to one meeting, the information
received confirmed previous findings.
The patterns identified during the inquiry project reflect the perspective of individuals at
the school site. The inquiry team had considered interviewing the District’s Bilingual
Coordinator to gain a broader perspective of the issues. Unfortunately, during the time of the
investigation, the position became vacant. Regardless, since the participants overwhelmingly
agreed on the six prioritized causes that emerged during the investigation process, the next step
was to develop research-based solutions to assist the school team in closing the achievement gap
of LTELs.
Conclusion
The inquiry team validated six primary root causes for the underachievement of LTELs at
RHS. This chapter proposed specific research-based solutions for the areas of teacher
collaboration and cultural proficiency. Teacher collaboration requires strong administrative
support and structures that allow teachers to learn from each other on a regular basis.
Developing cultural proficiency requires that educators engage in reflective practice and find
ways to access students’ funds so they become a staple in teaching and learning. Implementing
the solutions will require the support of the various stakeholders and possibly developing stages
of implementation. However, it is important to keep in mind that the solutions for all six areas
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 98

need to be considered jointly, and are instrumental in improving the performance of LTELs at
RHS.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 99

References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and
recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.
Alvarez, R. M., & Butterfield, T. L. (2000). The resurgence of nativism in California?: The case
of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 167-179.
Avila, C. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at a suburban
high school: A focus on goal setting and systemic support (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Banks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W.D., Irvine, J.J., Nieto, S., Ward-
Schofield, J., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching
and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196-203.
Bilingual Education Act, Pub. L. No. 90-247, 81 Stat. 816 (1968).
Bosniak, L. S. (1996). Opposing Prop. 187: Undocumented immigrants and the national
imagination. Connecticut Law Review, 28(3), 555-619.
Bowman-Perrott, L. J., Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2010). Reading difficulties and grade retention:
What’s the connection for English language learners? Reading & Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 26(1), 91-107.
Boyson, B. A., & Short, D. J. (2003). Secondary school newcomer programs in the United States
(Report No. 12). University of California, Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 100

Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website:
http://www.cal.org/
Calderon, M., & Marsh, D. (1988). Applying research on effective bilingual instruction in a
multi-district inservice teacher training program. NABE Journal 12(2), 133-152.
Calderon, M., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-term ELs: Transforming schools to
meet core standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English learners.
Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2011a). Data Quest [Online database]. Sacramento, CA:
Author.
California Department of Education. (2011b, May). 2010-11 academic performance index
reports: Information guide. Retrieved from California Department of Education website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2011c). Improving teacher & principal quality.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from the CDE website: http://www.cde.ca
.gov/nclb/sr/tq/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2011d, August). 2011 adequate yearly progress report:
Information guide. Retrieved from California Department of Education website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 101

Callahan, R. M. (2005a). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
Castro-Olivo, S. M., Preciado, J. A., Sanford, A. K., & Perry, V. (2011). The academic and
social-emotional needs of secondary Latino English learners: Implications for screening,
identification, and instructional planning. Exceptionality, 10(3), 160-174.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Crow, T. (2008). The necessity of diversity. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 54-58.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education
(Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49).
Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and
Assessment Center.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Educational Policy Ananlysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools,
Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 102

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11.
DelliCarpini, M. (2008). Teacher collaboration for ESL/EFL academic success. The Internet
TESL Journal, 14(8), Retrieved from http://iteslj/Techniques/DelliCarpini-Teacher
Collaboration.html
Desimone, L. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Must-Reads from
Kappan, Summer Issue 1, 28-31. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V. P., & Ratleff, P. A. (2011). Did they get it? The
role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
54(6), 425-434.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
Ellern, L. (1999). Proposition 227: The difficulty of insuring English language learners’ rights.
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 33(1), 1-31.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. The Albert Shanker
Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/publications/bridging-the-gap/
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380, 88 Stat. 514 (1974).
Faltis, C. J., & Arias, B. (1993). Speakers of languages other than English in the
secondary school: Accomplishments and struggles. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(1),
6-29.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case
of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education 53(5), 393-405.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 103

Gandara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect
storm. Language Policy, 7, 201-216. doi:10.1007/s10993-008-9097-4
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Retrieved from www.cftl.org
Gandara, P., Moran, R., & Garcia, E. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the
United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27-46.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. (2009). The demographic imperative. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 8-13.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case
study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1).
Goddard, R., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-
507.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 104

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Towards a theory of teacher community.
Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.
Guerra, P., & Nelson, S. (2012). Cultural proficiency: Face-to-face interaction is best for
developing cultural literacy. Journal of Staff Development, 33(1), 59-60.
Gutierrez, K., Rhymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the
classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 445-471.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). University of California, Berkeley: University
of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/13w7m06g
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M.G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English
Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Howard, T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing Complexity: a typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 105

Jerald, C. D., & Ingersoll, R. (2002). All talk no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from the Education Trust website:
www.edtrust.org
Johnson, K. R. (1995). Public benefits and immigration: The intersection of immigration status,
ethnicity, gender, and class. UCLA Law Review, 42, 1509-1575.
Johnston, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000, March). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.
The achievement gap. Education Week, 19(27), 18-21.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-
13.
Khorsheed, K. (2007). 4 places to dig deep to find more time for teacher collaboration. Journal
of Staff Development, 25(2), 43-45.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Lee, G. (2009). From group to team. Journal of Staff Development, 30(5), 44-49.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership,
61(5), 18-22.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & Fisher, L. (2011). Lesson study: Beyond coaching. Educational
Leadership, 69(2), 64-68.
Little, J.W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up problems
of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-946
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 66-80.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 106

Malloy, C. L. (2011). Ten steps to effective practitioner-led inquiry. Edge, 6(4), 6-16.
Martin, P. (1995). Proposition 187 in California. International Migration Review, 29(1), 255-
263.
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The difficult road for long-term English learners. Educational
Leadership, 66(7).
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.
Moje, E. B., McIntosh Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L. Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T.
(2004). Working towards a third space in content literacy: An examination of everyday
funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
Montague, M., & Warger, C. (2001). Getting started with collaboration. In Risko, V., &
Bromley, K., (Eds.) Collaboration for diverse learners: viewpoints and practices (pp. 20-
31). Retrieved from http://books.google.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Nordmeyer, J. (2008). Delicate balance: Ell students struggle to balance language and content,
while educators need partnerships and specific professional learning. Journal of Staff
Development, 29(1), 34-40.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008). Educating English language
learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable Report). Washington, DC: Author.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational
Programs. (2011, February). The growing number of English learner students: 1998/99 –
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 107

2008/09. Retrieved from the NCELA website:
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP _0809.pdf
Nelson-Barber, S. (1999). A better education for every child: The dilemma for teachers of
culturally and linguistically diverse students. In N. Simms & A. Peralez (Eds.), Including
culturally and linguistically diverse students in standards-based reform: A report on
McREL’s diversity roundtable 1 (pp. 3-21). Retrieved from www.mcrel.org
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nuri-Robins, K., Lindsey, D., Terrell, R.D., & Lindsey, R.B. (2007). Cultural proficiency: Tools
for secondary administrators. Principal Leadership, 8, 16-22.
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2010, July). California: Rate of EL growth 1997/1998
– 2007/2008. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads
/20/California_G_0708.pdf
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Retrieved from Californians Together website: http://www.californianstogether.org/
Olsen, L. (2013, January). Programs, policies and practices for meeting the needs of long-term
English learners in an era of the Common Core Standards. Presentation at the Long-
Term English Learner Institute Conference, Riverside, CA.
Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., Delancey, D.
(2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English
learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, DC: American
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 108

Institutes for Research. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website:
http://www.air.org/files/227Report.pdf
Pawan, F., & Ortloff, J.H. (2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and
content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 463-471.
Payan, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the US K-
12 student population. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from
Educational Testing Service website: http://www.ets.org/Media
/Conferences_and_Events/pdf/ELLsymposium/ELL_factsheet.pdf
Perry, R., Lewis, C., & Akiba, M. (2002). Lesson study in the San Mateo-Foster City school
district. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality: A report and recommendations by the Education Trust.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from the Education Trust website:
www.edtrust.org
Proposition 187, Cal. Educ. Code § 48215 (1995). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com
/california/education/index.html
Proposition 227, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 300-340 (1998). Retrieved from http://law.onecle
.com/california/education/index.html
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Sumner, R., Cook, J. C., & Apfel, N. (2009,
September). Improving minority academic performance: How a values-affirmation
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 109

intervention works. Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
Teachers College website: http://www.tcrecord.org/
Risko, V., & Bromley, K. (Eds.). (2001). Collaboration for diverse learners: Viewpoints and
practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rowland High School. (2012). 2010-2011 school accountability report card. Retrieved from
Rowland High School website: http://rowlandhs.org/
Rowland Unified School District. (2008). Journey of an English learner. Retrieved from
http://www.rowlandschools.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=29810&type=d&pREC
_ID=24028
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S.
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from Urban Institute
website: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310022
San Martin-Rodriguez, L., Beaulieu, M., D’Amour, D., & Ferrada-Videla, M. (2005). The
determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies.
Journal of Interprofessional Care, Supplement, 1, 132-147.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from http://beteronderwijsnederland.net
Santosuosso, J. A. (1999). When in California . . . In defense of the abolishment of bilingual
education. New England Law Review, 33(3), 837-879.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 110

Sawyer, L. B., & Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. (2007). Teacher collaboration in the context of the
responsive classroom approach. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 13(3),
211-245.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the
reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Secada, W. G. (1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 81-106.
Shah, J. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at suburban
high school: A focus on teaching strategies and teaching options (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California).
Sherin, M.G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and
Teacher Education 20,163-183.
Sherin, M.G., & van Es, E.A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers professional
vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 20-37.
Short, D. J., & Boyson, B. A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools
and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from Center for
Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 111

DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from Alliance for Excellent Education
website: www.all4ed.org
Stones, E. (1994). Reform in teacher education: The power and the pedagogy. Journal of Teacher
Education, 45, 310-318.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda.
Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 345-365.
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29, 51-67.
Torrez, N. M. (2001). Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227. The Urban
Review, 33(3), 207-220.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional
development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of new
teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-245.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Overview: Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education website: http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro /4pillars.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, December 9). English learners [Ustream video]. Retrieved
from http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19031471
Valeria v. Wilson, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
Waldinger, R. (1989). Immigration and urban change. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 211-232.
Wilson, S.M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-2009
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 112

Wright, W. E., & Li, X. (2008). High-stakes math tests: How No Child Left Behind leaves
newcomer English language learners behind. Language Policy, 7, 237-266.
doi:10.1007/s10993-008-9099-2
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., Forlenza-Bailey, D. (2000). An examination of the construct of
critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programs in the 21
st
century. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-47.
Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 113

Appendix A: Project Timeline
• Summer 2011 – Dr. Rueda made arrangements with Rigor High School (RHS) to be the
subject of the gap analysis
• November 29, 2011 – Initial meeting at RHS with the principal, Dr. Rueda, and Team
Rigor
§ Principal provided an overview of RHS and discussed his top concerns
• Fall 2011 – Team Rigor reviewed achievement data from the California Department of
Education website, RHS School Accountability Report Card, and other school reports
from the principal created through the school’s database
§ Preliminary data analysis showed that the significantly underperforming group at
RHS was the Latino EL population, more specifically LTELs
• January 30, 2012 – Team met at RHS with the principal and the Leadership Team
§ Presented the first problems that the principal brought up during the initial
meeting on November 29
§ Discussed inquiry team’s role
§ Discussed how to narrow down the scope of EL achievement
• Narrowed even further to LTELs
• February 7, 2012 – Principal emailed Team Rigor RHS’s Gap Analysis 2011-2012
• March 26, 2012 – Team Rigor had its Qualifying Exam at USC
§ Committee members recommended narrowing the scope of the dissertation
further
§ Committee members recommended that each team member choose an area of
expertise
• Spring 2012 – Team Rigor produced a list of teachers to interview
§ Teachers of EL students (SDAIE, ELD, English Chair, EL Coordinator, 2
Administrators, 2 Counselors)
• April 6, 2012 – Team Rigor met with the principal at RHS
§ Discussed how committee members recommended narrowing the scope further
• Agreed to focus on Latino LTELs
§ Principal gave a tour of the campus to Team Rigor
§ Interviewed the principal
§ Gave the principal a list of staff members the team needed to interview
• The principal contacted these teachers and established a schedule
• April 11-13, 2012 – Team Rigor interviewed 16 personnel at RHS
§ Team Rigor established six open-ended questions for the scanning interviews
• April 2012 – Data Analysis
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 114

§ Data from interview notes was organized into an Excel spreadsheet and color-
coded based on priority
§ Analysis revealed 6 high-priority themes
§ Based on data from the scanning interviews, staff members were selected for a
second round of interviews
§ The principal created a schedule of interviews
• May 24-25, 2012
§ Team Rigor met with 10 staff members (including the principal) for second
interviews to validate the six high-priority themes
• All staff members affirmed the themes
• June 10, 2012 – Team Rigor meet and decided on which theme each member would
focus on
§ Goal Alignment – Carlos Avila
§ Placement Options – Julie Shah
§ Collaboration – Merle Bugarín
§ Teaching Strategies – Julie Shah
§ Need to Increase Cultural Capital – Merle Bugarín
§ Lack of Systemic Support for LTELs – Carlos Avila
• Summer and Fall 2012 – Team members researched solutions

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 115

Appendix B: Exhaustive List of Possible Causes

K – Knowledge/Skill Barrier
M – Motivation Barrier
O – Organizational Barrier

• Lack of aligned goals (K-M-O)
• Low self-efficacy of teachers (M)
• Large class size with multiple levels within each class (differentiated instruction) (O)
• Low collaboration among students (opportunities to engage) (K-M)
• Students do not value learning English or content (one teacher said that her student asked
her, “Why do I even need to learn English?”) (K-M)
• Students lack of self-efficacy (M)
• Stereotyping of students (Asians vs. Latinos) by teachers, parents, students,
administration, district office (K)
• Parents’ expectations of the school and their students (K)
• Parents’ lack of access to resources (K-O)
• Parents’ lack of a support system (K-O)
• Lack of teacher buy-in to (and understanding of) District initiatives (K-M)
• Teachers do not have the tools to work effectively with the LTEL population (K)
• Lack of sustained, on-going professional development (O)
• Teachers and administration blaming parents and home (K-M)
• Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
• Lack of academic language (K)
• Investigate why L1 and L2 students are not speaking (i.e., lack of opportunities; lack of
linguistic patterns, sentence frames, frontloading vocabulary; cooperative structures
between high and low) (K-M)
• Contradiction from teachers—some say that administration does not allow enough
opportunities/time for collaboration but others say administration does allow enough time
(O)
• Teachers do not know the levels of their EL students (K-O)
• Teachers do not know how long a student has been at a particular EL level (K-M-O)
• EL coach more theoretical than practical (teachers want practical) (K)
• Some teachers believe that Asian students learn faster and do not need as much support
(K-M?)
• Staff claims that Asian parents are “too pushy” (K)
• Staff claims Latino families are not as academically focused (K)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 116

• Some teachers are patient with students while others become frustrated (teachers feel that
content teachers have to teach content and English while English teachers only have to
teach English) (motivation gap, also knowledge gap of what English teacher do) (K-M)
• Discipline issues among LTELs (K-M)
• ELD teachers feel ELD is ignored (O)
• Perhaps LTEL and Latino EL students feel like second-class citizens (M-O)
• ELD meets in isolation from other groups (O)
• Teachers feel a lack of group cohesion between ELD and content teachers (M-O)
• Tension between Asian and Latino students (K-M)
• Perception that parents are uneducated, too busy, and do not have tangible knowledge to
help their kids (K)
• Some Asian children are “parachute kids” (O)
• LTEL children have opportunities to speak in English at school but not at home (K)
• Ratio of class time to class size is too low (O)
• Level 5 students are still in SDAIE (O)
• Students resort to the survival technique of copying without learning content (M)
• Students form “cliques” and do not want to interact with students of different EL levels
(M)
• LTELs have experienced inconsistent programming—attended different schools,
different programs, so they remain stagnant in their learning and language development
(O)
• Systematically, nothing is in place at RHS for LTELs (K-O)
• Counselors place students in classes based on prior schooling and year born (K-O)

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 117

Appendix C: Prioritized Causes Organized by Stakeholder

Students Parents Teachers Counselors Admin
District
Office
Assumed
Causes –
Knowledge
Study Skills Resources Goals Goals Goals

Prior
Knowledge
Parents’ lack
of a support
system
Strategies

Importance of
CELDT
Speak English
at school,
Spanish at
home
Lack of
Effective
Tools

How long a
student at a
particular EL
level

How long a
student at a
particular EL
level

Patience

Buy-in to DO
initiatives

Assumed
Causes –
Motivation
Speak
English at
school,
Spanish at
home
Self-Efficacy

Identity as an
EL versus
English
Proficient
Patience

Behavioral
issues
Collaboration

Latino
LTEL/ELs
second-class
citizens

Buy-in to DO
initiatives

Student
copying

Student
cliques

Students do
not want to
leave SDAIE

Students do
not value
learning
English

Students lack
self-efficacy

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 118

Students Parents Teachers Counselors Admin
District
Office
Assumed
Causes –
Organization
Behavioral
issues

Large class
size
Scheduling Scheduling Scheduling

Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception

Parents’ lack
of a support
system

Collaboration

Student
cliques

Student
cliques

Inconsistent
student
programming
for LTELs
Inconsistent
student
programming
for LTELs

Students do
not want to
leave SDAIE

Lack of
systemic
LTEL support
Lack of
systemic
LTEL support

CELDT
Administra-
tion

Note: Originally, the causes were color-coded to denote priority. Since this dissertation is
printed in black and white, the coding has been converted to different font types. Green denoted
top priority causes, which has been changed to italicized and underlined text. Blue denoted
causes that were embedded within other, previously noted causes; this was changed to italicized
text. Yellow denoted causes that needed further investigation but were outside the scope of this
dissertation; this was changed to underlined text. Red denoted causes that were categorized as
low priority, which was left as unformatted, plain text.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 119

Appendix D: Possible Causes Organized by Theme

-Goals (Teachers, Counselors, Admin, DO) (K-M-O)
-Placement Options
-Content areas mix EL levels 1-5 (K-O)
-Separate classes for LTELs and L1/L2 (away from RFEP and EO) in SDAIE & ELD (O)
-Large class size (O)
-Ratio of class time to class size is too low (O)
-Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
-Level 5 students are still in SDAIE (O)
-Counselor places students based on schooling and year born (newcomers) (K-O)
-Strategies (Teachers)
-Lack of known strategies (i.e., sentence frames, discourse, grouping) (K)
-Teachers are using slowing down the pace (K)
-Differentiating instruction for large classes with L1-L5 (K)
-Lack of academic language (K)
-Investigate why L1 and L2 students are not speaking (i.e., lack of opportunities; lack of
linguistic patterns, sentence frames, frontloading vocabulary; cooperative structures
between high and low) (K-M)
-EL coach more theoretical than practical (teachers want practical) (K)
-Collaboration
-Lack of desire to meet with and collaborate with other SDAIE or EL teachers (M)
-Lack of vertical and horizontal articulation (EL-->SDAIE-->AP) (Teachers need to set
EL students up for success so that, at some point, EL students have access to the AP
courses) (M-O)
-ELD teachers feel ELD is ignored (ELD meets in isolation from other groups) (O)
-Teachers feel a lack of group cohesion between ELD and content teachers (M-O)
-Cultural deficit perceptions (increase cultural capital)
-Quick to blame students and parents for lack of students’ progress (K-M)
-One administrator said that LTELs are cognitively deficient (K)
-Latino students are not motivated enough (external attribution) (Latino vs. Asian
stereotypes) (K)
-Asian parents “too pushy” and Latino parents not “pushy” enough (K)
-Latino parents lack skills, language, and time to help their children (K)
-Some teachers believe that Asians learn faster and do not need as much support (K-M?)
-Parents lack a support system (K-O)
-Few teachers said LTELs are comfortable in SDAIE and do not want to move up (M)
-Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
-LTEL children have opportunities to speak in English at school but not at home (K-M?)
-Student lack of self-efficacy (Teachers said this about students—Cultural deficit?) (K-
M)
-Systemic Support for LTELs
-Lack of systemic LTEL support (K-O)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 120

Appendix E: Second-Round Interview Questions

Goals: (Teachers, Counselors, Admin, DO) – Sufficient data collected during scanning
interviews; no further investigation necessary.

Scheduling:
1. Ask admin why have they chosen to schedule classes with L1 through L5 in content
courses? Have they considered other models (i.e., mainstreaming)?
2. Ask admin why SDAIE classes are so large?
3. Ask admin what is the priority in master scheduling? Who/what gets placed first, second,
third, . . . ?
4. Ask counselors what is the priority in master scheduling? Who/what gets placed first,
second, third, . . . ?
5. Ask counselors how they place L3 students?
6. Ask content teachers, since L1 through L5 are in the same class, what do you do to
differentiate?
7. Ask teachers about what a typical class period looks like (how much time for each
activity)?
8. Ask teachers about the pacing guide (do they feel pressured to cover the content in the
allotted time for benchmarks and CSTs)?
9. Ask all what can be done to improve scheduling (i.e., minutes, placement, instructional
days)?
Strategies:
1. Ask teachers what are the main instructional strategies that you use in the classroom to
address the needs of your LTELs? (SDAIE . . . please be more specific).
2. Ask teachers how do you check for understanding?
3. Ask teachers how do you create opportunities for your students to talk (i.e., use
academic language)?
4. Ask teachers do you know who your LTELs are? How do you differentiate for them?
5. Ask teachers what supports would you like to receive (from EL coach, admin,
counselors, each other)?
6. Ask admin what strategies are emphasized during professional developments?
7. Ask admin what strategies do you look for (do you see and do you hope to see) when
you walk into an EL/SDAIE classroom?
Collaboration:
1. Ask teachers how often do you collaborate and with whom do you collaborate?
2. Ask teachers what does collaboration look like? What should it look like?
3. Ask teachers if they want to collaborate.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 121

4. Ask admin what opportunities are teachers given for collaboration?
5. Ask admin what does collaboration at RHS look like and what should it look like?
6. Ask counselors if they do collaborate, would they like to collaborate, and with whom?
7. Ask counselors how much communication do you have with teachers? With admin?

Increase cultural capital:
1. Ask all what do you think are the views that your colleagues have of LTELs?
a. Why are LTELs not academically successfully?
b. What should be done to improve the academic achievement of LTELs?
2. Ask all what do you do to learn about your students? (i.e., their culture, their home life,
prior schooling)?
a. Is it important to you? Why?
b. Ask teachers how does it inform and guide your curriculum and instruction?
3. Ask all what assets do LTELs bring?
Systemic Support for LTELs:
1. Ask all does the school do anything systemically to support LTELs?
2. Ask all are there any schoolwide goals to address the needs of LTELs?
a. What should the goals be?
These are the six themes that emerged from the data collection and the literature review: goal
alignment, scheduling, collaboration, teaching strategies, need to increase cultural capital, lack of
systemic support for LTELs. Do you agree that these are the main themes that contribute to the
gap of LTEL academic achievement? Is there anything that you would add or remove from the
list? How would you prioritize the list?

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 122

Appendix F: Presentation to the Principal of Prioritized Causes and Other Findings

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 123

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 124

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 125

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 126

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 127

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 128

Appendix G: Rigor High School (RHS) Bell Schedule
Monday Late Start Schedule
Start Time End Time Length
Period 1 8:45 a.m. 9:27 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 2 9:33 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 3 10:21 a.m. 11:05 a.m. 44 minutes
Period 4 11:11 a.m. 11:53 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 5 11:59 a.m. 12:41 p.m. 42 minutes
Lunch 12:41 p.m. 1:21 p.m. 40 minutes
Period 6 1:27 p.m. 2:09 p.m. 42 minutes
Period 7 2:15 p.m. 2:57 p.m. 42 minutes

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday Schedule
Start Time End Time Length
Period 1 7:10 a.m. 8:05 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 2 8:11 a.m. 9:06 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 3 9:12 a.m. 10:12 a.m. 60 minutes
Nutrition 10:12 a.m. 10:22 a.m. 10 minutes
Period 4 10:28 a.m. 11:23 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 5 11:29 a.m. 12:24 p.m. 55 minutes
Lunch 12:24 p.m. 1:01 p.m. 37 minutes
Period 6 1:07 p.m. 2:02 p.m. 55 minutes
Period 7 2:08 p.m. 3:03 p.m. 55 minutes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract LTELs are students that have been classified as English learners for six or more years and have failed to make progress towards English proficiency. This project addressed the achievement gap of Long Term English Learners (LTEL) at a high-performing high school in Southern California using a modified version of Clark & Estes’ gap analysis model

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Bugarin, Merle Ann (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/10/2013

Defense Date 02/05/2013

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

Tag critical reflection,cultural proficiency,gap analysis,long term English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities,teacher collaboration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Robles, Darline P. (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email mbugarin@usc.edu,merle0404@sbcglobal.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-234687

Unique identifier UC11293632

Identifier etd-BugarinMer-1533.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-234687 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BugarinMer-1533-2.pdf

Dmrecord 234687

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bugarin, Merle Ann

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