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

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 1

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

by

Michael A. T. Kurland

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 Michael A. T. Kurland

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 2
Dedication
To my family: everything I am, everything I value, and everything I work toward in my
life is because of you and the unconditional love and support you have shown me. The sacrifices
you have all made in order to provide me with greater opportunities in life were never taken for
granted nor were they made in vain. It is because I stand on the shoulders of giants am I able to
reach such amazing heights. I am very proud to be the first “Dr.” in the family.
To the many mentors that have come into my life: thank you for challenging the ways I
view the world, while simultaneously helping me develop the tools I need to harness my
potential, which has led to the achievement of so many great successes in my life.
To my friends: thank you for enduring the journey of the dissertation process with me.
Your friendship kept me humble, sane, and grounded. I am forever grateful for the support you
gave me these last three years and throughout my entire life.
Lastly, to my students (past, present, and future): never let what people think of you
predetermine the course of your life. You are your biggest supporter. Dream big, work smart,
and realize that it is not always about the product – the process you went through can be just as
important as the end result you reach.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and inquiry teammates Evelyn Jimenez and
Brent Morris. Their individual expertise, deep insight, and commitment to our work as a
cohesive unit were invaluable in this capstone inquiry process. This dissertation would not be
what it is today had it not been for their partnership and dedication to our collective project. I
would like to acknowledge my amazing editor Aime Black for all the help, advice, and editing
she provided on my behalf. Members of the Class of 2013 Rueda Thematic Dissertation Group
are also acknowledged for their advice, counsel, and support. Lastly, I extend my most sincere
appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee: the thematic group chair, Dr. Robert
Rueda, and to Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Kenneth Yates for providing us with the insight,
academic knowledge, support, and encouragement to pursue and complete this novel dissertation
inquiry project.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 4
Table of Contents
Dedications 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 10
Problems Facing Latino ELLs at the National Level 11
Problems Facing Latino ELLs in the State of California 12
ELLs and Education Reform 13
National Level 13
State of California 14
Importance of the Problem Nationally 16
Importance of the Problem (State and Local) 17
School Site - THS 17
Summary of the Problem 18
Purpose of Analysis 19
Chapter 2: Review of Literature on ELL Students 20
English Language Learner Population 20
Long -Term English Learners 21
Heterogeneity of Population 22
Socioeconomic Status 23
Academic Achievement 23
Theoretical Models on Differences in Academic Achievement 25
Reclassification to Fluent English Proficient 28
Access to Four-Year Colleges 30
Legal Considerations 35
Summary of What We Know 39
Chapter 3: Information Gathering Steps 41
An Overview of the Community 41
An Overview of the District 42
An Overview of the School 42
Student Performance 43
Reclassification to Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) 44
Problem Areas 45
Overview of Gap Analysis 48
Methodology 50
Interviews 51
Scanning Interviews 52
In-depth Interviews 53
Student Surveys 54
Parent Surveys 55
Parent Focus Group 56
Achievement Records 57
Root Causes Group Presentation 58
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 5
Solutions Presentation 59
Solutions 59
Chapter 4: Findings and Patterns 60
Findings 63
Strengths 63
Areas of Growth 64
Interviews 65
Student Survey 65
Parent Survey 67
Parent Focus Group 68
Achievement Records 69
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 70
Identification of Root Causes 72
Chapter 5: Literature Review on Possible Solutions 77
Lack of Access to Valued Information (College Affordability) 78
Cultural capital 78
Social Capital 81
College Preparation Programs For Low-Income Students 86
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) 86
Upward Bound 88
The Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) 88
Mismatched Expectations to Actual Student Achievement 90
Expectancy-Value Theory 91
Self-Efficacy Theory 94
Program Models for Development of Student Motivation 97
Application of Expectancy-Outcomes Theory for
Academic Motivation 97
MUSIC Model for Academic Motivation 98
Summary 102
Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions 103
Recommendations 103
Social and Cultural Capital 104
Possible Capital Interventions 106
Accurate Expectancy Outcomes and Self-Efficacy 110
Evaluation 114
Limitations 117
Conclusion 118
References 119
Appendices:
Appendix A: Gap Analysis Activity Log 138
Appendix B: Scanning Questions 139
Appendix C: In-depth Teacher Interview Questions 143
Appendix D: Student Survey For Trojan High School 144
Appendix E: Parent Survey (English and Spanish) 147
Appendix F: Root Causes Group Presentation 149
Appendix G: Student Survey Results 152
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 6
Appendix H: Parent Survey Results 154
Appendix I: Latino ELL Students’ Grade Distribution 155
Appendix J: Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives 156
Appendix K: Project Culminating Presentation to THS Principal 159
Appendix L: AVID Program Cost Handout 163
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organizational 62
Table 2: Strengths of THS 64
Table 3: Validated Root Causes for ELL College Readiness Gap 73
Table 4: Validated Root Causes Solutions for ELL College Readiness Gap 114

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: ELL Students’ Gaps in Achievement on the API, CAHSEE,
CST (ELA), GPA, and A-G Requirements 47
Figure 2: Stakeholder Goals for Trojan High School 51

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 9
Abstract
This capstone dissertation inquiry project focused on the underperformance of English language
learners (ELLs) at a high school. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was the
analytical framework used to conduct this inquiry. At the request of the school, the inquiry focus
was on gaining a better understanding of the underachievement of ELL students as measured by
standardized tests and grades, reclassified to fluent English proficient rates, and student
eligibility to a four-year university, which ultimately became the focus. This study identified root
causes and suggested research-based solutions, specifically developed to increase the number of
Trojan High School (THS) Latino ELLs who would be eligible for acceptance to a four-year
college. The research team acted as consultants to THS leadership, reviewed relevant research,
conducted interviews, reviewed achievement data, assisted school officials in administering
surveys, and hosted a parent focus group. The gap analysis process focused on the identification
of root causes and possible solutions around three dimensions of performance gaps: knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers. Each team member identified and studied two root
causes and offered research-based recommendations (Jimenez, 2013; Morris, 2013). The root
causes addressed in this study comprised of perceived affordability of four-year universities and
the matching of grade expectations and motivation to grades earned. Research-based
recommendations are discussed and because they are only relevant to the unique context of THS,
caution should be exercised in applying the findings from this project to other school sites.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 10
Chapter 1: Introduction
Authors: Michael Kurland, Evelyn Jimenez, Brent Morris
1

This capstone project was a gap analysis of college readiness for Latino English language
learners (ELLs) at Trojan High School
2
(THS). The intent was to examine possible causes for the
low levels of college readiness and to recommend solutions in order to enhance this particular
student outcome. A team of doctoral students from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California – Michael Kurland, Evelyn Jimenez, and Brent Morris –
worked in conjunction with the school district and the school principal at THS to conduct a gap
analysis of performance goals that were important to the school, but were not being met.
Initially, the school instructed the team to focus on overall Latino ELL achievement; however, as
the project progressed, the school redirected the team’s efforts to their interest in college
readiness for Latino ELLs.
Background of the Problem
College admissions standards require certain grade point averages (GPAs) and scores on
standardized tests. Accordingly, student achievement is an integral part of college readiness. To
that point, an understanding of Latino ELL achievement is essential. The following discussion
provides a description of the issues related to college readiness for the Latino ELL student
population. First, the background to the problem is detailed, which is followed by a discussion of
the significance of addressing the problem. The concluding section provides information related

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. Though this chapter was predominantly written and modified by Michael Kurland,
contributions were also made by Evelyn Jimenez and Brent Morris; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
2
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 11
to the purpose of this analysis as it relates to the author’s attempt to ameliorate the problems
Latino ELL students face as they think of and prepare for college.
Problems Facing Latino ELLs at the National Level
Immigrants have migrated to many areas of the United States in search of a better life and
economic opportunity. These immigrants have sought to realize the American dream by working
hard to establish economic stability for themselves and their families. Immigrants bring with
them their cultures, values, and languages. Data from the Pew Hispanic Center (2006) indicated
that of the last 100 million inhabitants the United States has gained, over half are immigrants or
children of immigrants. Accordingly, as the nation’s population becomes increasingly diverse so
does the student population in public schools.
The growth in racial and ethnic diversity in public schools has increased the number of
ELLs enrolled in public schools. Today, the number of school-aged children (children ages 5-17)
who speak a language other than English in their homes has increased to 11.2 million (Aud et al.,
2010). The most commonly used terms to describe these children’s language abilities are limited-
English proficient (LEP), English learner (EL), or English language learner (ELL). For the
purposes of this project, the term English language learner (ELL) and its plural form English
language learners (ELLs) will be used. From the 1997-1998 school year to the 2008-2009 school
year, the number of ELLs enrolled in public schools increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2011). Projections has
suggested that by 2020, the population of school-aged children will grow by 4.8 million, and
Hispanic children, many of whom are ELLs, will account for 98% of the increase (Fry, 2006).
According to the latest Census report, Latinos have outpaced the rest of the nation’s
growth by roughly four times, increasing to 50.5 million as of 2010, or 16.3% of the estimated
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 12
U.S. overall population of 308.7 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). A disproportionate
percentage of Latino students come from low-income households. The poverty rate among
Latinos in 2010 was 6.1 million. Of the 6.1 million Latino children living in poverty, more than
two-thirds, or 4.1 million are children of immigrants. The other two million are children of
parents born in the U.S. (PEW Hispanic Center, 2011). These numbers are significant because
poor children are at a greater risk to perform poorly in school (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).
The future of Latinos depends on whether today’s Latino youth in public schools can raise their
educational attainment and English ability.
Problems Facing Latino ELLs in the State of California
The increase in the number of ELLs at the national level is reflected in the population
changes in the state of California. Today, California has 1.6 million ELLs in kindergarten
through grade 12, which is approximately 25% of the total student population. Of the total ELLs
in California, 85% are Spanish-speaking Latinos (California Legislative Analyst’s Office
[CLAO], 2008). The number of Latino ELLs in California public schools is projected to increase
as new immigrants arrive and the U.S.- born children of immigrants begin school.
A greater part of Latino ELL students struggle academically and lag behind their peers
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2010b). They demonstrate higher dropout rates and
significant achievement gaps on state and national assessments (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-
Orozco, 2009; Gandara, 2010). Nationwide, Latinos represent more than 20% of the total K-12
student population in the public schooling system (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). In California,
almost half of the student population is Latino (Passel, Cohn, & Lopez, 2011). Disparities in
academic achievement between California’s Latino population and their Caucasian and Asian
counterparts are evidenced in the three following statistics. First, in the 2009-2010 school year,
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 13
tenth grade Latino students had a 73% passing rate on the English-Language Arts test of the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as compared to a 91% passing rate for the
Caucasian and Asian tenth graders (CDE, 2010a). Second, for the CAHSEE’s mathematics test
in the same school year, tenth grade Latino students had a 74% passing rate compared to a 91%
passing rate for Caucasian students and a 95% passing rate for Asian students in the same grade
(CDE, 2010a). Third, during the 2008-2009 school year, the dropout rate for California Latino
high school students in grades nine through twelve was 7%, compared to 2.5% and 3.7% for
Asian and Caucasian high school students, respectively (CDE, 2010b).
ELLs and Education Reform
The learning needs of ELLs pose challenges to schools. ELLs have low graduation rates,
high dropout rates, and low percentages of students meeting federal or state proficiency targets
(Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2002; Gandara, 2010; McCardle, Mele-Carthy, Cutting, Leos, &
D’Emilio, 2005). Yet, ELLs make up 25% of California’s students (Payan & Nettles, 2008).
Students identified as ELLs need specialized instruction to adequately learn in schools. In some
cases, schools responded to the learning needs of ELL students with remedial, low-level classes,
and placement with teachers who are not highly qualified (Rumberger, Gandara, & Merino,
2006). Without a doubt, schools face challenges in closing the achievement gap between native
English speakers and ELL students.
National level. Since the 1960s, federal and state legislations have attempted to reform
the educational system to meet the needs of all students. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was passed, which provided federal funding for schools in low
socioeconomic communities across the country. In 1967, ESEA underwent reauthorization, and
in 1968, Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, was introduced (Osorio-O’Dea, 2001). The
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 14
Bilingual Education Act provided federal funding for school districts to develop educational
programs for students with limited English proficiency.
Most recently, in 2001, Title VII of the ESEA was replaced with the English Language
Acquisition Act, or Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The implementation of
NCLB has placed a demand on states, school districts, schools, and stakeholders including
administrators and teachers to educate all students to proficient levels. NCLB provisions for
assessment and accountability are designed to focus on increased levels of achievement by
requiring states to develop assessments in varying content areas and to administer them to
students in particular grades and subgroups of students including: students with disabilities,
students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with limited English proficiency
(No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act, 2002). Each subgroup must show growth on the annual
standardized assessment. Schools must meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is
derived by dividing the number of students at each school who scored proficient or above on the
annual standardized assessments selected by the state in the areas of English language arts and
math by the total number of qualified students at the same school.
State of California. In California, if a school or district misses the set AYP goals for two
consecutive years, they are classified as a “Program Improvement” (PI) school. Once identified
as PI, the school or district faces sanctions ranging from the removal of the staff to the lost of
control over the school or district to the state if they continue to miss their target. Title III
expects that students in language support programs meet the same academic standards as their
English-speaking peers. NCLB standards with respect to ELLs requires that students with limited
English proficiency meet the same challenging state academic content and student achievement
standards as all students are expected to meet (NCLB, 2002).
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 15
In California, voters have had a direct impact on English language education policy. In
1994, Proposition 187 was introduced to deny undocumented immigrants health care, social
services, and public education. California voters approved Proposition 187; however, the U.S.
district court overruled it declaring the law unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Proposition 187 paved
the way for Proposition 227. In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, known as the
“English for the Children in Public Schools,” which required schools to provide instruction in
English rather than the primary or home language (Stritikus, 2003; Parrish et al., 2006).
Proposition 227 required that ELLs be taught in English through a structured/sheltered English
immersion format during a transition period of one year, after which they would be transferred to
mainstream English classrooms. Structured/sheltered English immersion programs use English
adapted to the students’ level of comprehension to provide content area instruction (Parrish et al.,
2006). The premise behind the instructional change was that students would acquire English
more quickly and consequently, gain access to educational opportunities.
Today, due to Proposition 227, California educators must deliver educational programs to
ELL students with minimal support in the student’s primary language, unless a parental
exception waiver is granted. Proposition 227 made provisions for parents to request a waiver to
allow their children to continue to receive bilingual instruction; however, it did so under specific
conditions. The specific conditions included: (1) the child knows English as measured by
standardized tests; (2) the child be over ten years of age; and (3) the school staff agrees that
another approach is in the best interest of the student, or that the child has special needs that
warrant an alternate program (Parrish et al., 2006). These limited conditions have made it
difficult for parents to obtain waivers for their children. The reality is that the majority of ELLs
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 16
in California are struggling academically, failing to progress in English proficiency, and facing
high dropout rates.
State and Federal mandates such as Proposition 227 and NCLB, significantly affect ELLs
and their pathways to academic achievement. In California, the requirements of the mandates
mean that ELLs are receiving instruction related to standards and that the instruction is provided
in English. Despite these state and federal mandates, more than 60% of ELLs are stuck at the
intermediate level of language acquisition and continues to struggle academically (Clark, 2009).
Despite years of implementing policies to create educational reform that focuses on the needs of
ELLs, data continue to show that a significant achievement gap exists between native English
speakers and ELLs. Meeting the needs of the growing numbers of linguistically diverse students
is a challenge for K-12 educators across the nation and California, in particular.
Importance of the Problem Nationally
The lack of English language proficiency is a barrier that prevents Latinos from
competing in the job market and earning competitive salaries. McManus, Gould, and Welch
(1983) report that employees with an English language deficiency, 12 years of school
experience, and 20 years of work experience will make an average of 35 percent less than
employees who are English proficient. Compounded by the current high unemployment rate and
competitiveness for jobs, those who lack English language proficiency are at a greater
disadvantage when it comes to employment.
President Obama underscored the importance of college attainment when he told the
National Urban League that eight out of 10 new jobs would be filled by those with higher
education degrees (Obama, 2010). Research suggests that education has a dramatic impact on
crime reduction (Lochner & Moretti, 2002). Lochner and Moretti (2002) studied crime rates,
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 17
costs, and high school dropout rates, concluding that a one-percent increase in the high-school
completion rate for men 20 to 60 years of age would save 1.4 billion dollars per year, nationally.
Aside from changing demographics, employment, and crime rates, there is an inherent
obligation to offer equal opportunities for access to higher education. The No Child Left Behind
Act was passed to motivate schools to ensure that all students meet standards.
Importance of the Problem (State and Local)
Latino access to four-year colleges is a serious issue on a state and local level. According
to census data, demographics are changing and that Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group
and the most underrepresented group in higher education. In California, Latinos account for 36.8
percent of the population, and only 5.7 percent of the University of California enrollment, 25
percent of California State University enrollment, and 29.6 percent of community college
enrollment (Zarate & Burciaga, 2010). The academic achievement of Latinos and ELL students
is important because they represent an increasingly larger percentage of the nation’s overall
population and school age population. It is important for educators to continue to work towards
closing the achievement gap for Latinos and ELLs. If the achievement gap continues to persist, a
likely consequence is that a majority of Latinos and ELL students will not be well prepared for
college level academic work, which can result in a significant percentage of California’s future
labor force unable to meet the demand for skilled workers.
School Site - THS
THS is classified as a suburban high school, which is high-achieving with a smaller ELL
population. So, although THS is considered dissimilar to other traditional ELL high schools for the
above characteristics, it has experienced the same issues with its ELL population as many other
schools: low achievement on standardized tests and lack of college readiness. The achievement gap
at THS exists between the achievement of ELLs and the overall student performance of the school. In
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 18
the 2010-2011 school year, the ELL population at THS earned an Academic Performance Index
(API) of 740, compared to the school’s overall API of 809. The ELL student group demonstrated a
decline in performance of 22 points from the previous year. To this end, it is critical that THS
examines the challenges that hinder student progress and implements interventions in order to
address and ultimately overcome obstacles to fruitful outcomes for their ELL population.
Summary of the Problem
The growth in racial and ethnic minority students in public schools has produced a
significant increase in the number of ELLs in public schools, both nationally and in California.
Latinos are the fastest growing student population and account for 85% of the ELLs in
California. There is a significant achievement gap between Latino students and their Caucasian
and Asian counterparts as evidenced by a 73% pass rate on the English language arts component
of the CAHSEE as compared to a 91% pass rate for both tenth grade Caucasian and Asian
students (CDE, 2010a). Despite educational reforms that have focused on ELLs, there remains a
significant achievement gap between native English speakers and ELLs, the majority of which
are Latinos.
The achievement gap for Latino ELLs is a serious problem that prevents them from
competing in the job market and earning competitive salaries. Despite being the fastest growing
student population, Latino students are the most underrepresented group in higher education.
THS’s mission is to provide every student with opportunities to succeed in their academic,
social, and personal endeavors while enhancing each student's ability to become productive
contributors to a global society. Within our democracy, there is an inherent obligation to provide
equal opportunities for access to the benefits of higher education. THS recognizes this obligation
by their motivation to participate in the gap analysis and by their vision to provide every student
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 19
with opportunities to succeed and become productive contributors of society, locally, nationally,
and globally.
Purpose of Analysis
The purpose of this gap analysis project is to identify possible causes that underlie
student achievement gaps related to college readiness at THS is located in a Southern California
school district, and recommend research-based solutions for those causes. For the purposes of
this inquiry project, the achievement gap is defined as the difference between the numbers of
Latino ELLs who meet college readiness requirements versus their Caucasian counterparts. As
described in later chapters, college readiness requirements include grade point average and state
standardized test scores. This inquiry project addresses this question: What are the root causes
that create the persistent achievement gap related to college readiness among Latino ELLs at
THS? In order to address this question, the gap analysis framework was used to identify the
reasons underlying the persistent levels of underperformance that impact THS’s college
readiness gap for Latino ELLs (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
The following chapter provides background on the Latino ELL population in general as
well as major educational issues for this population that are related to the issues evidenced at
THS. The literature review that follows examines theoretical models, which explain differences
in academic achievement between the ELL population and other students.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 20
Chapter 2: Review of Literature on ELL Students
Authors: Michael Kurland, Evelyn Jimenez, Brent Morris
3

This chapter will provide a review of the literature on English language learners (ELLs),
their characteristics, and issues that influence their achievement outcomes. These issues include
academic achievement on standardized tests, re-designation rates, and college access. Theoretical
models explaining achievement differences between the ELL population and other student
groups will also be explored. Additionally, this chapter will cover the major legislative
considerations regarding the Latino ELL population and provide a summary of what is currently
known about this population. This chapter concludes with an overview of how these issues are
manifested at the high school under analysis – Trojan High School
4
(THS).
English Language Learner Population
ELLs represent the fastest growing segment of the school age population. The number of
English learner students has grown consistently over the last twenty years. This growth
represents an increase in school enrollments in every part of the country, including states that
have rarely seen growth in the past. California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois account
for 60% of English language learners (Perkins-Gough, 2007). In recent years, other states have
begun to see a rapid growth in the number of their ELLs. Between 1995-2005, states such as
Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have experienced
a 300% growth in their ELL population (NCELA, 2011). Projections suggest that by 2030, ELLs

3
Reflecting the team approach to this project, the listed authors jointly wrote this chapter.
Though this chapter was predominantly written and modified by Michael Kurland, Evelyn
Jimenez and Brent Morris also made contributions; these authors are listed alphabetically to
reflect their equal contribution.
4
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 21
will comprise 40 percent of the elementary and secondary student population (Thomas & Collier,
2001).
Long -Term English Learners
There exists a growing population of ELL students who are not recent immigrants. This
group is referred to as long-term English learners (LTEL) because they have been in U.S.
schools for more than five years and they have made little to no progress toward achieving
proficiency in English (Freeman et al., 2002). LTELs fall into two main groups: (a) transitional
students who have moved back and forth between the United States and their family’s country of
origin and attending school in both countries, and (b) students who have received inconsistent
schooling in the United States because they have moved in and out of English language
development and mainstream programs (Freeman et al., 2002).
LTEL students make up more than half of the students identified as ELLs in California.
The number of students referred to as LTELs varies by grade level in California, with about 69%
elementary school level (grades 3-5) ELLs and about 31% secondary school level (grades 6-12)
ELL students (Olsen, 2010). ELLs who enroll in kindergarten have a 50% chance of becoming
LTEL (Perkins-Gough, 2007). This is because in many cases, ELLs do not receive any language
program development, encounter elementary school curriculum and materials not designed to
meet their needs, or they are enrolled in weak language development programs (Olsen, 2010).
The end result is that ELLs have difficulty in reading and writing and consequently, they struggle
in all content areas that require literacy skills as they move through the schooling process. By the
time LTELs arrive in secondary schools, they have significant gaps in their academic
achievement. In most cases, these students have weak academic language development and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 22
deficits in reading and writing skills. Due to the fact that failure begins early on in the academic
careers of ELLs, there is limited research focused on secondary ELL students.
Heterogeneity of Population
ELL students are classified as a single subgroup, but differing characteristics of students
within this group pose specific instructional concerns and challenges with regard to improving
student achievement. ELLs are often inappropriately placed for optimal academic growth or
schools do not adequately serve them because there is an assumption that ELLs are a
homogenous group (Freeman et al., 2002). There is a wide range of backgrounds among ELLs in
secondary schools (Freeman et al., 2002). ELLs come into the school with differences in cultural
and economic backgrounds as well as skills and past experiences. They vary in (a) languages
spoken, (b) countries of origin, (c) immigrant-generational status (Reardon & Galindo, 2009), (d)
level of English proficiency (Solano-Flores, 2008), and (e) dialect of native language spoken
(Solano-Flores & Li, 2006).
Although 85% of California’s ELL students are Spanish speaking, the homogeneity of
primary language masks variations in family background, make-up, economic and social
resources, proficiency in primary language, and academic readiness (Freeman et al., 2002).
Freeman and colleagues (2002) identified differing characteristics and classified ELLs in three
groups: (1) newly arrived with adequate schooling, (2) newly arrived with limited formal
schooling, and (3) LTEL. Some of these students may have attended school regularly and will
have the literacy skills and content knowledge in their native language. Other students may have
had no opportunity to attend school or consistent schooling, to prepare them for higher learning.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 23
Socioeconomic Status
ELLs are more likely to live in low socioeconomic status households (Lee, 2002). In
2007, 66% of ELLs had a family income below 200% of the federal poverty level, compared to
37% of non-ELL youths (Lee, 2002). Poverty has been linked to low student academic
achievement. A study conducted by Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) concluded that family
income can affect child and adolescent outcomes, but that the negative effects of poverty are
more pronounced for some depending on the depth and duration of a child’s exposure to poverty.
Low educational attainment of parents is also another characteristic of poverty. Half of the ELLs
at the elementary school level have parents with less than a high-school education, and one in
four have parents with less than a ninth grade education (Capps et al., 2005). As a result, ELLs
are more likely to be concentrated in schools that are under resourced, serve high proportions of
minority students, and are located in high poverty areas.
Academic Achievement
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has placed accountability at the head of the national
educational agenda. With the implementation of NCLB across the nation, every state is required
to assess students and disaggregate findings by subgroups of students including: students with
disabilities, students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with limited English
proficiency. NCLB requires that all students be proficient on grade-level standards as measured
by the state accountability summative tests by the year 2014 (NCLB, 2002). Although NCLB
calls for state education systems to educate all students and ensure all students succeed, there is a
significant gap in achievement across students in the varying subgroups.
An achievement gap is defined as the difference in academic achievement between
varying groups of students as measures by assessment scores such as those from state and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 24
national tests. Achievement gaps exist between (a) Caucasian students and ethnic minorities, (b)
native English speakers and English language learners, (c) socioeconomically advantaged and
disadvantaged students, and (d) disabled and non-disabled students (Anderson, Medrich, &
Fowler, 2007). Although the wide gulf in academic achievement among the different student
groups is often measured by statewide or national standardized tests, it is also demonstrated in
evaluative measures such as test scores, grades, and dropout rates. Test scores, grades, and
dropout rates show that Caucasian, English language proficient, middle to upper class, and non-
disabled students tend to outperform all other groups (National High School Center, 2009).
English language learners, of which most are Latino students, continuously fall below
academic achievement goals. Latinos, as a group, have underperformed on national standardized
tests. According to the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) also
known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” 50% of fourth grade Latinos scored “below basic” in
reading and 28% scored below basic in math (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES],
2011a). Students classified as ELLs lagged even further. By fourth grade, 70% of ELLs scored
below basic in reading and 42% scored below basic in math (NCES, 2011a,b). It was also
reported that the low performance of Latino and ELLs continued through their middle school
years. On the 2011 reading assessment, 37% of Latino eighth grade students scored “below
basic” and only 18% scored “at or above proficient,” whereas 41% of Caucasian and 46% of
Asian/Pacific Islander eighth grade students scored “at or above proficient” (NCES, 2011b).
Similarly, in math 40% of Latino eighth grade students scored below basic, whereas, 20% scored
“at or above proficient” compared with 43% Caucasian and 55% Asian/Pacific Islander eighth
graders (NCES, 2011a). Furthermore, ELLs in middle school performed worse. On the reading
assessment, 71% of eighth grade ELLs scored below basic and 72% scored below basic on math
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 25
(NCES, 2011a, 2011b). The NAEP data suggested that Latinos students and ELLs significantly
lag behind other groups of students.
Theoretical Models on Differences in Academic Achievement
According to Academic Models: Explaining Achievement (AMEA) (2007), there are
three theoretical perspectives that can help to explain the differences in academic achievement
for ethnic minorities: (1) cultural deficit theory, (2) cultural difference theory, and (3) cultural
ecological theory.
The first theoretical model, the cultural deficit model, explains poor performance of
ethnic minority students as the result of an impoverished and restricted home life as well as other
factors seen as inherent in individuals, families, and/or communities. The underlying notion
behind the deficit model is that students do not achieve because they lack a cognitively
stimulating environment (AMEA, 2007). Including the lack of parent support, the low value
placed on education, and a language poor environment. According to this perspective, ethnic
minority students and poor students enter school with a lack of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
Bourdieu (1986) defines cultural capital as the accumulation of specific forms of knowledge,
skills, and abilities that are valued by privileged groups in society. Subsequently, suggesting that
capital associated with the dominant group has the most status in society. As a result, ethnic
minorities in this model are seen inferior when compared to the majority group. Other variations
on the deficit approach focus on additional presumed deficits such as intelligence, motivation,
and related factors.
The second theoretical model, the cultural difference model, points to the differences in
values, expectations, languages, and communication patterns between teachers and students or
schools and families as a source of difficulty for ethnic minority students. The underlying
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 26
assumption of this theory is the social organization, learning formats and expectations,
communication patterns, and sociolinguistic environment of schools are incongruent with the
cultural patterns of the various ethnic groups, which limit the opportunities for student success
(AMEA, 2007). The poor academic performance is therefore, a result of the mismatch between
group values and school norms.
The third theoretical model, the cultural ecology model, attributes social, economic, and
political forces as factors that interact in complex and dynamic ways with individual and group
characteristics, which can affect the achievement of ethnic minorities (AMEA, 2007). The
underlying belief of the cultural ecology model is there are uneven power relationships between
groups in society. Ogbu and Simons (1998) explain that the academic success or
underachievement of minority students in the United States can be explained in how the students
identify themselves. Ogbu and Simmons (1998) assert that minority students fall under two
different types of minority status: voluntary and involuntary. The differences between the two
types of minority status are described in the following sections.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) define voluntary minorities as those that voluntarily moved to
the United States because they believed this would result in more economic well-being and better
opportunities. Examples of voluntary minorities in the United States are immigrants from Africa,
China, India, Japan, and Korea. The positive expectations they bring with them influence their
perceptions of society and schools. Voluntary minorities are generally more optimistic about the
future and their children usually do not experience persistent problems in social adjustment and
academic achievement (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). In these communities, social, peer, and
psychological pressures encourage them to have academic performance that is generally better
than average. Since they choose to come to the United States, they think of hardship as a
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 27
temporary problem. They tend to believe that they will be able to overcome these problems
through education and hard work.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) describe involuntary minorities as those groups that have come
to be a part of the United States society as a result of slavery or colonization rather than by
choice. Examples of groups that fall under the involuntary minority status category include
African Americans (brought to the United States as slaves), Mexican Americans, and Native
Americans. Due to the fact that they do not have another homeland from which to compare,
involuntary minorities tend to compare their chances of success with the dominant group
(Caucasians) and conclude that they are worse off. They often attribute their difficulties to
“institutionalized discrimination,” which cannot be eliminated by hard work and education alone
(Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 172). Involuntary minorities tend to distrust schools and believe that
crossing cultural and language barriers will result in a loss of their social identity. They believe
their group identity is formed by the cultural and language barriers they face as a group. As a
result, they vehemently attempt to maintain it and avoid any changes to the contrary. Individuals
from minority groups have different socialization experiences that have an impact on their
academic motivation to achieve academically (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). This model emphasizes
that it is important for teachers to know how students’ backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicity affect
their learning. As evidence for this perspective, Ogbu and Simons (1998) has noted that high-
achieving immigrant groups in the U.S. often perform significantly less well in other
sociocultural contexts, such as the performance of Koreans in the United States as compared to
their performance in Japan. While Ogbu and Simons’s (1998) perspective has been criticized for
“blaming the victim,” it does illustrate the complex sociocultural factors, which contribute to
student achievement outcomes.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 28
Connecting the theory posited by Ogbu and Simons (1998) back to student achievement
(specifically college readiness of Latino ELLs at THS), it is important to remember that Latino
ELL students who were brought to this country by their parents have perhaps attributed their
achievement challenges to institutional discrimination; thus, these students may distrust the
efforts of THS to assist them. Students may not put forth enough effort or persist in their efforts
to do well enough in high school in order to make it into college. THS administrators and
teachers can mitigate this motivational barrier by being sensitive to their students’ backgrounds,
experiences, and cultures.
Reclassification to Fluent English Proficient
All schools strive to have their ELL population reclassified and become fluent English
proficient students, but pushing students too early into reclassification can create issues for the
ELL population, depending on the school, its support programs, and classification system
(Robinson, 2011).
English language learners are generally given auxiliary services and resources to help
them succeed in school. When an ELL student is judged to have attained fluency in English by
their school district, the student status then changes from ELL to reclassified fluent English
proficient (R-FEP). When a student is reclassified, there generally is a reduction or elimination
of the extra services and support previously provided. This change in support and instructional
setting may adversely affect the newly reclassified student depending on whether the English
development services and support systems are still helpful (Gandara, 2005; Robinson, 2011).
Robinson (2011) suggests that the only way to know if the services and support systems were or
are currently helpful is to create a binding score for all standardized tests and compare them for
students who are currently in English immersion programs versus students who have been
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 29
recently reclassified and been moved to nonsupport programs. He found that existing
reclassification policy is currently harming some students in high school because students who
were reclassified were not necessarily doing better on tests taken after reclassification. He also
found that ELL students must pass all levels of the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) and must be given further subjective clearance before they are reclassified, which
in high school have been less than 67% of the time.
Though the district has final discretion, the California Education Code § 313 (2011)
requires the use of multiple criteria to determine if a district should reclassify a student from ELL
to R-FEP. The district has the onus of establishing a set of criteria for services that it can provide
to ELL students at all levels. Callahan, Wilkinson, and Muller (2010) found that recently
immigrated and low-English-proficient ELLs may benefit from more English development
courses, while more advanced English proficient students or long-term ELLs are likely harmed
by English development services in high school. Flores, Painter, Harlow-Nash, and Pachon
(2009) found that in general, reclassification is, on average, beneficial to student learning and
thus students should be reclassified as soon as they can. Following that logic, Ganadara and
Rumberger (2009) found that ELLs in secondary schools are often tracked into a dead end path
that never complete the A-G requirements needed for a four-year institution. They reported that
many ELL students begin their elementary years in English immersion programs and never exit,
with the highest performing ELLs reclassified as R-FEP and the lowest performing students
concentrated in English immersion classes (Abedi, 2006; Ganadara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly,
& Callahan, 2003). Callahan (2005) found that 98% of ELLs she surveyed did not apply for a 4 -
year state college or university because of the lack of qualified teachers, low expectations and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 30
use of tracking for ELL students. Gandara et al. (2003) found that the schedules for ELL students
were primarily place fillers that contained little college preparatory requirements.
THS should be following the district’s master plan for ELLs. This plan dictates that ELL
students should be reclassified to fluent English proficient in no more than 5 years, all ELL
students must complete the UC A-G subject requirements before they graduate from high school,
and that they may be allowed to take a 5
th
year in high school in order to help them complete the
A-G requirements and CAHSEE. The district’s regular redesignation processes require a student
to receive (1) a score of proficient or higher on the California Standardized Test (CST) in
English language arts (ELA); (2) an overall score of early advanced or higher along with a score
of Intermediate or higher on all domains of the CELDT; (3) a score a 4 or better in four of the
five areas of the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM); (4) a GPA of 2.0 or
better in all academic classes with no grades below a “C” or equivalent; and (5) a
recommendation for redesignation by the redesignation team, which is comprised of a parent,
administrator, teacher, ELD coordinator, ELD program specialist, and the ELL student. The plan
also describes an alternative method for high school students to be reclassified who have passed
the CAHSEE and have strong recommendations to reclassify even though they have not scored
proficient. In 2011, THS redesignated 50% of their ELLs, which is much higher than the current
California state average of 10% ELL reclassification each year (CDE, 2011b).
Access to Four-Year Colleges
Latino English language learners face a compound challenge gaining entrance to four-
year colleges. The literature reveals a large list of obstacles generally faced by Latinos, which
include: parent education levels, access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, disparate income,
and performance on standardized examinations (Contreras, 2005). Latinos who are ELLs must
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 31
also contend with the burden of competing for college access with students proficient in English.
According to universitybusiness.com, 80.8 percent of Latino adults, age 25-34 have not attained
a college degree as of 2009. Other national trends illustrate the lack of equity for college-bound
Latinos. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 12.7 percent of Latino adults had earned a
bachelor’s degree as of 2007 compared to 30 percent of their Caucasian counterparts (Zarate &
Burciaga, 2010). A closer examination reveals several key inputs that have demonstrated a
significant influence on the college attainment of Latino students. The following sections
discuses each factor, in turn.
Zarate and Burciaga (2010) found that large schools serving higher proportions of
minority students do not offer as many AP courses as those serving Caucasian students. Each AP
course is worth one more point on the GPA scale. Therefore, students can earn a better average
GPA if they have access to and are able to take AP classes. Additionally, AP courses will allow
students to qualify for college credits if they pass the respective summative exams. University
admissions-decisions processes are highly influenced by student transcripts that include AP or
honors level course (Geiser & Santelices, 2004). Geiser and Santelics (2004) note that
underrepresented students, particularly from poorer schools, have a distinct disadvantage gaining
access to AP courses. Within the same school, underrepresented students are frequently tracked
into non-college preparatory courses and therefore, do not enroll in as many AP courses as their
Caucasian counterparts. Some schools use AP examination results to evaluate teachers and
therefore students who are perceived to be lower scoring are steered away from taking AP
courses according to Geiser and Santelics (2004).
Cultural capital and socioeconomic status are also frequently cited in research that
focuses on the gap in Latino access to four-year colleges. Perez and McDonough (2008)
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 32
interviewed 106 Latino college-bound high school students in southern California and found that
family members, including cousins, aunts, and uncles, are a primary source of information about
colleges. Friends are also cited frequently as influential to Latino college-bound students. The
interviews revealed a strong desire to stay close to family and friends, which sway Latino high
school students towards community colleges and public universities. The Latino students who
were interviewed in this study were influenced by the reduced college costs for remaining near
home at community colleges. Older friends and family members who have gone to college are
also influential sources of information. Seeing that Latino students rely so heavily on family
sources for college admission information, Tierney and Auerbach (2004) suggest that colleges
and communities should target entire Latino families and friendship networks with admission
and financial aid information so that students get quality advice and the opportunity to develop
cultural capital. Ong, Phinney, and Dennis (2006) examined the parental influence of 123 Latino
college students and found that among socioeconomically disadvantaged students, academic
achievement was linked to individual and family-level influences. The study also revealed that
Latino students who reported higher levels of family support and ethnic identity experienced
higher academic achievement.
The research may create a perception that all underrepresented students, including
Latinos and ELLs, face the same obstacles and have the same beliefs, fears, and goals towards
college admission. Tierney (2009) interacted with three Latino high school seniors as they
prepared to go to college. The students were from the Los Angeles area from low-income area
high schools with GPAs exceeding 3.0. Tierney (2009) concluded that each student’s experience
was unique, yet none of the students had accumulated the cultural or social capital that their
Caucasian middle class peers have as they progress through their adolescent years. Applying to
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 33
college begins long before a student’s senior year in high school and underrepresented students
must develop social and cultural capital well before their senior year if the college admissions
gap is to be closed.
Collins (1999) defined linguistic capital as the mastery of and familiarity with the means
of communication within a particular culture, normally the dominant culture. One way that
linguistic capital can be used is as a form of a gate-keeping mechanism. For example, writing
courses at major universities are mechanisms, which when operationalized, are demonstrative of
the concept of linguistic capital because they segregate students by perceived writing abilities.
(Collins, 1999). According to Collins’ (1999) argument, those with greater mastery and
familiarity are generally placed in the more advanced courses. Collins (1999) described a system
where students who come from middle class, suburban, non-minority backgrounds are frequently
placed into a regular composition class because of their experience with essay writing. Students
in regular composition classes receive full college credit and are usually tracked toward classes
that fulfill degree requirements. Students who come from minority backgrounds and whose style
of spoken English carry over to their writing are more likely to be placed into basic composition
classes that do not earn college credit and as a result, impede student progress towards degree
fulfillment. Collins (1999) compared linguistic capital to Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of
reproduction where higher education institutions help to replicate the power stratification present
in the larger society by distributing social capital in the form of course access in order to
maintain the economic power of the majority. Social capital and linguistic capital frequently pose
as barriers for college-bound Latinos to navigate.
Standardized testing for ability and intelligence is another input that places Latinos and
ELLs at a disadvantage for college admission. Although the SAT and ACT tests have generally
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 34
been accepted as valid, Kaufman (2010) argued that the tests measure something different from
what was intended to be measured for certain ethnic groups and therefore reflects differential
validity. In other words, Kaufman (2010) argued that different constructs may not be measured
across ethnic groups by the same test. The example given is that a test may measure verbal
ability for Caucasians, but may be measuring exposure to American culture for Latinos.
Kaufman (2010) contended that testing for creativity could add a more objective measurement to
the college admissions process.
Walpole et al. (2005) studied the perceptions of 227 urban African American and Latino
high school students and found among other things that students believed that standardized tests
are obstacles that prevent them from applying to and being admitted to college. The study
revealed that African American and Latino high school students needed more information about
test preparation strategies. Students from a lower socioeconomic status lack the resources to pay
for college preparatory tests and the corresponding preparation courses and materials. The
students in this study were aware of the important role standardized tests play in college
admissions decisions; however their lack of cultural capital created anxiety and a belief that the
tests are unfair generating an internalized stereotype and lower test scores (Walpole et al., 2005).
In her study, Roemer (2011) explicated the notion of the invisible minority, or Mexican
English-language learners (MELLS). These individuals attended elementary and middle school
in Mexico and then move to the United States. According to Roemer (2011), MELLS spend their
time learning English instead of math, science, or social studies. The academic content at the
high school level is more complex and therefore MELLS who have developed the informal
spoken language of their peers lack the academic language ability needed and fall behind. These
students are not eligible for AP classes and do not develop the cultural capital necessary to apply
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 35
for college. Roemer argued that MELLS need the visibility and support structure that encourage
them to continue their education, such as programs in Texas (under a bi-national agreement with
Mexico) that recognize prior schoolwork from Mexico, and while they learn English in Texas,
MELLS take courses taught by qualified instructors in Mexico.
Administrators at THS are particularly concerned about Latino students, including ELLs,
attending local community colleges instead of applying to four-year institutions. This concern is
reinforced by data that reveal Latinos are more likely to attend community college (42 percent)
than Caucasians (24 percent) (Fry, 2005). Despite the 71 percent of the Latino students attending
community college expressed interest in obtaining a bachelor’s degree, only seven to 20 percent
actually transfer to four-year colleges according (Solorzano, Rivas, & Velez, 2005). California
Department of Education records indicate that in the 2008-2009 school year, 67 percent of ELLs
at THS enrolled in a postsecondary institution compared to 82 percent of Latinos and 82 percent
of Caucasian students (CDE, 2009). Clearly, ELLs, the majority of whom are Latino, lag behind
their native English-speaking counterparts when it comes to attending college.
Legal Considerations
English language learner education has vastly changed over the last 50 years starting with
the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 up to the most recent legislation such as the No child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act and the Horne v. Flores U.S. Supreme Court decision. Gold and Maxwell-
Jolly (2006) notes that there are two major sides to the debate on English language development
programs comprise of one side believing that the better course of action is for children who do
not speak English to be taught completely in English – full immersion and assimilation. On the
other hand, other folks feel strongly that these students should be taught in their native language
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 36
and slowly build the English component into their vocabulary. In between these two extremes
are several other views.
As more non-native English speaking students began to appear in America’s public
schools, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was written into law as amendment to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as Title VII. The Bilingual
Education Act of 1968 provided school districts with federal funds in the form of competitive
grants incentivizing districts to establish innovative educational programs for students with
limited English speaking ability. However, this Act lacked specificity on the requirements
imposed on the schools on how to design and implement the educational programs for their
students. The lack of specificity pushed civil rights activists to claim minority-language students
were having their rights violated (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). Thus, in 1974, two significant
events occurred, which helped to clarify the intent and design for English language learner
programs: (1) the passage of the landmark case of Lau v. Nichols (1974) and (2) the passage of
the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) (1974).
In Lau v. Nichols (1974), a class action lawsuit was filed for over 1800 Chinese-speaking
students against the San Francisco Unified School District superintendent. The U.S. Supreme
Court overturned the lower court’s decision and found that the district failed to meet the
language needs of these students denying them equal access to education, which is a violation of
their civil rights (Gandara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004). At the same time, Congress passed the
EEOA, which effectively extended the Lau v. Nichols (1974) ruling to all students and school
districts, ensuring that all federally-funded agencies addressed the needs of those limited in
English proficiency (Gandara, 2000; Gandara & Santelices, 2004). Both Lau v. Nichols (1974)
and the EEOA declared that students should not be discriminated because of their language
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 37
proficiency but did not prescribe how schools should meet the needs of English language
learners (Gandara, 2000).
The next major legislation to affect ELLs was Proposition 227 in California in 1998,
which affected student access to bilingual education programs (Gold & Maxwell-Jolly, 2006).
This proposition effectively ended most bilingual education programs and replaced them with
courses taught in English; thus, creating the structured English immersion models. Proposition
227 was a landmark decision as it was the first state proposition to dictate pedagogical strategies
for instructing students (Gandara, 2000; Parrish et al., 2006; Torrez, 2001). With this
proposition, only students with parents who understood that they needed to request a waiver
from all-English instruction program and gathered enough similar students to create a separate
class could get bilingual education. Proponents of proposition 227 argued that bilingual
education was a failure because only five percent of ELLs were reclassified to fluent English
proficient (R-FEP) annually (Torrez, 2001). This claim helped to pass Proposition 227 in 1998,
but the department of education found in 2004 that Proposition 227 had no effect on English
language learner test scores or reclassification rates from the time the proposition was
operationalized in 1998 (Department of Education [DOE], 2004).
The Bush administration reauthorized ESEA into NCLB of 2001. This new version of
ESEA sought to enhance education for all students through four pillars: (1) Stronger
Accountability for Results, (2) More Freedom for States and Communities, (3) Proven Education
Methods, and (4) More Choices for Parents (Thomas & Brady, 2005; U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). This law requires that all government-run schools receiving federal funding to
administer statewide standardized tests annually to all their students. These students are then
assessed annually to chart their academic growth. The student groups and school’s growth should
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 38
increase each year to meet the expected Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria set by the U.S.
department of education. If a school or district that receives Title I funding fails to meet their
AYP criteria for two consecutive years, they are labeled “in need of improvement” and are
required to create a two-year plan of improvement and must allow students the option to transfer
to another school as well as other sanctions outlined in the accountability model (CDE, 2011a).
Although many parts of NCLB (such as improper funding, support, accountability, and
punishment issues) have been controversial, NCLB has increased greater accountability for all
students as it forces schools to disaggregate their data into individual student groups such as
English language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Hernandez, 2011). By accounting for the
achievement of these different student groups, NCLB has forced schools to be more accountable
for all individual groups; thus, attempting to ensure that all students learn. This has put the
spotlight on ELLs; to which they and their supporters can use to hold schools more accountable
for their improvement in achievement.
Most recently, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Horne v. Flores effectively
allows states to determine their own requirements with regards to ELL instruction regarding state
funding support for EEOA compliance. This new ruling allows the state to determine its own
requirements with regards to English language learner instruction, programs, and funding. The 5-
4-majority opinion states that evaluation of state actions should focus on student outcomes rather
than on spending and inputs to schools (Robinson, 2011). Thus, the focus is on what the school
accomplishes rather than how they accomplish these outcomes or providing the funding required
for programming.
The above discussion regarding the legislative context on ELL education builds a
backdrop for the requirements and ways of implementation required and allowed to occur at
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 39
THS. The rules that are in place allow the state to determine its own requirements for instruction
for ELLs. To that end, Proposition 227 dedicates that the English immersion protocol must be
adhered even if there are other better programs available unless parents waive out their children
from the program. Also, Lau v. Nichols (1974) and the EEOA declare that ELLs at THS should
not be discriminated because of their language. Finally, THS will be held accountable as a
consequence of NCLB for their ELL achievement as measured by their AYP rating. THS in
2010-2011 failed to meet their AYP for their ELL population. This legislative context allows
further analysis to take place with both an understanding of the requirements and THS’s needs.
It is important to note that THS has established a commendable record of strong
academic achievement and exceptional graduation rates. THS staff understands the need to
improve academic opportunities for their Latino ELL population and have asked our team to
conduct this gap analysis and make recommendations for their consideration.
Summary of What We Know
Based upon a review of the literature and the concerns expressed by the administration of
THS, this Gap Analysis focused on the academic achievement of Latino ELLs, including those
who are classified as R-FEP, and their readiness to transfer to four-year colleges. Seven major
points are summarized from our review of the literature presented in this chapter:
1. Although schools strive to make all ELLs proficient in English, students reclassified
as R-FEP face elimination of extra services, monitoring, and support that they still
need and thus, the elimination of which can lead to adverse effects on their academic
achievement as well as their access to four-year colleges.
2. English language learners are frequently tracked into coursework that do not allow
them to qualify for four-year colleges.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 40
3. Latino ELLs fall below the achievement levels of their Caucasian and Asian
counterparts as evidenced by their performance on the 2011 reading assessment,
which revealed 37% of Latino ELLs scored below basic and only 18% scored at or
above proficient. Conversely, 41% of Caucasians and 46% of Asians scored at or
above proficient, revealing a substantial gap.
4. English language learners are three times more likely to not graduate than native
English speakers.
5. Latino ELLs face substantial obstacles and lack the cultural and linguistic capital
necessary to allow them access to four-year schools.
6. Poorly qualified teachers, low expectations for ELLs and negative attitudes on the
part of teachers are related to lower attainment levels for ELLs. The use of tracking
has been associated with unequal outcomes, growth, and achievement for ELLs
according to Callahan (2005).
7. Academic failure begins early on for ELLs, as such, there is limited research focused
on secondary ELLs.
The information presented in this chapter forms an important foundation for the present
gap analysis project. It should be kept in mind that these patterns can vary widely, depending on
the local context, but they do provide a useful lens with which to approach the current project. In
order to address the specific concerns of the administration of THS, namely the college readiness
of Latino ELLs, our team used a gap analysis process to confirm the nature and the scope of the
problem and investigate potential causes and solutions. The following chapter will provide a
brief overview of the gap analysis process and how it was applied at THS.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 41
Chapter 3: Information Gathering Steps
Authors: Michael Kurland, Evelyn Jimenez, Brent Morris
5

This next chapter in the gap analysis process is intended to provide relevant information
related to the unit of analysis. Accordingly, the following discussions will first describe the
context of the community, district, and school, which is followed by information directly
germane to this present inquiry on the English language learner (ELL) population at Trojan High
School
6
(THS). At which point, the chapter proceeds with an overview of the gap analysis model
utilized for the analysis in this project. The chapter concludes with the methodology describing
the inquiry instruments used to bring this project to a successful completion.
An Overview of the Community
This community is located in the Los Angeles County. This area is home to several
industries, including oil refining, aerospace, and automotive manufacturers. The total population
of the city is 145,438. The community is primarily Caucasian (51.1%) and Asian (34.5%), with
the Latino population (16.1%) at third (U.S. Census, 2011). The U.S. Census (2011) indicates
that 39.1% of the individuals in this area speak another language other than English at home and
almost all people over the age of 25 have a high school diploma with 44.6% of them also holding
a bachelor’s degree or higher. More than half of the people living in the city own their home
(57.3%) and less than 6.5% of the people are considered living in poverty.

5
Reflecting the team approach to this project, the listed authors jointly wrote this chapter.
Though this chapter was predominantly written and modified by Michael Kurland, Evelyn
Jimenez and Brent Morris also made contributions; these authors are listed alphabetically to
reflect their equal contribution.
6
In order to adhere to IRB guidelines and to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this
dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 42
An Overview of the District
The district in which THS resides consists of seventeen elementary schools, eight middle
schools, four high schools, one continuation high school, one alternative high school and
twoadult school campuses. The district’s jurisdiction includes approximately twenty-one square
miles. The district has approximately 24,370 students, the student population is comprised of
35.2% Asian, 31.3% Caucasian, 21.4% Latino, 4% African American, 0.7% Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.6% American Indian/Alaska Native, and 4.8% students of two or
more races, and 2.1% unreported. Of the student population, 3,334 (13.7%) are designated ELL
(CDE, 2011a). The District’s 2010-11 API score of 857 exceeds the performance of the county
(762) and the state (778). However, the district is currently in year one of Program Improvement
(PI).
An Overview of the School
THS is a public high school located in the Southern California area. It is one of four
comprehensive high schools in the district. The school has a total enrollment of approximately
2,229 students, predominately Asian (35%), Latino (29%), White (20%), African American
(7%), and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander, or declined to state
represent the remainder of the student population. From the total population, 35.5% of the
students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, up from 28% the year before, 7% are students
with disabilities and 8% are ELLs, which is lower than the districts 13.8% average (CDE,
2011b). THS is not a Title I school, but one elementary and one middle school that feed into
THS are Title I schools. Twenty-one AP courses are offered at the school and 6.2% of the school
population is enrolled in these AP courses. THS has 88 teachers, two assistant principals, a site
supervisor, and a principal. Support personnel include a student activities director, five campus
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 43
security aides, three counselors, one dean, one librarian, two part-time health assistants, one part-
time psychologist, one part-time speech and language pathologist, and six special education
assistants.
Student Performance
California ranks schools according to two ranking 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. According to the
metric used to rank California schools (the Academic Performance Index – API), THS is an 8
when compared to all high schools and a 5 when compared to similar high schools. School wide,
THS’s API went up three points to 809 in 2011. Most of the 2011 API growth came from the
Hispanic/Latino and students with disabilities groups. While all other student groups dropped
slightly in 2011, the two biggest changes were African Americans dropping 26 points to 701, and
English learners, dropping 22 points to 740 groups. All student groups at THS have API above
700 except for the students with disabilities group whose overall API score is currently at 593.
The only two student groups that met their growth target in 2011 were the Asian and
Hispanic/Latino populations (CDE, 2011b). Although THS is a high-performing school, it has
failed to meet AYP for its EL subgroup in the 2010-2011 school year. If ELLs fail to meet AYP
for two consecutive years, they may be subject to federal sanctions (NCLB, 2002).
At the high school level, many states, including California have implemented a basic
skills test students must pass to receive a high school diploma. In California, students in grade 10
must take the CAHSEE and the results of which are also used to determine student proficiency in
three categories: not proficient, proficient, or advanced. This is done for both ELA and
mathematics and the percentages from which are used to compute AYP scores as required by
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 44
NCLB. Currently, CAHSEE results for THS have 66% of the school population passing the ELA
exam and 68% passing the mathematics portion. When the data is disaggregated by the
performance of each significant subgroup and their proficiency, a stark gap is demonstrated in
the data, which indicate only 11% of the EL subgroup is proficient in ELA and 41% is proficient
in mathematics (CDE, 2011a). For the school year ending in 2010, the graduation rate for THS
was 98.32% with less than 1% of students dropping out.
Reclassification to Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP)
In line with the requirements of the California Education Code § 313 (2011), in order to
reclassify a student as fluent English proficient (R-FEP), districts must use several measures,
such as results from the CELDT and the California Standards Test (CST), teacher evaluation,
and parent opinion. The use of multiple criteria protects the EL population from being
reclassified too quickly and losing support before they are ready. Districts are allowed to
determine their own reclassification criteria, creating nationwide inconsistencies in classification
(Abedi, 2004; Abedi, 2008; Parrish et al., 2006).
THS follows the district’s master plan for ELL redesignation. This plan dictates that ELL
students should be reclassified to fluent English proficient in no more than 5 years and that all
ELL students must complete the A-G requirements before they graduate from high school. ELLs
may be allowed to take a 5
th
year in high school in order to help them complete the A-G
requirements and the CAHSEE. The district’s redesignation process requires a student to receive
a score of proficient or higher on the California Standards Test (CST) in ELA. In addition,
students must receive an overall score of early advanced or higher on the CELDT with scores on
all subtests at the intermediate level or higher, score a 4 or better in four of the five areas of the
SOLOM, earn a GPA of 2.0 or better in their academic classes with no grades below a “C” or its
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 45
equivalent, and lastly, be recommended for redesignation by the redesignation team, which is
comprised of a parent, administrator, teacher, ELD coordinator, ELD program specialist, and the
ELL student. Also, the plan describes an alternative method for high school students who have
passed the CAHSEE and have strong recommendations to reclassify even though they have not
scored proficient.
The CELDT exam results focuses on levels of proficiency for all English learners. A total
of 204 students were tested in the 2010-2011 school year. Of these 204 students tested, 91 were
Spanish speaking. The data indicates that 4 scored in the early intermediate range, 24 scored in
the intermediate range, 41 scored in the early advanced range, and 22 scored advanced.
CSTs measure students’ progress toward achieving California’s state-adopted academic
content standards in ELA, mathematics, science, and history. They describe what students should
know and be able to do in each grade and subject tested. There is a significant gap between the
overall student group and ELL students. The most significant gaps are in the Latino subgroup
and ELL subgroup. In the Latino subgroup 51% scored proficient or advanced in ELA, 17% in
mathematics, 57% in science, and 55% in history. In the ELL subgroup 15% scored proficient or
advanced in ELA, 11% in mathematics, 31% in science, and 22% in history. These subgroups
show a gap when compared to the overall school performance. Of all students 61% scored
proficient or advanced in ELA, 29% in mathematics, 68% in science, and 60% in history. In
2011, THS redesignated 50% of ELLs, which is much higher than the current California state
average of 10% of ELLs reclassified each year (CDE, 2011b).
Problem Areas
From multiple meetings with the THS principal and his team, three problem areas were
identified in regards to ELLs, specifically the Latino ELLs. The first problem area identified was
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 46
the academic achievement of ELLs. Their goals in this area included: (1) achievement
improvement on the California Standards Test (CST) by moving all students to proficient or
advanced in every category and (2) improvement for all students to get at minimum a C or better
for all A-G required courses. The second problem area identified was the lack of reclassification
to fluent English proficient. Their goal was to have all students reclassified to fluent English
before graduating from high school. Subcategories under reclassification the school wanted more
improvement comprised of: (1) all students should pass their CELDT, (2) all students must have
a minimum grade of C or better for all required courses, and (3) all students’ CST scores must be
at the proficient level or higher. The last problem identified was the lack of an adequate number
of students meeting eligibility to qualify for a 4-year university. To this, the school’s goals
included: (1) a hundred percent completion of the A-G requirements by all students, (2) an
increase in the first time passing rates of the CAHSEE, (3) an increase in the GPA of all students
to a minimum of a 3.0 or better, and (4) a completion by all students of the SAT/ACT test
requirements for California higher education school eligibility. See Appendix A for a log of
meetings and information gathering events.
THS administrators did not want to examine graduation rates or retention rates at the time
because they are currently and consistently experiencing a graduation rate of 98 percent or
higher. Instead, our team was asked by the principal to specifically look into how the school
could raise the achievement of Latino ELL students so that they are able to become four-year
college ready.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 47

Figure 1. ELL students’ gaps in achievement on the API, CAHSEE, CST (ELA), GPA,
and A-G requirements.
Figure 1 illustrates several gaps associated with academic achievement for the Latino
ELL population at THS. The project team was challenged by the complexity of selecting the best
gap to measure college readiness. On its face, A-G requirements are commonly associated with
college readiness. There are significant flaws with using A-G requirements as a measure for
college readiness in this project. As Figure 1 illustrates, neither THS nor the State of California
disaggregate their data to count the number of ELLs who meet A-G requirements, therefore
improvement in performance would be difficult to measure. Also, A-G requirements require only
a 2.0 GPA, which will not prepare students adequately for admission to the University of
California and in most instances to the California State University system.
While the Academic Performance Index (API) and standardized tests, such as the CST
and CAHSEE, may be viewed as intermediate steps or goals leading to college readiness, they do
not align themselves closely enough with California four-year college admissions requirements
to be a useful measure for the global goal of making all Latino ELLs college ready by graduation
from high school. Consequently, the project team selected the GPA gap as the best measure
available to gauge college readiness for the purposes of this gap analysis project.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 48
An Overview of Gap Analysis
The purpose of Gap Analysis is to help schools and other organizations solve problems
and make sound decisions about products, professional development and other performance
improvement strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gap Analysis provides a straightforward,
systematic method to clarify goals and identify gaps from current achievement levels. It is a
particularly useful tool to investigate actual causes for the gaps so that resources and solutions
are not squandered on assumed causes (Rueda, 2011).
A brief outline of the gap analysis process begins with defining goals. Goals can be
classified as long-term, intermediate, or day-to-day. When defining or clarifying goals, it is
imperative that all three levels are aligned and that each goal is measureable. The second step is
to determine the gap, which is a comparison of current level of performance minus the standard
you have set as a goal. The third step is to determine causes, which is accomplished by assessing
the potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors causing the gap. The final step in
the gap analysis process is to determine solutions. Solutions should be research-based and
targeted at the causes. Solutions should be considered by the cause type. For example,
knowledge based causes require knowledge based solutions.
Once the causes have been identified, research-based solutions must be aligned to address
the causes by categorizing each cause according to one of the three root cause categories:
knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors. Rueda (2011) suggests that even though real
world problems are complex and usually include elements of all three categories, it is more
effective to consider the categories independently to ensure that solutions will match the cause
targeted. For causes related to knowledge and motivation, Rueda (2011) offers a toolkit based on
learning theories and the research literature on how some causes might be addressed. Existing
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 49
programs and policies in other schools may be useful in crafting solutions for THS. However, it
is important to remember that solutions for one school may not be effective in all contexts and
therefore, the solution must be evaluated for suitability specifically for THS.
Solutions related to organizational causes must address areas including, organizational
culture, organizational behavior, work process, resources, and change management (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Effective solutions align culture, processes, and resources while recognizing the
importance of developing implementation and change strategies. When using research to
evaluate solutions for education, McEwan and McEwan (2003) recommend asking five basic
questions: (1) the casual question: Does it work? (2) The process question: How does it work?
(3) The cost question: Is it worthwhile? (4) The usability question: Will it work for me? (5) The
evaluation question: Is it working for me? A further discussion of evaluation methods will be
offered in Chapter six.
When applying the gap analysis process to problems identified by the administration at
THS, the starting point, as discussed previously, was the clarification or identification of goals.
Has the school reflected in their goals or vision statements the defined problem areas? Rueda
(2011) emphasized that goals are important for schools, not only to set directions, but to alert
administrators to the need for course corrections and change. If problem areas are not identified
in goals, or if the goals are too vague or not measureable, then finding effective solutions would
be very difficult.
In the case of THS, problem areas included underachievement and four-year college
admission rates for Latino English language learners. The vision statement for THS as posted on
their website reads: “THS strives to provide every student with opportunities to succeed in their
academic, social, and personal endeavors while enhancing each student’s ability to become
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 50
productive contributors to a global society.” At first glance, it was apparent that THS is
concerned about equal opportunity and providing every student with the tools required to make a
positive contribution to society. As the gap analysis process and search for causes proceeded, the
investigative team looked for evidence of more specific goals related to the Latino ELL
population and the problem areas mentioned. All stakeholders were interviewed to determine
their level of knowledge or agreement with the goals. The team looked for long-term goals,
intermediate goals, and daily goals and whether those goals were aligned and measureable.
Methodology
As the gap analysis process unfolded at THS, a variety of methods were utilized to clarify
goals and narrow the definition of the problem and search for causes. Scanning interviews were
initially used to understand the context and perceptions of school administrators, teachers, and
language specialists. Once the problem areas were clearly defined and THS goals were
identified, the investigative team began investigating causes. Interviews with administrators,
teachers, and staff specialists were conducted to drill down on information previously obtained
through the scanning interviews. The investigative team focused their interviews on the three
areas identified by Clark and Estes (2008) as the most likely causes for achievement gaps:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Surveys, interviews, observations, and
informal discussions were also implemented to collect data that would be useful for finding
causes. Clark and Estes (2008) cautioned that overconfidence is a real obstacle to finding the
causes of gaps. Investigators must carefully listen to all stakeholders and resist the temptation to
jump to solutions based on misconceptions of the problem or their own experiences. Figure 2
illustrates the stakeholder goals for THS. This and the works of Jimenez (2013) and Morris
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 51
(2013), which are not included in this document, address the root causes and solutions for each
stakeholder group.
Mission
All members of the Trojan High School community are committed to providing a safe, orderly
and supportive environment where students learn to become effective communicators,
responsible citizens and creative, complex thinkers.
Organization’s Goal
All ELL students will meet four-year college admission requirements upon graduation from
high school.
Students Teachers Administrators Counselors Parents
All ELL
students will
achieve a 3.0
GPA
All teachers will
meet with ELL
parents once per
semester to
provide
feedback on
progress
All
administrators
will provide
support and
coordination for
ELL programs
All counselors
will meet with
ELL students
once per
semester
Al parents will
engage in at least
one form of
involvement with
the school each
semester
Figure 2. Stakeholder goals for Trojan High School.
It should also be understood that measuring gaps for individual stakeholder groups was
not feasible within the time frame of this project because stakeholders were generally unaware of
intermediate goals aligned with the organizational goal of college readiness for Latino ELLs.
This issue is investigated further as a root cause for the college readiness gap in Chapter 4 with
researched based solutions and recommendations in chapters 5 and 6 of this dissertation along
with those completed by Jimenez (2013) and Morris (2013).
Interviews
Interviews are most advantageous for collecting data on an individual’s perspective and
experience. For the purpose of this project, interviews were used as the primary source of data
collection. These interviews employed purposeful sampling strategies that allowed for “selecting
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 52
information-rich cases for study in depth” to be chosen “strategically and purposefully” (Patton,
2002, p. 243). The purpose in doing so was to select influential people, also known as key
stakeholders, who could provide insight and disclose important information. There were two
types of interviews used: scanning interviews and in-depth interviews. Our key informant was
the principal at THS, who scheduled all of our interviews and observations. The principal made
everyone available that we asked to interview. None of our requests were denied.
Scanning interviews
For scanning interviews, it was essential to focus on selecting individuals positioned to
give perspective into potential problems. Of particular interest were the perceptions and beliefs
of those involved with Latino ELLs. As such, random probability sampling was not relied upon
since the scanning interviews were conducted to learn more about the causes affecting the
achievement of Latino ELL students. Random probability sampling is a method that utilizes
some form of random selection to ensure that the different units in the population have equal
probabilities of being chosen (Patton, 2002). Instead, snowball/chain sampling was used to
identify key stakeholders to interview based on their position, years of experience, but most
importantly, close proximity to ELL students at THS. Snowball/chain sampling allows for the
“identification of cases of interest from sampling people who know people, who know what
cases are information rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview participants” (Patton,
2002, p. 243).
By utilizing snowball/chain sampling the team was able to interview stakeholders that
were familiar with the Latino ELL student population. Stakeholders included the English
language development (ELD) coordinator, guidance counselors, and instructors involved with
ELL students. The type of interview conducted was closest to what Patton (2002) classified as an
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 53
interview guide approach where questions and topics were listed on a guide or protocol and the
interviewer was free to explore or follow up on particular areas of concern. The guide allowed
the interviewer to change the sequence of questions or explored certain areas in more depth, but
still maintain focus and a consistent framework for all interviews. The attached protocol
developed by our team was divided into three general areas of focus: background (environment),
goals, and perceptions of the problem (see Appendix B). The environment was the broadest
category narrowing to goals, and the narrowest questions were included in the area of
perceptions of the problem. Each area of focus included ten or more questions. As the interview
progressed, we were able to ask the questions that seemed most relevant to the informant and the
flow of the interview.
In-depth Interviews
After conducting scanning interviews, the team decided it was important to interview a
small number of ELL teachers that directly worked with the Latino ELL student group to gain
further insight. In-depth interviewing is a technique that involves conducting individual
interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspective (Patton, 2002). As
with the scanning interviews, the team used a general interview guide approach and developed a
series of seven questions to pose to the interviewees (see Appendix C). In-depth interviews were
conducted with teachers at THS because the team felt that it was crucial to gain detailed
information about their thoughts and experiences working with the Latino ELL subgroup. In-
depth interviews provided a more complete picture for the team. These interviews were
transcribed and themes were noted.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 54
Student Surveys
After the team had an opportunity to review the data from the interviews conducted with
school officials and a list of potential (assumed) causes to the performance gap were generated,
the team executed individual survey items in order to assess student knowledge, motivation, and
environment, which would affect their plans for four-year university attainment. An initial list of
15 demographic questions and 55 descriptive questions were honed and critically analyzed by
our group. The final list of questions included 10 demographic questions and 31 descriptive
questions broken into the three categories: knowledge, motivation and organization (see
Appendix D). These final items were selected to provide more information for assumed causes
gleaned through the initial interviews.
The student survey, collected by THS, was a self-reported anonymous device for
measuring the extent to which students understand: (1) the requirements to apply and get
accepted to a four-year university, (2) the amount of motivation the students have towards going
to a four-year university, and (3) the organizational factors influencing the application
completion. Survey takers were asked to circle their demographic information and then to circle
“yes” or “no” to each of the descriptive questions. This survey forced responders to concretize
agreement or disagreement for each statement. Though no undecided answer was provided, some
students created their own, which along with blank answers were not included in the survey
review and analysis. To show all answers equally, a percentage score was given for every
descriptive answer to show the percentage of “yes” answers students put for each category.
Before finalizing the survey instrument, the dissertation team asked the principal and
ELL coordinator of THS to review for content and understandability. After all changes were
made, 200 copies were given to the principal to pass out to the Latino ELL students. The
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 55
principal of THS called all students with a language code (and who were available at the time of
the survey administration) into his conference room over a two-day period, roughly 10-12
students at a time. He explained that the survey was intended to improve services to ELL
students and asked the students to voluntarily complete the survey before leaving to go back to
class. Surveys were provided in English only. Out of the 191 Latino students who had a language
code, a total of 113 surveys were completed and returned to the team for review. Thirty-five of
the students were 9
th
graders, 30 were 10
th
graders, 29 were 11
th
graders, 15 were 12
th
graders,
and four did not state. Only 15 of these students were born outside of the United States. The
home language for 36 students was English, 39 said English and Spanish, and 37 said Spanish
only. School language levels and parent education were also taken into account but none of the
demographic categories seemed to have had a strong correlation to the descriptive questions.
Parent Surveys
Individual items were generated after reviewing data from interviews with school
officials. Our team filtered the initial list of 30 survey items and reduced it to a total of ten
because of redundancy, relevance, or clarity concerns. The parent survey was a self-report device
for measuring the extent of parents awareness of opportunities to participate in activities
designed to engage them in their children’s education. The survey contained statements related to
levels of awareness, access, and expectations. Survey takers were asked to circle a number on a
six-point Likert scale that most closely corresponded to their view of parent involvement
opportunities. Scoring was accomplished by assigning weights of one through six for each item
with six assigned to the most favorable statements and one given to the least favorable
statements. This survey forced responders to demonstrate agreement or disagreement by not
including an undecided category. The total score was the sum of all scores on all items with the
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 56
higher score reflecting a more favorable evaluation of the acquisition of awareness, access, and
expectations related to student academic progress (see Appendix E for the two versions of the
survey - English and Spanish).
The principal of THS called all ELL students receiving language services (191) into his
conference room, 10-12 students at a time, explained that the survey was intended to improve
services, and asked the students to provide the survey to their parents and to return completed
surveys to the principal’s secretary. Surveys were provided in English and Spanish.
Parent Focus Group
Focus groups are optimal to collect data in a natural setting in which behaviors occur in
their usual contexts. These methods allow variables to be looked at in the natural setting in which
they are found and more in-depth information to be gathered (Patton, 2002). According to Patton
(2002), focus groups consist of 6-10 subjects with similar backgrounds who participate in an
interview for 1-2 hours. Focus groups allow participants to hear each other’s responses and can
moderate false or extreme viewpoints. Focus groups allow interviewers the ability to assess
consistencies, shared views, or diversity of views.
In the case of THS, our focus group was intended to enhance our understanding of parent
viewpoints gathered from surveys and interviews with THS staff. The focus group session was
held at THS on September 12, 2012 from 5:30 – 6:50 in the evening. The principal provided the
team the list of 191 ELL Latino students with parent contact information. From this list, Evelyn,
who is a native English and Spanish speaker, randomly called parents. Upon calling, Evelyn
explained the purpose of the focus group and invited them to take part in it if they were able and
available. Subway sandwiches were provided to supplement parents’ dinners and to help as an
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 57
enticement. Although a focus group was set-up with six parents there were two parents in
attendance.
Achievement Records
The principal assisted the team in searching for causes and measuring achievement gaps
by providing student achievement information at the school and district level. Public records of
state and federal agencies were also collected and evaluated to establish benchmarks and
measure the size of the gaps in the achievement levels, graduation and dropout rates, and four-
year college attainment rates. Achievement data were valuable in attempting to corroborate or
question the assumptions of THS staff and the investigative team.
An academic transcript is a record of all the education coursework, grades, and credits a
student earns school. The Principal provided an academic transcript for all Latino ELL students
enrolled at THS during the spring 2012 semester. Students’ final grades recorded on their
academic transcript at the end of each semester are perceived to be indicative of the quality of
work completed in each respective course. Grades have a significant impact on the types of
courses in which students enroll throughout their four years of high school and the types of
courses they are recommended to take by their teachers. In addition, colleges and universities
consider grades to be an important part of the admissions process. Colleges and universities take
the cumulative grade point average into consideration for admissions considerations. A
cumulative GPA reflects all courses taken and is calculated using a weighted system.
At THS, grades are based on multiple factors including, but not limited to tests, quizzes,
class work, and homework. Teachers at THS are required to keep an ongoing and current record
of their students’ grades through the district’s Zangle information system. Teachers report grades
for all students eight times per year: one time each for the four final quarter grading periods and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 58
one time each for the four quarter progress reporting periods. THS has also established a rubric
for evaluating achievement based on grades. In general, an A or B grade indicates that a student
has demonstrated the capability to do college work. A student who earns a C grade achieves
sufficient subject matter mastery to enable him/her to proceed to advanced high school work in
the subject. A student who earns a D grade is one whose work is unsatisfactory. A student who
earns an F grade infrequently completes assignments. These explanatory statements are designed
to aid teachers in the development of the evaluative criteria in their classes (see THS Faculty
Handbook for complete explanations). However, there is no standard grading scale that THS has
put in place. The THS principal requires that grades should be input and updated every two
weeks. The Principal encourages teachers to use the Parent/Student Connect as a communication
tool to update student progress for parents, the reporting and other teachers, and the students.
Root Causes Group Presentation
After all initial data were collected and analyzed and because the inquiry team had a
more data-informed understanding of the root problems, a meeting was held with the team’s
dissertation advisor. As a group we agreed that the best way to communicate our progress to the
leadership team at THS was to provide them with a group presentation. We brainstormed and
mocked up our presentation for how it would be presented. The three-member team created a
cohesive presentation for the common initial findings from the data and each team member
focused on their unique root cause focus areas.
A powerpoint presentation was created, which contained: (1) a quick explanation of the
gap analysis process; (2) the method and timeline used to collect and analyze the data,
showcasing the positive assets THS already has and can be built upon; (3) the assumed initial
causes; and (4) the six prioritized causes that will be researched for solutions in the literature (see
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 59
Appendix F). The main purpose of this meeting was to make sure that we were on the right track
as far as priority causes and to make sure nothing was missed during our investigation.
Solutions Presentation
Once all the research-based solutions were complied and assessed for the prioritized root
causes to the achievement divide, a solutions presentation for THS leadership was set took place
in March of 2013. This presentation showcased possible ways to close the achievement gap for
Latino ELL students at THS.
Solutions
Solutions were offered based upon a careful review of research and analysis by the team.
Should THS decide to implement the recommended solutions, a carefully designed
implementation strategy is important to have in place. The Kirkpatrick evaluation plan
(Kirkpatrick, 1998) to be described in Chapter six was offered to the THS administration for
their consideration and potential utilization to evaluate the solutions. Chapter four will report our
findings and identify the root causes for the Latino ELL college readiness gap.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 60
Chapter 4: Findings and Patterns
Authors: Michael Kurland, Evelyn Jimenez, Brent Morris
7

The purpose of this chapter is to report findings from the analysis of the data collected on
the possible causes to the achievement gap demonstrated by the English Language Learners
(ELLs) at Trojan High School
8
(THS). Our intent was to rule out and validate the root causes for
the problem, which was then used as the basis for solutions. Our methodology was based upon
the principles of problem solving. According to Patton (2002), such effort is concerned with
societal and human problems. Our strategy was to investigate root causes that would assist THS
to understand the nature of the problem in order to intervene, increase effectiveness, and achieve
their goal of college readiness for their Latino ELL students.
More precisely, practitioners have used our strategy to solve specific location-based
problems (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Educators who have used evidence-based decision
making to address problems and identify solutions have generally focused more on identifying
assumed problems and finding creative solutions rather than systematically searching for root
causes and ensuring that solutions are properly aligned with the problems they are expected to
address. According to Rueda (2011), institutional practices that reward action rather than results
encourage solutions to be implemented based upon assumed causes without a closer examination
of the root causes. The result can be a mismatch, where solutions do not correspond with true
problems. A more systematic approach to analyzing problems, causes, and solutions is the gap
analysis process previously described in chapter three.

7
The authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project, jointly wrote this chapter.
Though this chapter was predominantly written and modified by Michael Kurland, Evelyn
Jimenez and Brent Morris also made contributions; these authors are listed alphabetically to
reflect their equal contribution.
8
In order to adhere to IRB guidelines and to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this
dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 61
Our three-person team used the gap analysis process as a framework to study the root
causes of the ELL 4-year college readiness gap at THS. We assumed the role of consultants for
the administration of THS and generated possible causes based upon an initial review of the
literature, relevant educational theories, and from initial scanning interviews and surveys of the
key stakeholders most related to the topic of the project. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis frame enabled this inquiry team to uncover possible causes for the underperformance of
the students at THS.
According to Patton (2002), from purpose comes decisions about design, measurement,
analysis, and reporting. This is different from basic researchers who seek to generalize findings.
Our gap analysis was intended to be limited, specifically to THS and its ELL population.
Accordingly, our collective role as established for this project was that of a consultant for THS.
For this project, we used the following tools to investigate the causes of the performance gap: (a)
interviews, (b) student surveys, (c) parent surveys, (d) parent focus group, (e) review of school
records, and (f) observations. Findings are presented later in this chapter. Again, we must caution
that the purpose was not to create generalizable knowledge, but to validate possible causes in this
specific context.
Based on our review of the literature, personal and team knowledge of learning and
motivation theories, and experience, we created a list of possible causes broken down into the
domains of knowledge, motivation, and organization as seen in Table 1.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 62
Table 1
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Type of Cause
Knowledge Motivation Organizational
ELLs do not know university
admissions
process/requirements. (L)
ELL students lack confidence
because of low prior
achievement (T)
Parents lack access to electronic
academic resources (L)
Teachers don’t know their
expectations are influenced by a
deficit perception (L)
Teachers and counselors have
low expectations of ELLs -
deficit perception (L)
Policies reinforce cultural deficit
perceptions of ELLs (L)
Teachers don’t know how to
differentiate instruction (P)
Teachers don’t see value in
differentiated Instruction (P)
Teachers lack support for
differentiated instruction (P)
Teachers don’t know how to
use strategies and goals (P)
Teachers don’t see value in
strategies and goal use (P)
Teachers lack support for
strategies and goal use (P)
School staff does not know how
to effectively support ELLs (L)
School staff has excessive
workload and doesn’t see value
in ELL support (P)
School organization
compartmentalizes support for
ELLs (P)
School staff do not fully
understand or share goals (P)
School staff lack commitment to
goals that are unclear or not
shared (L)
The school has not established
the clarity or importance of goals
(P)
Teachers and counselors don’t
know how to manage time
effectively (P)
School does not provide enough
professional development (L)
ELLs do not know effective
learning strategies/skills (L)
ELLs lack access to AP or A-G
courses (L)
ELLs have low linguistic
capital (L)
Insufficient interaction with
parents (L)
Staff has heavy workload that
prevents ELL support (P)
ELL families have low SES (lack
of financial resources) (L)
ELL families have minimal
social/cultural capital (L)
ELLs and their families lack
access to school counseling
resources (L)
Note. P means Personal Knowledge;
L means Literature; and
T means Learning and Motivation Theories.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 63
Findings
Patterns emerged as the team reviewed the scanning interviews, in-depth interviews,
student surveys, parent surveys, a parent focus group, and achievement records.
Strengths
Overall, Trojan High School is considered a high performing school with graduation rates
greater than 98% and high student achievement test scores. Our observations, interviews, and
informal conversations with THS staff revealed a very positive educational environment. People
seemed genuinely happy to be at work and seemed committed to student learning. The campus
itself appeared well maintained and people seemed to feel safe and secure. The security
personnel were visible, engaged and friendly. During our observation times, the principal
appeared highly motivated and engaged in ongoing activities at the school. Observations
indicated that the teachers wanted to improve their instruction and were open to new ideas.
Clearly, the atmosphere was positive; the school boasted high graduation rates, a college going
culture, and the staff seemed to understand the need to improve academic opportunities for their
ELL population. Overall, the inquiry team found many positive attributes at THS. Table 2
summarizes the strengths that THS demonstrated during our observation of the school.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 64
Table 2
Strengths of THS
Knowledge Motivation Organization
98% graduation rate Teachers seek to improve
instruction
Positive educational
environment
High standardized test
scores (overall)
Faculty is open to new ideas Safe learning environment
Faculty understands the
need to improve the
academic achievement of
ELL population

Principal is committed to
fostering a college-going
culture
Well maintained campus
ELLs are making progress
in learning English (as
measured by AMAO 1)

ELLs are attaining the
English proficient level on
the CELDT (as measured
by AMAO 2)

Areas of Growth
Our interviews with THS administrators, counselors, and teachers revealed a consistent
pattern whereby all responsibilities and issues related to ELLs were delegated to the ELL
coordinator. While the interviews reflected high praise for the ELL coordinator, it was clear that
most THS staff did not feel a sense of ownership or identification with ELLs and their
challenges. Further, the interviews reflected the lack of a shared vision within the organization.
All of our interviews echoed a clear understanding for the global goal of encouraging a “college-
going culture,” but no consistent definitions were offered, and there was no sense of how to
produce the “college-going culture,” or what type of intermediate steps could be taken to achieve
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 65
the global goal. Most staff suggested that they were not a part of the goal setting process
although they consistently voiced support for the idea of preparing students for college.
There was a strong sense of frustration over communication uncovered in the interviews.
Although some hesitated to say anything that could jeopardize their working relationships, there
was surprising candidness about frustration with the manner in which policies were
communicated and implemented. For example, several staff members spoke about a policy
requiring teachers to write learning objectives on the blackboard for each lesson. They criticized
the task because no one explained the reason or the benefits for carrying out the task, and no one
followed up to see whether or not the policy was being followed or whether it was succeeding.
Interviews
The interviews produced a common staff opinion that policies were being passed down
from the district or administration without the opportunity for staff members to participate in the
process. During an informal event, several staff members were heard lamenting that certain
policies would never be implemented because the principal would be moving on to other
leadership opportunities. There was a palpable sense that the teachers and counselors considered
themselves the permanent “dedicated” staff, while higher level administrators moved from one
site/opportunity to the next, leaving the permanent staff to contend with issues that previous
initiatives failed to solve.
On balance, the interviews reflected more positive feelings about the school than
negative. Morale seemed to be high and most staff enjoyed their jobs working with the students
at THS. Our interviews focused on those issues that most directly related to ELL achievement
and college readiness.
Student Survey
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 66
The knowledge questions focused on the students’ perceived understanding of the
components to applying to a university (see Appendix G, Figure G1). First, it asked if they knew
all the requirements for applying to a 4-year university, and then it asked if they knew about each
individual requirement. Almost 90% of the students said they did know all the requirements to
apply, but less than 70% knew what A-G requirements meant. Of all questions surveyed, the
students knew about the CAHSEE test the most, at about 92%, and the ACT test the least, with
about 55% acknowledging awareness. With a gap of 20% between knowing all requirements to
applying for college and knowing what A-G requirements meant, it can be surmised that the lack
in student understanding of the college readiness process was an area of concern, which needed
to be adequately addressed.
The motivation questions were broken into student expectations, such as “Do you expect
to get B’s or better in your classes” and if they thought it was important such as “Passing the
California High School Exit Exam is important to me” (see Appendix G, Figure G2). Overall, the
students had very high expectations and demonstrated that they understand the importance for
most of the questions. Several questions such as graduating and passing the CAHSEE test were
“yes” for 100% of the students for both expectations and importance. Over 90% of the students
expected and thought it was important to get B+ grades or higher. Over 90% expected to do well
on their SATs and about 95% thought doing well on their SATs was important. The drop was the
expectancy to attend a four-year university, which dropped to about 80% and the importance of
attending a four-year university again, about 80%. The biggest drop was on if they thought they
had a fair shot at getting into a four-year university, which only about 70% of respondents did.
Overall, this group seemed motivated to be successful, get good grades, and graduate, but the
idea of going to a four-year university was not as high a priority.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 67
The final group of questions related to how the students felt about the organization in
which they are immersed. The original group of questions focused on the expectations they felt
from friends, family and teachers, level of support, and amount of access they felt they had. The
students seemed to think their parents wanted them to go to a university the most, followed by
teachers and lastly by friends at below 70% (see Appendix G, Figure G3). In general, the
students thought they were supported by the teachers, staff, and THS as a whole and that if they
wanted to go to college their family would support them. It was found that most of the students
thought their families wanted them to stay close to home at 60% and their friends expected them
to stay nearby at 50% after the student graduated. Finally, the largest perceived obstacle from the
entire survey was the idea that they could not afford college and money was an issue to going to
college, only about 40% thought that money was not an issue and they could afford to go to
college. It appeared that organizational factors greatly influenced the student’s decision to apply
and attend a 4-year university.
Parent Survey
A total of 13 parent surveys were returned out of 170 (see Appendix H). The principal
indicated that he had not distributed the survey until a few days before the end of the school year
and did not have a chance to follow up with students in order to remind them to return the
surveys. The two most consistent findings from the survey were that parents indicated they had
not been invited to meet with THS officials concerning their son’s or daughter’s progress with
school work, and that within the six months prior to us speaking with them, they had not met
with THS officials concerning their son’s or daughter’s progress with schoolwork.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 68
Parent Focus Group
Out of six parents that accepted our telephone invitation to the parent focus group, two
attended. Both attendees were mothers of THS students (one 10
th
grader and one 11
th
grader) and
appeared very interested and engaged in their children’s academic progress. When asked if they
had been given the opportunity to participate in the parent-survey, one parent indicated she had
not been given the survey (which had been sent home with students), the other parent indicated
that she was offended by the survey because it appeared to her that only Latinos were being
asked about parent involvement. Apparently, the briefing and instructions given to students by
the THS Principal were either relayed inaccurately or not at all. We learned from both parents
that a formal letter from the school explaining the purpose of the survey would have made them
both feel more supportive of the survey and the school’s efforts to improve services for ELLs.
Two consistent findings from the parent focus group revealed: (a) frustration over a
perceived lack of communication from THS, and (b) frustration over the language development
reclassification process. Both parents agreed that there was either no communication or minimal
communication between teachers, counselors, and parents. We heard frustration voiced over a
counselor who refused to make an appointment, and would only accept email communication.
Since the parent could not communicate through written English, she was not able to speak with
the counselor.
Although both parents indicated that they have internet access and regularly check the
school websites, they expressed frustration that all of the online resources were English only.
Both parents were aware of the English Language Multi-Cultural Advancement Committee
(ELMAC) meetings, however their only communication about the meetings came through a
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 69
letter from the school district that provided dates, but the parents received no communication
directly from THS.
One parent became quite emotional, and cried when she related her experience trying to
get her daughter reclassified. Both parents experienced similar obstacles trying to convince THS
counselors that their children were born in the U.S. and spoke English fluently. Every year, these
students were forced to study for English tests and when they passed, they were not reclassified,
apparently due to poor grades and lack of a teacher recommendation. Both students received no
services other than a study skills class, but did not gain access to A-G compliant classes. Both
students have been classified as language level 5 (Advanced Level) for five consecutive years.
The parents interviewed, believed the yearly frustration over reclassification has produced a
sense of learned helplessness and a lack of motivation in their children.
Achievement Records
Transcripts were collected for the 191 Latino students at THS. Grades were used to
obtain a student’s collective GPA for coursework completed. The data indicated that the majority
of Latino ELL students at THS were not performing at a GPA of 3.0 or above (see Appendix I).
Of the 191 students, 48 students (25%) were meeting a GPA of 3.0 or above. The remaining 143
(75%) Latino ELL students fell in the 2.9 or below GPA range. Of these students, 71 (37%) were
receiving a GPA of 2.0 or below. This number was significant because a GPA of 2.0 or better in
academic classes with no grades below a “C” or equivalent were needed for an ELL student to
meet one area of the reclassification criteria. Also, four-year universities will not consider
students with a GPA below a 2.0.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 70
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
Title III of the NCLB requires districts to define AMAOs to measure and report on
progress toward the attainment of English proficiency and academic achievement standards.
Under NCLB, three specific AMAOs must be put in place. Each state must define two AMAOs
for increasing the percentage of ELL students making progress in learning English and attaining
English proficiency. Also, states must include a third AMAO related to meeting AYP for the
ELL subgroup (CDE, 2011). When one or more of the AMAOs are not met, the district must
notify the parents of the ELLs. Expectations of AMAOs require schools to work towards
meeting two targets for ELL students: grade level proficiency in academic core subjects and the
development of English language proficiency within five years.
AMAO 1 Progress measures the percentage of ELLs in a Local Education Agency (LEA)
who met the annual growth target on the CELDT. To calculate AMAO 1, two data elements are
needed: (1) the number of annual CELDT takers who took the CELDT during the annual
assessment (AA) window. It does not include initial test takers; and (2) The number of ELLs
with required prior CELDT scores. To determine the percentage of ELLs making annual
progress in AMAO 1 the following formula is used:
Number meeting annual growth target
Number with required prior CELDT scores

Using the above formula, AMAO 1 was calculated for students to measure the percentage of
students at THS who made annual progress in learning English (see Appendix J, Table J1). Table
J1 shows that collection of data for AMAO 1. Of the 164 CELDT takers at THS, 80 students
were of Latino descent (see Appendix K). Of these 80, only 61 students (76.2%) were meeting
proficiency for AMAO 1. The required percentage of ELLs making annual progress in learning
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 71
English was 56.0%. This was significant because the majority of Latino ELL students made
progress in learning English.
AMAO 2 Attainment measures the percentage of ELLs who attained the English
proficient level on the CELDT. Two cohorts were established for AMAO 2 to determine the
percentage of ELLs who had attained English proficiency levels on the CELDT. First, the less
than five years cohort contained all ELLs who had been in language educational programs for
less than five years. Second, the five years or more cohort contained all ELLs who had been in
language instruction educational programs for five years or more. The time in a language
instruction educational program was determined by subtracting the date first enrolled in a U.S.
school from the date CELDT testing was completed. To determine the percentage of ELLs in
each cohort who attained the English proficient level on the CELDT during the AA window, the
following formula was used:
Number in cohort attaining English proficient level
Number of ELLs in cohort

Using the above formula, AMAO 2 was calculated for ELLs who had been in English language
instruction for less than five years and for ELLs who had been in English language instruction
educational programs for five years or more (see Appendix K, Table K3).
For AMAO 2 (cohort one), there were 52 students at THS who had been in English
language instruction educational programs for less than five years. Of the 52, 11 students were of
Latino descent. Of these 11, only 3 students (27.3%) met the required attainment percentage. The
required percentage for this cohort were 20.1% as set by the state. This was significant because
Latino ELLs at THS who had been in English language instruction programs for less than five
years met the attainment percentage. For AMAO 2 (cohort two), there were 122 students at THS
who had been in English language instruction educational programs for five years or more. Of
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 72
the 122, 74 were of Latino descent. Of these 74 students, 54 (73%) met the required attainment
percentage. The required percentage for this cohort was 45.1% as set by the state. This was
significant because Latino ELLs at THS who had been in English language instruction programs
for five years or more exceeded the attainment percentage.
AMAO 3 AYP measures the percent of ELLs that must be proficient or above in ELA
and mathematics. The 2011-2012 AMAO 3 requirements are the 2012 AYP requirements for
participation rate (95%) and percent proficient (77.8% in ELA and 77.4% in mathematics) for
the ELL student subgroup only. In order to meet AMAO 3 both AYP participation and percent
proficient targets in ELA and mathematics for the ELL subgroup must be met. The ELL student
subgroup for AYP includes RFEP students until they score proficient or above three times on the
CST.
For AMAO 3, the data indicated that the Latino population at THS was not meeting AYP
proficiency in ELA and mathematics (see Appendix J, Table J4). In ELA, there were 16 Latino
students and only 2 (13%) met the criteria for scoring proficient or above. In mathematics, there
were 16 Latino students and only 3 (19%) met the criteria for scoring proficient or above. These
percentages suggested that Latino students at THS were struggling to meet the academic content
and achievement standards (see Appendix J, Table J4).
Identification of Root Causes
Based upon our collective experience, relevant theory, and data collected from the
school, six causes were identified that contributed to the lack of college readiness for the Latino
ELL population at THS. These validated root causes for the ELL college readiness gap are
illustrated in Table 3. A powerpoint presentation was also created of the findings, which was
presented to the principal of THS (see Appendix K).
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 73

Table 3
Validated Root Causes for ELL College Readiness Gap
Cause Knowledge (K)
Motivation (M)
Organizational (O)
How Assessed/
Validated?
1. Achievement goals for ELLs
communicated without benefit of
intermediate or performance goals

(K) & (O) Interviews
Records
2. Lack of enhanced parent-
involvement initiatives
(K) & (O) Interviews
Focus Group
Survey

3. Lack of enhanced coordination of
school support for ELLs

(O) Interviews
Focus Group
4. Inadequate access to school
counseling resources
(O) Interviews
Focus Group
Survey

5. Lack of perceived university
affordability

(K) & (O) Survey
6. ELL student achievement is not
consistent with expectations
(K) & (M) Survey

1. Achievement goals for ELLs were communicated in general form without the benefit
of performance or intermediate goals to guide progress. Based upon the gap analysis process by
Clark and Estes (2008), this cause was based upon both organizational and knowledge issues.
Performance goals are specific tasks to be completed within structured criteria and deadlines.
The most effective performance goals are aligned and compliment the global goals of the
organization. The lack of performance goals can be viewed as a knowledge issue because those
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 74
responsible for communicating goals are unaware of the need for them as well as a potential lack
of knowledge of the process to construct performance goals. The lack of performance goals may
also be related to organizational barriers. For example, the workload at the school may preclude
administrators from investing the time to develop performance goals. Creating a college-going
culture was the vision or global goal for THS and the district, but we could find no evidence of
clearly understood performance goals that would help guide progress towards the global goal.
2. Ineffective parental-involvement initiatives. THS recognized the value of parental
involvement and developed efforts to encourage involvement with limited success. There was no
doubt that the leadership at THS understood the important role parents play in developing a
college-going culture. Tierney (2009) pointed out the importance of family and counseling
networks that support plans for college years before the actual application process is initiated. At
THS, some parents of ELL students were frustrated at what they perceived to be a lack of direct
communication with them. Ineffective parent-involvement initiatives were demonstrative of a
lack of knowledge and barriers within the organizational setting. THS administrators were
unaware of how to effectively reach out to the parents of ELL students, pointing to a knowledge-
based cause. Organizational barriers, such as a lack of bilingual resources, contributed to the
ineffective parent-involvement initiatives.
3. School Support for ELLs. Developing strong relationships with students was a top
priority for faculty members at THS. Faculty members expressed that a key to academic success
was building relationships with students. Although faculty members were aware of this, the
interviews revealed that there was not a strong support system among the teachers who taught
ELLs, the counselors, the school administrators, and the ELL coordinator. THS faculty did not
feel a sense of ownership in regards to their ELL subgroup. Instead the responsibility of ELL
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 75
students was compartmentalized. Faculty members expressed feeling overwhelmed and
subsequently deferred responsibility of ELL students to the ELL coordinator. The results
clarified the need for closer collaboration between the stakeholders mentioned above. Parent
frustration over the reclassification process was one example where closer collaboration was
needed. In addition, teachers lamented that there was a lack of access to professional
development opportunities because of the economic crisis that had affected schools.
4. Inadequate access to school counseling resources. The current school-counseling
program at THS inadequately served ELL students and their families. THS had felt the result of
the state educational budget crisis resulting in the loss of two counselors; thus increasing the
caseload for those remaining behind. The outcome was that ELL students receive inadequate
advisement, lack of availability, and lack of individual counseling and attention. ELL students
and their families at THS needed access to a trained school counselor that can provide them with
information and resources to learn about options for their future. Survey results highlighted the
fact that the majority of these students did not know the requirements needed to attend a four-
year university and perceive university affordability as an obstacle. The challenge of creating a
college-going culture was compounded by lack of access to school counselors.
5. Lack of perceived university affordability. From both the student survey and the parent
survey, money was an issue for going to a university. The student survey showed the larger gap
of only about 40% of students believed they could afford to go to a university. Less than 70%
believed they could even afford to apply. Interviews with THS counselors revealed that several
students in the past had mentioned this concern to them so they told the students about fee
waivers and about financial aid to those that asked. It appeared that only students who expressed
these concerns were told. It appeared that there was a knowledge and organizational issue around
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 76
the lack of perceived university affordability for this student population.
6. Matching grade expectations and motivation to actual grade attainment. With the grade
point average requirement to get into California four-year university being a 3.0 or higher, grades
can play a large factor for students to get into a university. An overwhelming 90% of these
students said that getting a B average or higher was important to them and they expected to get
that. But looking at their overall GPAs, only about 25% of these students were achieving a 3.0 or
higher. Worse, about 37% of the students were actually getting below a 2.0 GPA. These students
seemed motivated to do well but from our interviews and data collection, they lacked the study
skills and organization to help improve achievement.
The next chapter will provide a discussion on the review of the literature related to the last
two root causes on college affordability and matching grade expectation and motivation to actual
grade attainment. Jimenez (2013) and Morris (2013) address the other four root causes
separately.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 77
Chapter 5: Literature Review on Possible Solutions
Author: Michael Kurland
This gap analysis was a joint team effort. The team focused on and validated several root
causes underlying the gap between the desired goal of 100% and the actual percentage of English
language learners (ELLs), specifically Latino students, who were college-ready at Trojan High
School
9
(THS). These root causes related to: (a) intermediate and performance goals, (b)
parental-involvement initiates, (c) school support for ELLs, (d) collaboration, (e) access to
valued information (college affordability), and (f) alignment between student expectations and
motivation to actual achievement as measured by student grades. As part of the gap analysis
approach, the team divided the solutions aspect of the work by the areas of interest and
specialization of the other team members. While the complete gap analysis requires
consideration of all of root causes jointly, this chapter and the following chapter will focus more
narrowly on issues related to: (a) access to access to valued information (college affordability),
and (b) alignment between student expectations and motivation to actual achievement as
measured by student grades. For more information on the other four validated causes, please look
at Jimenez (2013) and Morris (2013)
The purpose of this chapter is to review current literature and theory focused on solutions
to the above-referenced causes in order to provide guidance to THS on how to work toward
solving the outstanding issues related to its achievement goals for its ELL population. The
chapter is outlined as follows: a review of the literature on social and cultural capital theories as
they relate to college preparedness processes, followed by a review of the literature related to
expectancy value theory and self-efficacy theory as they relate to student expected and actual

9
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 78
achievement attainment. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key research findings
directly related to the root causes of the achievement gap for the Latino ELLs at THS.
Lack of Access to Valued Information (College Affordability)
A survey conducted by THS, as part of this project, revealed that students, specifically
Latino English language learners, may not apply to or go to college because of perceived
affordability. It is widely recognized that regardless of their academic ability or plans to attend
college, students of low socioeconomic status may not, in general, possess the tools nor do they
prepare for college in the same manner as their more affluent peers (Indiana University, 2010).
Students’ decisions about college are predicated on (1) access to information and resources, (2)
an understanding of college choice processes, and (3) access to good models and guidance.
Limited access to information and resources and a lack of understanding of college choice
processes may disadvantage low-income and minority students (Bozick, Lauff, & Wirt, 2007).
Research refers to this root cause, which mitigates successful academic attainment as lack of
relevant cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Weininger & Lareau,
2007). In order to better prepare low status youth for college, it is critically important to
understand and to operationalize different strategies to increase their access to the implicit rules,
or social know-how (funds of knowledge) required by the college application process and how
students can obtain and learn when and how to use this know-how. Accordingly, low-income
youth need relevant pathways to increase their social and cultural capital in order to adequately
prepare for and successfully matriculate into college.
Cultural Capital
Bourdieu (1977) developed the concept of cultural capital because he adamantly believed
that the disparity in educational attainment for children from different social classes was not
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 79
sufficiently explained by the economic challenges they and their families faced. He explained
that cultural capital can exist in three states: (a) embodied, which are dispositions of the mind
and body; (b) objectified, which are exemplified by cultural goods; and (c) institutionalized,
which he gave educational qualifications as qualified examples. According to Bourdieu (1977),
the notion of cultural capital is based on the assumption that cultural knowledge, skills, and
abilities are possessed and often inherited by certain groups in society. Certain forms of cultural
capital are valued more than others, and each person brings a different set of dispositions
(habitus) to the field of interaction. These cultural “habits and dispositions” (a) comprise a
resource that can generate “profits” for the possessor; (b) are potentially subject to
monopolization by individuals and groups; and (c) under proper conditions, they can be passed
down from one generation to the next.
Families of each social class transmit distinctive cultural knowledge down to their
offspring (Bourdieu, 1977). Consequently, Bourdieu (1977) posited that children of upper class
families garner substantially different skills, abilities, manners, styles of interaction, and facility
with language than those obtained by their low status peers. Accordingly, cultural capital refers
to the linguistic and cultural competencies children inherit as a result of their class, racial, and
gender identities, which are essential to fruitful school outcomes. One way that working class
and minority youth can derive the same benefit as their more affluent and privileged peers is for
educators (and others with whom the low status student has contact) to act in a manner such that
it generates a socialization process that produces the same sorts of strategies and resources
employed in privileged homes and institutions (Bourdieu, 1977).
Similar to the thinking of Bourdieu (1977), Bloom (2007) also believed that while
traditional economic factors influence the decision to enter college, other factors, such as cultural
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 80
and social barriers, may reduce students’ chances for educational attainment. Bloom (2007)
followed the journey of a group of high school seniors in three small urban high schools as they
made their plans for life after graduation. The study was a multi-sited ethnography and the
researcher spent time at each school performing participant observation in a college preparatory
class or an advisory class where students were focusing on applying for college. Additionally, an
extended case method was operationalized as the researcher carried the study through the
summer for a small group of students, during which time interviews and focus groups were
conducted with parents or a significant adult, teachers, college counselors, and the principals.
Bloom’s (2007) study focused on the critical juncture where low-income students
(specifically, African Americans and Latinos) arrive at when they graduate from high school,
and their decision-making processes about whether or not to attend college. The researcher
posited that the ethnography offered an important lens on the ways that social class shapes
students’ developmental experiences and choices. To this end, Bloom (2007) further developed
Bourdieu’s (1977) work and suggested that students require cultural capital defined as
“information about higher education and the application process” (p. 357) in order to navigate
the college application process. As was explicated in the study, middle and upper class parents
have firsthand experience of applying to and attending college and can draw on this experience
to assist their children. Poor and working-class students and their parents often know little about
the college worlds they hope to enter and fear “sending their children off to a world that is alien
to them” (Bloom, 2007, p. 361). Parents who have not attended college often cannot convey
appropriate information, meanings, and values to their children. As a result, this difference
perpetuates intergenerational inequality across social classes and the disparity in academic
achievement (Bloom, 2007).
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 81
However, mere access to valued cultural capital is not enough to ensure that individuals
can use that culture to their advantage. Bourdieu (1992) asserted that individuals must know how
to mobilize cultural practices to serve their interests, which is dictated by habitus. Habitus is
defined as the internalized mental disposition through which individuals perceive the world.
Bourdieu (1992) explained that individuals from the same class tend to have a similar individual
habitus because of the similarity of the objective conditions they have experienced. Habitus
influences an individual’s evaluation of the probability of the success of particular outcomes
(such as ‘Can I go to college?’) at the same time as it molds an individual’s tastes and
preferences (such as ‘Does the idea of going to college appeal to me?’). Bourdieu (1992) further
theorized that modern schooling systems are far more adept at validating and enhancing cultural
capital transmitted by the family than they are at inculcating it in students who enter the
education landscape with few or none of the requisite characteristics and skills. In addition, the
institutionalization of “criteria of evaluation” in schools – specifically, standards of assessment –
favors students from a particular class or classes who exhibit the distinct discourses of the
dominant culture. To this end, the potential for success and rewards in the academic setting is
evaluated on the basis of whether the student can demonstrate and exercise the dominant
discourse (cultural capital).
Social Capital
Bourdieu (1986) also systematically analyzed the concept of social capital. He defined
social capital as the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to possession of a stable
network comprised of institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.
This network provides members with the support of the capital possessed by the collective.
Connections in the network may exist as material or symbolic exchanges. Moreover, social
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 82
capital is made up of social obligations or relations and it is exchangeable into economic capital
in certain conditions.
Bourdieu (1986) added that the volume of social capital possessed by a person depends
on the size of the network of connections that he or she can mobilize and on the volume of
capital – economic, cultural, and symbolic – possessed by each person to whom he or she is
connected. Thus, Bourdieu' s (1986) social capital can be disaggregated into two components: (a)
the social relationship that allows the individual to obtain resources possessed by the collective,
and (b) the quantity and quality of those resources. Ultimately, social capital is conceptualized as
the investment of the dominant class to: (a) maintain and reproduce group solidarity; and (b)
preserve the group's dominant position in a social space, where the social space is a field of
forces and struggles between individuals (Bourdieu, 1986). The field is characterized by the
"rules of the game," which are neither explicit nor codified. Further, the field is considered ever
changing and so, too, are the valued forms of social capital.
The second way in which social capital has been elaborated was from the theoretical
work of Coleman (1988), whose version of social capital was comprised of norms and social
control. Coleman (1988) proposed that social capital is intangible and has three forms: (a) level
of trust, as evidenced by obligations and expectations, (b) information channels, and (c) norms
and sanctions that promote the common good over self-interest. Social capital is a natural
component in the structure of relations between and among individuals. Additionally, it is
defined by its function, and it is focused on structures and actors across a variety of different
entities. As a whole, Coleman (1988) saw social capital as (positive) social control, where trust,
information channels, and norms are characteristics of the community. Thus, Coleman’s (1988)
work supports the idea that it is the family’s responsibility to adopt certain norms to advance
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 83
children’s life chances, whereas Bourdieu’s (1986) work emphasized structural constraints and
unequal access to institutional resources based on class, gender, and race.
Drawing on the work of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), Engberg and Wolniak
(2011) examined the contexts in which students are situated, which are defined by social and
cultural resources. The purpose of the study was to examine the interrelationships between
socioeconomic status (SES), and high school contexts, and postsecondary enrollment. The
researchers employed an advanced hierarchical modeling technique to analyze data from a
nationally representative sample of high school seniors from the Educational Longitudinal
Survey (ELS) in order to examine student- and school-level influences on attending two- and
four-year postsecondary institutions. Accordingly, Engberg and Wolniak (2011) evaluated the
critical roles that human, cultural, and social capital exert on college enrollment, focusing on
how the acquisition and availability of these resources at both the student and school levels are
influenced by the high school socioeconomic context.
It was revealed that resources accessed through social networks, or, social capital,
provide students with peer groups as well as family and community ties that contribute to their
ongoing socialization in developing values, aspirations, and forming educational choices
(Engberg & Wolniak, 2011). Specifically, their study suggested that for students attending low-
SES schools, college-linking networks are particularly important in improving the odds of both
two- and four-year college-attendance. Linking students in low-SES schools to different
individuals who are knowledgeable about the college choice process plays a particularly
important role in students’ decisions to at least attending a two-year college versus not enrolling
in college altogether. Engberg and Wolniak (2011) also advised that given the tendency for low-
SES schools to have high counselor-student ratios, an investment in college-linking resources
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 84
can be critically important to improving postsecondary participation rates for students attending
low-SES schools.
In line with Engberg and Wolniak’s (2011) discussion on how the context in which
students are situated can play a crucial role in their social development and academic success,
Conchas (2001) examined how school programs constructed school failure and success among
low-income immigrants and U.S. born Latino students. In order to show that institutional
mechanisms mediate school engagement, the researcher conducted a two-year qualitative case
study (participant observation design) of low-income immigrant and U.S.-born Latino students at
an urban high school in a city located in the western United States that was made up of
predominantly low-income families. The high school housed a Medical Academy for students
who were interested in pursuing heath-related occupations and a Graphics Academy, a magnet
program specializing in computer-assisted graphics technology. Additionally, the school also
hosted an English as a Second Language (ESL) program and a highly reputable Advanced
Placement (AP) program. The AP program had a strong relationship with the Graphics
Academy; the majority of the AP students were also in the Graphics Academy.
This study examined the experiences of students in the Medical Academy, Graphics
Academy, and AP program and compared them to the experiences of those in the general
academic program (Conchas, 2001). The examination and comparison of the academic programs
suggested that while schools often replicate existing social and economic inequality present in
the larger society and culture, they can also circumvent inequality if students and teachers work
in consort toward academic success. The responses provided by the Latino students in this study
demonstrated the importance of school communities that structure learning environments that
link academic rigor with strong collaborative relationships among students and teachers. In
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 85
addition the varied experiences of the Latino students revealed the necessity of establishing
strong links between racial and ethnic minority youth and the institutional support necessary for
academic engagement and success. Significantly, the study confirmed that supportive
institutional and cultural processes in schools can play a significant role in the formation of high-
achieving Latino students. In sum, by capturing the voices of both low-achieving and high-
achieving low-income Latino students, this research showed promising ways that schools can
begin to shape social and academic success.
Stanton-Salazar (2011) moved the above discussion on social capital along to highlight
and explicate two phenomena: (a) adolescent participation is situated in multiple sociocultural
worlds, and (b) nonfamily adult agents can play a critical role in advancing the social
development and educational attainment of youth across class and social strata. The researcher
explained that the reality today is adolescents increasingly participate in social worlds outside the
realms of the family, peer group, and school. Thus, it is critically salient to recognize that for
students to successfully meet both developmental challenges in today’s world and the academic
demands of the school, they require resource-generating (resource –ful) relationships and
activities socially organized within a network of socialization agents, natural or informal
mentors, pro-academic peers, and institutional agents distributed throughout the extended family,
school, neighborhood, community, and society. Through this network, adolescents receive a
whole spectrum of social and institutional support that contributes to their social development,
academic performance, and preparation for adulthood. Such support includes the cultural
transmission of distinct discourses, access to key funds of knowledge (strategic and cultural
resources, which provide disadvantaged students with the basis for understanding the cultural
systems and are important and useful assets in the classroom), academic support, advice and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 86
guidance, and forms of modeling and training designed to promote effective communication and
relational competencies enabling effective help seeking and the reciprocal exchange with
different adult and peer networks.
College Preparation Programs For Low-Income Students
Recognizing that there is a lack in social and cultural capital (especially the kinds that
schooling systems value) among low-income minority students, different types of college
preparation programs have been developed to ameliorate the disparity in education attainment for
children of low socioeconomic and minority status. The following describes three types: (a)
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), (b) Upward Bound, and (c) The
Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI), none of which is currently operationalized at THS.
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID). AVID is a college preparatory
program that aims to close the achievement gap by preparing students for college readiness and
success in the global economy (Lawson, 2011). AVID, developed in 1980 in San Diego by a
high school teacher, focuses on the average student. Student participation is based on the
recommendations made by teachers and counselors. AVID is an elective course and is taught by
a teacher specifically trained to facilitate the learning that takes place. Students are taught to gain
basic skills such as note-taking strategies, how to study, and how to complete homework
assignments. In addition, students are provided with pathways to navigate the college application
process – ranging from filling out and submitting application materials to acquiring financial
resources to ensure proper matriculation into college. In many respects, the role of AVID
teachers subsumes what has been dramatically reduced at low-income schools – the role of the
guidance counselor.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 87
Lawson’s (2011) study examined the benefits and challenges of student participation in
AVID at a Northern California urban high school. In order to determine the extent to which the
AVID program provided college readiness, social capital, cultural capital, and habitus for its
students, the researcher connected with 109 students from the four graduating AVID classes
during the years between 2007 and 2010 and conducted a survey, accordingly. It was discovered
that the AVID program was able to (a) increase students’ educational beliefs, values, and skills
(cultural capital); (b) instill an intrinsic motivation or college knowledge and success (habitus);
and (c) encourage students to feel comfortable speaking with professors and peers (social
capital). To that end, the counseling and academic foci of AVID demonstrated in this particular
study to be able to instill in students the cultural and social capital necessary for success.
In an earlier study, Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, and Lintz (1996) examined the role of
institutional support networks in promoting student engagement and achievement. Specifically,
the study investigated the features of AVID that made schools work for African American and
Latino youth, such as the curriculum, teachers, mentors, networking, and other social factors.
Mehan and colleagues (1996) employed the term social scaffolding to describe the institutional
support systems that AVID created to increase school success for low status youth. They defined
these supports as “the practice of combining heterogeneous grouping with a uniform,
academically rigorous curriculum enhanced with strong supports” (Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard,
& Lintz, 1996, p. 78). Focusing on the organizational arrangements provided through AVID,
Mehan et al. (1996) demonstrated how social scaffolding contributed to positive academic
motivation and engagement. These researchers posited that through social scaffolding,
disenfranchised youth can attain the socialization required for academic success. More
specifically, AVID “explicitly teach(es) aspects of the implicit culture of the classroom and the
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 88
hidden curriculum of the school” (Mehan et al., 1996, p. 81). Accordingly, Mehan and
colleagues (1996) surmised that AVID provided low status youth with the foundations essential
for navigating the opportunity structure and achieving social mobility.
Upward Bound. Similarly, Upward Bound, part of the federal TRIO program initiated
by the U.S. Department of Education, helps low-income and first generation high school students
prepare and pay for college. Low-income and potential first-generation college students between
the ages of 13 and 19, who have completed at least the 8
th
grade, are eligible. Maimer (2004)
used a longitudinal, repeated measures design from a secondary data from a national evaluation
of the Upward Bound program to evaluate whether cultural capital and social capital acquired by
Upward Bound participants positively affected these students in making educational transitions.
The sample comprised 2,797 respondents in a treatment group (n=1,524) and a control group
(n=1,273) and factor analysis, multiple regression, and logistic regression were used for analysis.
It was revealed that social and cultural capital variables moderate the relationship between
family background and educational outcomes and transitions. The study supported the idea that
social and cultural capital, whether on the part of the parents, school personnel, or the Upward
Bound program, plays a positive role in helping low-income, first-generation students make the
transition from high school to college. In addition, data collected has showed a higher average of
college participation than comparison groups both within the same school and the school district.
The Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI). The University of Southern California
operationalized the Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) in 1990 with approximately forty
seventh-grade students admitted each year. Students come from the neighborhoods in Los
Angeles with historically low representation in postsecondary institutions. The overwhelming
majority of youth are either African American or Hispanic; a significant percentage is first
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 89
generation citizens, or immigrants from Latin America whose parents do not yet have their
citizenship. Students are chosen for the program based on two criteria: (a) their stated
willingness to learn, and (b) a parent or guardian’s willingness to support the “scholar.” The
student does not need to be an “A” student or perceived to be “college material;” most
participants are considered “B” or “C” students. The students attend classes every day for two
hours prior to the start of school at the University of Southern California (USC). The instructors
are hired by NAI, but come from local area high schools. The subjects taught are English and
math. Students also attend a “Saturday Enrichment Academy” where the classes deal with topics
such as computer literacy, socioemotional issues, study skills and the like. Students take extra
courses during the summer. Parents or guardians attend approximately six Saturday morning
sessions every semester that pertain to a variety of familial issues and responsibilities relating to
college.
A central component of NAI pertains to counseling in ways that go beyond what
programs such as AVID do. As with AVID, teachers and staff focus on the pertinent elements of
college applications, tests, and other preparatory information. Above this support, NAI guidance
also enables students to appropriately address the myriad of social and emotional problems that
confront all adolescents. These problems develop and get played out in localized, cultural
contexts. Furthermore, the incentive for success in the program is enticing; if they apply to USC
and gain acceptance, the university will pay for their tuition. Surprisingly, students, as revealed
in interviews conducted, did not know how much college costs. Knowledge of college cost was
highly correlated to student age (Tierney & Jun, 2001). Simply, few students demonstrated an
accurate sense of technical concepts like tuition, financial aid, loans, or scholarships actually
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 90
mean. So, in order to induce increased academic attainments results, NAI effectively removed
the college cost barrier to college for students.
In sum, the decision to pursue a college education is a complex process, which requires
extensive long-term planning as well as specific kinds of knowledge, values, and other personal
and social resources. For some students, these are acquired in the course of normal social
interactions and daily life at home and in family and community settings. For other students,
however, especially for those with few economic resources and little access to others with
experience and knowledge of educational systems, they may arrive at school with less
preparation to succeed. While it is not the case that they lack cultural and social resources, they
may lack those specifically valued and reinforced in formal school settings. Fortunately, there is
evidence that these can be fostered in school settings with the right kinds of support systems. In
the absence of these types of supports, the source and amount of cultural and social capital for
disadvantaged high school youth preparing for college can limit their decision to apply and
subsequently enter a college program. This lack of knowledge defined as valued information and
resourceful connections in the varying social fields ultimately appears to hinder the academic
achievement of low status youth like the ELLs at THS. However, as discussed above, there are
approaches and programs available for evaluation and implementation in order to better the
chances of these disenfranchised students. The choice of the type of supports that will be most
useful in this setting will depend on the school’s resources and goals.
Mismatched Expectations to Actual Student Achievement
The survey conducted for analysis in this project also highlighted a discrepancy between
what students value and expected to what was actualized in achievement as measured by student
course grades. The Latino ELLs at THS valued and expected that they would get above a 3.0
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 91
GPA, but only 25% were able to attain this. Stated differently, the results of the school survey
illustrated that students at THS possessed an initial high level of expectancy outcomes and self-
efficacy. They believed that they could achieve at a higher level. Additionally, they stated that
they value the expected high achievement level. Researchers would refer to this achievement
problem as inaccurate expectancy outcomes and inaccurate self-efficacy. This is cause for
concern because both inaccurate expectancy outcomes and inaccurate self-efficacy can diminish
student motivation (Bandura, 1986; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In order to help the both students
and the school to meet their achievement goals, it is important to examine the root causes to why
the Latino ELLs at THS are not adequately meeting the set achievement goals. The following
sections will address these two root sources of the disconnect between expected and actualized
student achievement in turn.
Expectancy-Value Theory
The motivational theory most central to this achievement problem is expectancy-value
theory. Expectancy-value theory, which was created by Atkinson (1957) and developed by
Wigfield and Eccles (1992, 2000), argues that the incentive value and expectancy outcome of a
task is an important determinant for an individual to choose to engage and carry out that task.
The value component can be positive, which engage the subject to do the task or negative, which
will cause the subject to avoid the task. The expectancy component is the reflection of the
individual’s beliefs about their capabilities to do the task and succeed at it (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). This theory is used to predict an individual’s choice in future behavior by matching their
expectations and their values to the prescribed actions.
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) explained that there are four types of task value: (a)
attainment, (b) utility, (c) intrinsic, and (d) perceived cost. Attainment value is the importance of
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 92
the task to the individual’s identity. An example of this would be a student who feels that he/she
has to attain the highest grade in the class studies extra hard to get the highest grade. Utility
value is how useful this task will be for something they will need later. Illustrative of this type of
task value is when a student desires to get good grades in order to get accepted into college.
Intrinsic value is the interest the individual has for the task itself. This concept is demonstrated
when a student wants to play basketball just for fun. Perceived cost refers to weighing the
difficulty of attaining a goal in comparison to the value of attaining that goal. An example of this
would be a student who wants to attend college but who must weigh the amount of time and
money and effort that pursuing this goal would entail.
Expectancy-value theory assume that people make judgments of the likelihood of
attaining various goals in given situation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). They are not motivated to
attempt the impossible, so they do not pursue goals perceived as unattainable. Even a positive
outcome expectation does not produce action if the goal is not valued. An attractive goal, along
with the belief it is attainable, motivates people to act. In addition, expectancies and values
themselves are influenced by task-specific beliefs such as perceptions of competence,
perceptions of the difficulty of different tasks, and individuals’ goals and self-schema, along with
their affective memories for different achievement-related events. These beliefs, goals, and
affective memories are influenced by individuals’ perceptions of other people’s attitudes and
expectations for them, and by their own interpretations of their previous achievement outcomes.
Children’s perceptions and interpretations are influenced by a broad spectrum of social and
cultural factors. These include socializers’ (especially parents and teachers) beliefs and
behaviors, their specific achievement experiences, and aptitudes, and cultural context in which
they live.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 93
Eccles and Wigfield (1995) examined the dimensionality and relationships between
adolescents’ achievement-related beliefs and self-perceptions, focusing on subjective valuing of
achievement. They assessed beliefs derived from expectancy-value theory; namely valuing of
achievement activities by adolescents, expectancies for success and ability perceptions, and
perceptions of task difficulty. As part of the study, adolescents completed questionnaires once a
year for two years. The first year sample consisted to 742 predominantly Caucasian, middle class
adolescents in grades 5 through 12 and the sample in year two comprised 575 adolescents in
grades 6 through 12. From the questionnaire, 29 items were used in the analyses, which
comprised of the following theoretically generated domain-specific constructs: enjoyment in
doing the task, perceived importance of task, perceptions of the extrinsic utility value of the
subject area, ability perceptions, performance perceptions, expectations for success, perceived
task difficulty, amount of effort required to do well, and actual amount of effort exerted. All
items focused on the domain on mathematics. The confirmatory factor analyses indicated that
achievement-related beliefs separate into three task values factors – interest, perceived
importance, and perceived utility – one expectancy/ability factor – comprising beliefs about
one’s competence, expectancies for success, and performance perceptions – and two task
difficulty factors – perceptions of difficulty and perceptions of effort required to do well. Results
indicated that task values and ability perceptions factors were positively related to each other and
negatively correlated to perceptions of task difficulty. Simply, adolescents, in this study, valued
an activity when they think they are good at it. In addition, adolescents are less likely to believe
they are good at something if they think it is difficult, and they devalue the activity if they think
it is difficult. Accordingly, the findings from this study corroborated those from Wigfield and
Eccles (2000).
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 94
Self-Efficacy Theory
Outcome expectations and the perceived value of outcomes are not the only motivational
variable that will induce fruitful academic behaviors. Schunk and Pajares (2001) noted that
students also need adequate skills and self-efficacy to positively influence choice and direction
of their behaviors. Although expectancy-outcomes and self-efficacy are similar and highly
related and are often included together in empirical and practical discussions, the two concepts
are not quite the same. Self-efficacy refers to beliefs about a person’s own capabilities to learn or
perform behaviors at designated levels, whereas outcome expectancy refers to the consequences
expected from a person’s own actions (Schunk & Pajares, 2001). An example provided by these
researchers to differentiate expectancy-outcomes and self-efficacy is: an highly efficacious
individual may believe she has the capability to learn math; however, this same individual may
also believe that despite her perceived self-efficacy, she will not attain the high grade in math as
she believed she was capable because the teacher does not favor her. The following section will
further detail self-efficacy theory and its relationship to the achievement problem at THS.
Bandura (1986) hypothesized that self-efficacy affects an individual’s choice of
activities, effort, and persistence. People who have a low sense of efficacy for accomplishing a
task may avoid it; those who believe they are capable should participate readily. Individual who
feel efficacious are hypothesized to work harder and persist longer when they encounter
difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities. Self-efficacy theory has postulated that
people acquire information to appraise efficacy from their performance accomplishments,
vicarious (observational) experience, forms of persuasion, and physiological indexes. An
individual’s own performances offer the most reliable guides for assessing efficacy. Successes
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 95
raise efficacy and failure lowers it, but once a strong sense of efficacy is developed, a failure
may not have much impact (Bandura, 1986).
Schunk (1989) discussed how self-efficacy might operate during academic learning. At
the start of an activity, students differ in their beliefs about their capabilities to acquire
knowledge, perform skills, master the material, and so forth. Initial self-efficacy varies as a
function of aptitude (abilities and attitudes) and prior experience. Such personal factors as goal
setting and information processing, along with situational factors (rewards and teacher
feedback), affect students while they are working. From these factors, students derive cues
signaling how well they are learning, which they use to assess efficacy for further learning.
Motivation is enhanced when students perceive they are making progress in learning. The timing
of feedback also is important. Early feedback for early successes should be more credible when
students have to work hard to succeed.
From their review of research related to the development of academic self-efficacy,
Schunk and Pajares (2001) synthesized several key factors contributing to the development or
diminution of an individual’s self-efficacy, which can result in increased or decreased motivation
and academic achievement. The factors most related to the achievement gap faced by the Latino
ELL students at THS include: (1) Self-efficacy beliefs tend to decline as students move through
their schooling process have been attributed to factors such as competition, more norm-
referenced grading, less teacher attention to individual student progress, and stresses with school
transition; (2) The misalignment between students’ self-efficacy and their actual performance
and level of achievement may be due to various causes such as lack of task familiarity, faulty
knowledge about their performance capabilities; (3) Feedback is a persuasive source of self-
efficacy information. Appropriate performance feedback can help improve motivation and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 96
strengthen self-efficacy because it informs the students of goal progress. Feedback allows
students to understand which of their actions result in positive outcomes and thus, guides their
future actions; and (4) Students’ engagement in school depend, in part, on the extent to which the
school environment contributes to their perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, which
influence self-efficacy and schooling outcomes.
Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, and Akey (2004) evaluated the predictions of a causal
model that explains the impact of students’ perceptions of classroom structures (such as mastery
focus, autonomy support, and non-competitive evaluation) on their self-efficacy, perceptions of
the instrumentality of class work to attaining future goals, and their achievement goals in a
particular classroom setting. In addition, the model also demonstrated how the motivational
variables (self-efficacy, instrumentality, and goals) influence students’ cognitive engagement and
achievement in that setting. The sample used in this study included 220 high school student
volunteers from a suburban high school in the Midwest who were enrolled in English classes
taught by three different teachers. These participants completed a series of questionnaires over a
three-month period in their English classes. The students completed three surveys: (1) a 38-item
survey of Classroom Goals Structures, (b) a seven-item, four-point scale measuring the degree of
confidence a student has that he/she can be successful learning in the current class, and (c) a 26-
item Approaches to Learning instrument.
Findings from Greene et al. (2004) supported the following relationships: achievement
outcomes are directly influenced by both meaningful strategy use and self-efficacy; meaningful
strategy use is influenced by mastery goals, self-efficacy, and perceived instrumentality, but not
by performance-approach goals; mastery goals are influenced by variations in self-efficacy,
perceived instrumentality, and perceptions of classroom tasks as meaningful and motivating;
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 97
self-efficacy is directly influenced by perceptions of classroom tasks being meaningful and
motivating. Furthermore, perceptions of different facets of the classroom climate are
differentially related to motivation. Consistent with the researchers’ predictions, students who
perceived their classroom as supporting autonomy and mastery-oriented evaluation rather than
competitive evaluation, expressed higher levels of self-efficacy.
Program Models for Development of Student Motivation
Understanding that inaccurate expectancies and inaccurate assessment of self-efficacy
can critically weaken student academic motivation, which in turn can negatively affect academic
achievement, researchers have attempted to link motivational theories such expectancy-outcomes
theory and self-efficacy theory to practice in hopes of assisting the classroom practitioners as
well as the students to produce more fruitful schooling outcomes (Hancock, 1995; Jones, 2009)).
The following discussion explicates (1) an application of the expectancy-outcomes theory in the
context of the education setting (Hancock, 1995); and (2) the MUSIC model for academic
motivation designed by Jones (2009).
Application of expectancy-outcomes theory for academic motivation. According to
Hancock (1995), the expectancy theory of motivation suggests that the amount of effort
(motivation) an individual will exert depends on three perceptual relationships: (a) expectancy –
a person’s subjective estimation of the likelihood of successfully performing a particular
behavior; (b) instrumentality – a person’s subjective estimation of the likelihood that a particular
behavior will result in certain outcomes; and (c) valence – the positive or negative value that a
person places on each of those outcomes. Accordingly, the following lists Hancock’s (1995)
suggestions on how teachers may help with these three components to increase a student’s
academic achievement.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 98
First, to increase a student’s expectancy, a teacher may: (1) identify for the students those
behaviors normally associated with learning, (2) adjust the standards, (3) offer additional
instruction to the student, (4) alter student’s perceptions of her capabilities with respect to
learning, (5) attempt to restructure the learning environment in order to foster the student’s
perception that the behaviors involved in learning are achievable.
Next, to increase a student’s instrumentality, a teacher may: (1) need to insure the
existence of rewards associated with learning such as an evaluation system whereby grades
clearly reflect student performance, (2) effectively communicate all possible outcomes
associated with learning, and (3) need to make clear that outcomes are distributed equitably
among all student and that each student’s reward is related to the amount of effort exerted.
Lastly, Hancock (1995) suggested that in order to positively affect a student’s perception
of the valence, a teacher: (1) needs to examine and attend to each student’s views toward the
outcomes of learning, (2) should not impose his/her value system onto the student, and (3) may,
on occasion, create his/her own positive outcomes for his/her students’ constructive learning
behaviors.
Although Hancock (1995) understands that under the umbrella of the expectancy-
outcomes theory, motivation is a very individualistic process, the classroom teacher, through the
application of the theory as outlined above can positively enhance the academic motivation of
his/her students through their own behaviors.
MUSIC model for academic motivation. The MUSIC model of academic motivation
was developed in Jones (2009) for use by instructors to design courses that would engage student
in learning. The aim of the article was to summarize the major tenets of academic motivation in a
manner that is understandable to instructors in any academic discipline. The MUSIC model of
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 99
academic motivation comprised of five components: (1) empowerment, (2) usefulness, (3)
success, (4) interest, and (5) caring. The acronym, MUSIC, is derived from the second letter in
“empowerment” and the first letter from the other four elements of the model. Jones (2009)
noted that the five components are included together in one model because research and theory
indicate that when instructors foster one or more of these components, students are more
motivated to engage in their learning, which results in increased learning. However, as the root
problem of adequate achievement at THS is expectancy outcomes, the dimension of motivation
that would impact it from the model is success. To that end, the following sections list and
describe the other components briefly, but will focus on the dimension of success in more detail.
Empowerment: Empowerment refers to the amount of perceived control that students
have over their learning. What matters most here is that students perceive that they have control
over some aspect of their learning. Research has shown that students of autonomy-supportive
teachers have been shown to receive many benefits, including enhanced conceptual learning,
greater perceived academic and social competence, a higher sense of self-worth and self-esteem,
greater creativity, a preference for challenging tasks, a more positive emotional tone, increased
school attendance, and higher grades (Jones, 2009).
Usefulness: Instructors need to ensure that students understand why the content of the
course is useful. Student’s motivation is affected by their perceptions of the usefulness of what
they are learning for their future. Students who perceived their schoolwork to be less relevant to
their goals were less motivated than those who saw the relevance in their schoolwork and had a
positive outlook on their future.
Success: Instructors should design all aspects of courses such that students can succeed if
they obtain the knowledge and skills and put forth the effort required. Students need to believe
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 100
that if they invest effort into the course, they can succeed. The instructor needs to structure the
course to be challenging, provide feedback about students’ knowledge and skills, and provide the
resources necessary for students to succeed. Humans have a need to good at what they do.
Success, as well as failure, is critical for students because it provides feedback that they can use
to adjust their self-perceptions of competence. Additionally, for students to be motivated, it is not
enough for them to simply achieve success. Students are most engaged and experience the
greatest amount of enjoyment in an activity when the difficulty of the activity matches their
ability level. Accordingly, the three questions Jones (2009) focused on for the component of
success were: (1) Do students understand the instructor’s expectations of them; (2) Do students
find the learning activities challenging in that they are not too hard or easy; and (3) Do students
receive regular feedback about their level of competence? Examples of how to respond to these
questions include: (1) Make the expectations for the course activities clear and explicit; (2)
Provide clear and understandable directions for all assignments; (3) Provide learning activities
that challenge students; 4) Divide longer and more complex learning activities into manageable
sections that challenge but do not overwhelm students; (5) Order learning activities, or steps
within each activity, by difficulty level, starting with the easiest and progressing to the hardest;
(6) Provide assignments and/or assessments for students to receive feedback about their
competence throughout the course as opposed to only once or twice; (7) Encourage students to
set specific, attainable (but challenging), short-term goals that lead to longer-term goals; (8)
Allow students to re-do assignments and/or assessments; (9) Provide help (such as providing
strategies, answering students’ questions, offering resources, and facilitating a way for student to
help one another) to students who are not succeeding; (10) Provide accurate and honest feedback
in a manner that encourages students to put forth effort; (11) Set high, but reasonable course
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 101
expectations; and (12) Provide a variety of assignments that allow students to demonstrate their
knowledge in different ways.
Interest: Instructors should ensure that their classroom activities and/or course topics are
interesting to students. Instructors can influence students’ interest. Furthermore, instructors
should think beyond creating interesting classroom activities to thinking about how they might
incorporate aspects of instruction that foster in students a more enduring interest in the course
content.
Caring: Instructors should demonstrate to students that they care about whether students
successfully meet the course objectives. Humans have a need to establish and sustain caring
interpersonal relationships. Caring relationships with instructors have been shown to be related
to intrinsic motivation, positive coping, relative autonomy, and engagement in school,
expectancies, values, effort, cognitive engagement, self-efficacy, persistence, and performance.
Altogether, a student’s expectancy-outcomes perceptions and self-efficacy can play a
critical role in developing and maintaining academic motivation, which in turn has a large
influence on the extent of academic achievement (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1989; Schunk &
Pajares, 2001). Latino El students indicated that they valued the outcomes and expected to earn
above a 3.0 GPA; however, only about 25% actually attained this goal. According to research, all
the Latino EL students who valued and expected the 3.0 GPA outcome would be characterized as
individuals with a high level of outcome expectations (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Hancock, 1995;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Though having a high level of outcome expectations and positive
perceived value of outcomes is a good start, Schunk and Pajares (2001) revealed that they are not
the only motivational variables that will promote enhanced academic behaviors. Students also
need adequate skills and self-efficacy. Positively affecting the level of outcome expectations and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 102
self-efficacy in order to increase student academic motivation is complex and multi-faceted. In
part because the solution requires a consorted effort from both the school staff as well as the
students. While students, especially at the high school level, may not possess as much self-
efficacy as when younger and what they possess may be faulty and lacking in task awareness
(Schunk & Pajares, 2001) and may not have overall knowledge of the outcomes of their actions
(Hancock, 1995), teachers and the schooling system are capable of engendering increased
motivation by being cognizant of and implementing instructional strategies that can develop
these motivational factors in order to produce better student outcomes.
Summary
The above review of literature provides both a theoretical foundation for the gaps in
achievement of Latino ELL students at THS as well as direction and a lens through which
solutions can appropriately be designed and implemented. In response to the first root cause
examined in this chapter – lack of valued information (college affordability) – it would be
appropriate for THS to examine resources they have and the academic goals developed in order
to work towards operationalizing one or more or a mixture of the programs discussed. The key is
to establish and maintain social networks accessible by these disadvantaged students so that they
are able to enlarge their cultural and social capital. To the second root cause, it is essential that
both teachers and students gain the knowledge that they are capable of positively affecting the
level of student academic motivation in order to enhance student outcomes. To this end,
professional development that addresses the concepts for developing academic motivation is
salient and necessary.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 103
Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions
Author: Michael Kurland
This chapter concludes the gap analysis process and thus, provides the proposed solutions
on how to ameliorate the achievement gap, which was analyzed during the course of this project
directly related to the college readiness of the Latino English language learners (ELLs) at Trojan
High School
10
(THS). To that end, recommendations will first be described, followed by the
manner in which the implementation of the recommendations can be evaluated for effectiveness.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered to THS for their consideration as solutions to
the college readiness gap demonstrated by the Latino ELLs at their school. These two
recommendations have been carefully crafted from research, and are targeted at the root causes
to the college readiness gap for Latino ELL students at THS. While other team members will
address other root causes in separate chapters, the root causes addressed in this chapter include
(a) access to valued information (college affordability), and (b) alignment between student
expectations and motivation to actual achievement as measured by student grades. The
recommended solutions and strategies for evaluation for these two issues were developed with
sensitivity to limited financial resources and workload considerations at the school. The literature
review completed in the previous chapter informs suggested recommendations discussed in this
chapter. The following are the two overarching recommendations for THS:
1. Develop a program to help Latino ELL students improve their social and cultural
capital that are valued by colleges and universities through the use and

10
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 104
implementation of ideas from Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID),
(b) Upward Bound, and (c) The Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI).
2. Promote accurate self-efficacy and expectancy outcomes for Latino ELL students by
providing training to teachers on accurate feedback and appropriate selection of task
difficulty on assignments and assessments administered to students.
Social and Cultural Capital
From the survey of 113 Latino ELL students conducted at THS, only about 40% believe
that they could afford to go to a university and less than 70% of the students thought that they
could even afford to apply. One reason this could be the case is that the students do not have the
social and cultural capital valued by college going cultures. While it is not the case that they lack
cultural and social resources, they may lack those specifically valued and reinforced in formal
school settings. This is because the students could be unaware of how to navigate the financial
aid system, do not believe they have what it takes to go, or they could possibly not know why
they would want to go to college. Through our interviews with several staff members at THS,
these ideas were reinforced, as one of the common themes from the responses was that students
in this population believe that they cannot afford to attend a four-year university. Several of the
THS counselors revealed that many students in the past have mentioned their concerns about
affordability; the counselors told us that they explained fee waivers and how to apply for
financial aid to those students who asked them about it. This behavior rewards those students
who feel comfortable approaching and asking the counselors and who have the capital to know
that the counselors can help them with this. THS has also created programs such as “Monday
Lunch Chats” and “Guidance Planning Services at THS” or “GPS@THS,” both of which has
offered informational talks about applying for scholarships to the general student population.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 105
However, since there is still evidence of low beliefs in affordability for universities across all
grade levels in this population, there must be an underlying issue that has not been adequately
addressed. Since approximately 80% of the students surveyed expect to attend a four-year
university and attending a four-year university is important to them, they do not have a lack of
drive to go to college, but perhaps a lack of capital to know what to do in order to get into and
afford college. Fortunately, there is evidence that this capital can be fostered in school settings
with the right kinds of support systems.
From the literature review in the last chapter, it is clear that schools can make a huge
impact on the likelihood that students will apply to and get accepted into college. Three ways
that were explored that schools have achieved this are AVID, Upward Bound, and NAI. These
programs create a college-linking network for the students who would not normally have such
access. By providing resource-generating relationships to students, which provide college
attainment support, the students are then able to move towards applying and ultimately gaining
acceptance into universities and colleges. These programs show that these relationships can be
with a teacher, counselor, mentor, pro-academic peer, or an institutional agent and that it is best
to have multiple agents in the network to provide the social scaffolding support needed for the
student to succeed. This support should focus on accessing key funds of knowledge that provide
disadvantaged students with the basis for understanding the college cultural systems, explicitly
teach the implicit culture required for success, and promote effective help seeking behaviors for
these students.
The main focus of AVID is to push the focus from the need for all information to be
learned from the counselor to a teacher, which primarily helps high counselor to student ratios.
The AVID program has shown to be effective in increasing the needed funds of knowledge and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 106
promoting effective help seeking behaviors in students in those programs. This program instills
the cultural and social capital necessary for student success but only does so for the students in
the classroom where AVID strategies and resources are provided. The AVID program can cost
upwards of $18,000 to start at a new site plus additional district costs as well as further
continuous yearly fees to support the program (see Appendix L). These fees do not include the
need for a teacher to take on the lead role of coordinator and the four other members
(administrator, counselor, and two subject area teachers) comprising a site team, taking them
away from their other duties and responsibilities. It is important to note that in deciding to create
an AVID or similar program, it is critical that everyone or at least the group of five members
directly involved, share in the responsibility to make sure the program is implemented
effectively; implementation fidelity and best and sustainable results require all members of the
team to be fully engaged in the process.
Upward Bound and NAI are both programs offered outside of a high school, which
requires the student to apply in order to get a chance to get in. Both of these programs provide
training and support for the students on a myriad of issues around college attainment. NAI also
requires parents to be part of the program and participate in the training. NAI also removes the
financial problem of applying to college since if they are accepted into the program their college
tuition (at the University of Southern California – USC) will be free. Only a limited number of
students are able to participate in Upward Bound and NAI each year, and these programs are out
of the sphere of control for a high school.
Possible Capital Interventions
Possible solutions using the previously mentioned ideas could be to create an AVID
program at THS, create a program similar to AVID, help students apply for Upward Bound and
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 107
NAI, create a parent and family college support group, and/or use a previously created online
program such as Collegeology.
Creating a comprehensive AVID program at a school has many benefits for the students
who participate and as explained in the last chapter, AVID has a strong track record for college
attainment, but there are also many costs associated with its implementation, such as staff time
and program fees. THS would have to decide if they have the budget and staff availability to
create a successful AVID program in order to maintain the fidelity of the program. If THS would
like to move towards creating an AVID program, they will want to contact an AVID
representative to go over all requirements and costs as well as create the five-person team that
will work to create the AVID program at the school. The California division for AVID is located
in San Diego and the contact phone number is 858-380-4800.
If the cost of AVID is too great, it might be possible to create a similar system to AVID
with a dedicated group of staff members. Using the principles of AVID, a group of staff
members could be brought together to brainstorm how they could create a similar program. The
main considerations on which to focus would be providing support that addresses ways to access
key funds of knowledge for understanding the college cultural systems, explicitly teach these
implicit systems required for success, and promote effective help seeking behaviors for these
students. The AVID program generally uses tutors, professional development, and additional
resources to reach this goal. The first step to create this program would be to create buy-in from
a group of staff members that will want to spearhead this project.
Another approach could be providing students the support and help to apply for Upward
bound and NAI. Both of these programs are designed for disadvantaged students who may not
even know how to apply for the programs. THS could create a support program that helps
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 108
students apply for these programs and increase the rate at which students get into the programs.
To further help THS students, a stipulation for the help on the application process could be for
the students who do get into the program must provide peer mentorship to students who do not
get into the program. This way if only a few students get into the programs they will be able to
increase the capital of all the students participating in the process. The first step to create this
process would be to create buy-in from a group of staff members that will want to take the
leadership roles for this project.
The NAI program focuses not only on student support but also parents (family) support.
THS could begin to facilitate a parent support group early on in the high school process in order
to create buy-in for parents as well as help them understand the process of applying and
affording college. Modeled after the NAI program, these parents would have to opt into the
program and commit to the program as well as to their student’s success. This program should
provide parents with the needed information about college, the application process, and financial
aid application process as well as a means to provide social support and mentoring for parents to
help each other with the process. The first step to create this program would be to work with staff
and parents to create enthusiasm and a desire to create and implement this project.
Collegeology, created by the University of Southern California, uses research-based
theory and innovative ideas to create games that provide postsecondary educational opportunities
for students. Collegeology has created two games for students to improve their funds of
knowledge and support for college attainment, which they believe provide a safe place for
students to fail and grow. Application Crunch is a card game for 3-4 players who take on the role
high school students trying to get into college. It is important to have a staff member or college
knowledgeable person to help facilitate the game and answer any questions that arise. The cost of
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 109
the Application Crunch classroom set of ten games is $275. In addition, a knowledgeable person
would be required, which may or may not cost additional money depending on the school setup.
A newer game created by Collegeology is called “Mission: Admission.” “Mission: Admission”
is a free facebook-based game designed to help students understand the strategies and skills
needed to apply to college. The three ways they suggest to present the game to students is to
introduce the game through the previous Application Crunch card game, to start the game in a
computer lab on site, or to provide students the information about the website and assign them to
do it at home. An assignment or time to reflect on the game will help to make sure the students
learn the most from the game possible. As of now no published research could be found to
support these games, but Dr. Zoe Crowin, assistant professor at USC, has said that playing these
games two or more times has increased students’ college going efficacy. If THS is interested in
pursuing either of the two games created by Collegeology, more information can be found at
http://collegeology.usc.edu/.
It is important to take into consideration the amount of time and cost each of these
options would require. This will also depend on how many students THS would like to support
through these programs. One important factor may be how THS picks students to participate in
these programs. It is possible to survey students on their current level of college knowledge, their
support network for college capital, and the likelihood that a student will and knows how to
reach out to get help. Students with low knowledge of college, low levels of college capital, and
less likely to reach out to get help would be the prime targets of any intervention. It will also be
important to get the students buy into the program to make sure they want to be a part of it.
Similar to any effective program implementation, it is also necessary to have a way to track the
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 110
students’ progress over time. Finally, the decision should be made in tandem with the district,
staff, and faculty support to make sure all stakeholders are on board.
Accurate Expectancy Outcomes and Self-Efficacy
From our interviews we heard from staff that students are not motivated to get good
grades and students seem to be motivated, but just do not know what to do. The student survey
then showed an overwhelming 90% of these students want and expect to get a B or higher in
their classes. This is important because most universities in California require a student to have a
3.0 GPA or higher. Thus, if these students are to be university eligible, they will need to attain a
minimum 3.0 GPA. Given that these students expect and believe it is important to get grades of
3.0 or higher, it was shocking to find out through THS achievement data that only 25% of this
student population is currently achieving a 3.0 GPA or higher; in fact, a high proportion of the
population had lower than a 2.0 GPA. A few of the teachers commented that some of these
students do not have the study skills needed to succeed in their classes, and that with their
increased student population they do not have the time to help as many students individually as
they have in the past. One teacher mentioned that in the past, they would call the parents and ask
the student what is going on if they earned a C or lower. However, now, they said they only have
time to do so for students who are failing the class. One reason mentioned for this change by all
teachers is the increase in students in the classroom from 20 to 30 students in the classroom to
now about 40 plus students. Unfortunately, we were not given the records from past years. As a
result, we were unable to make comparisons with these numbers alone. Grading policy for THS
was also reviewed and was found that there was no standardized grading scale but grades were
suggested based on merit. Grades are reported eight times per year and the principal encourages
staff to upload the information onto the Parent/Student Connect website, which is currently only
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 111
available in English. Very few teachers mention that they taught the students who were doing
poorly any learning strategies to help the students improve. Also, it was mentioned that certain
students just don’t seem to do as well as others, which could be an expectation or attribution
issue.
One issue that was mentioned was classroom size. Teachers mentioned that having too
many students per class can be overwhelming and thus, making it harder for them to provide the
needed support and feedback required to help their students. Though no magic number exists for
a perfect classroom, it may be beneficial for classroom size to be decreased. Given that class size
may not be in the realm THS control, the proposed solution will be focused on training for
teachers at THS to do the best with what they currently have.
In the previous chapter, the importance of accurate expectancy outcomes and self-
efficacy was explained to improve both motivation and achievement in the classroom for
students. Along with the above-mentioned information, it is important that teachers at THS
create an environment that helps students improve their expectancy and self-efficacy. The
previous chapter mentioned that teachers can improve students’ expectancy and self-efficacy by
providing timely-accurate feedback, select appropriate levels of task difficulty on assignments
and assessments, make activities challenging but doable, provide resources necessary for student
success, and make sure students understand teacher expectation of them.
The objective for this training is to encourage the MELD teachers to use strategies that
will improve the students’ accurate expectancy and self-efficacy for classroom work and
assignments. It is important to both create buy-in for the teachers to make sure they want to use
the strategies and provide opportunities for practice to make sure they solidify the strategies
before actual use. Asking the MELD teachers for suggestions on how they can improve in the
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 112
areas of accurate expectancy and self-efficacy in the classroom might be just enough to get them
to share ideas and help each other improve. Otherwise more guidance must be given to help the
teachers learn and practice the strategies. Training can take place during regularly scheduled
meetings or overlapping preparation periods. It is important to break down the sessions into
topics to cover for each meeting to make sure everyone is on the same page and can start to use
the new skill. It is also important that evaluation and feedback be used throughout this process to
ensure teachers feel comfortable and able to use the skills taught. It will also be important for
teachers to track how the new skills and changes have affected their classroom, allowing them to
adjust accordingly. More information about evaluation will be described later in this chapter. The
training can be provided by a teacher leader, administrator, or outside specialist who has the
knowledge, skills, and motivational ability to create buy in and teach the lessons the teachers will
need to know. As a first step it will be important for the administration to talk to the leaders and
come up with how they will plan out this training most effectively and how to create buy in for
all teachers.
Some suggested topics to cover with the MELD teachers are: Why accurate expectancy
and self-efficacy are important? What is timely and accurate feedback and how does one provide
it? How often should timely and accurate feedback be given? Why is it important and how can
the assignments be challenging but doable? Why is it important and how can teachers provide
the necessary resources for student success given the high student ratios? Why is it important and
how can teachers make sure students understand teacher expectations of them? Why is it
important to set high, but reasonable course expectations for students? How can the learning
environment be restricted to foster the student perceptions that learning is achievable? Why is it
important and how can teachers provide an evaluation system in which grades clearly reflect
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 113
student performance? Why is it important and how can teachers improve student’s views towards
the outcomes of learning? How can courses be designed to allow students to succeed by the
knowledge and skills obtained from the course and effort required? How can longer and more
complex learning activities be chunked into manageable sections that are challenging but do not
overwhelm the student? Why is it important to order learning activities by difficulty starting with
easiest and progressing to hardest? How can students learn how to create their own short-term
and long-term goals? Why is it important to allow students to re-do assignments and
assessments? Why is it important and how can teachers provide a variety of assignments that
allow students to demonstrate their knowledge in different ways?
The number of sessions will depend on how long it takes the MELD teachers to
implement the skill with results, it is important not to move on to another skill if the previous
skill has not been mastered. It is also important to use the teachers’ previous knowledge and
skills both to help teach these topics but also to build upon their prior knowledge to increase
learning and efficiency. Much of the communication and support can be done through meetings,
phone, or emails, depending on what is most effective for the team and individual members.
Another possible way to train the MELD teachers is to look up articles and books on
accurate feedback and the previously mentioned topics that the group can go over under the
guidance of a lead teacher or administrator. This training can spread the workload and the
teachers can do everything in house at a very low cost. It will still be important that someone
provides mentorship, training, and evaluation to make sure the teachers are applying the skills
correctly for student benefit. If an outside facilitator for the training is needed, a member of this
dissertation group can provide the training on behalf of THS.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 114
Table 4 below is provided to further illustrate the solution principles and strategies that
can be used to improve the achievement of the THS Latino ELL student population:
Table 4
Validated Root Causes Solutions Table for ELL College Readiness Gap
Cause Solution Principle Strategy
Lack of perceived university
affordability (Access to Valued
Information)
Increase students’ college
readiness by increasing their
level of social and cultural
capital
• AVID or Similar Program
• Use/Mimic Upward Bound
and NAI programs
• Parent/Family College
Support Group
• Use Collegeology or similar
created onion program.

ELL student achievement is not
consistent with expectations
Promote accurate self-
efficacy and expectancy
outcomes through accurate
feedback and appropriate
task level selection
• Train teachers on how to
provide timely-accurate
feedback, select tasks of
appropriate difficulty level,
offer activities that are
challenging but doable,
provide resources necessary
for student success, and
make sure students
understand teacher
expectations of them

Evaluation
After developing research-based solutions, THS will be able to choose which aspects
they would like to implement at their school. Once the solutions have been decided and plans
created for implementation, the next step is to create a plan to evaluate outcomes and provide for
continuous improvement. One such method of evaluation is Kirkpatrick’s (1998) four levels of
evaluation, which will be explained in this section so that it can be used to evaluate all
implemented solutions.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 115
The first level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation is the initial reactions. This level looks at the
feelings, opinions, and attitudes of the participants to gauge the level of initial interest. In
general, evaluation will be done through visual cues seen or questions asked by the evaluator.
The purpose will be to gauge the motivation of participants through their values and emotional
reactions. Example questions to use would be “Do you value this program?” or “How do you
like this program?” Again, these are surface level reaction to see if the participants want to
expend the effort to implement the recommendations. The responses do not explain if the
participants gained useful information or will continue to use the recommendations.
The second level examines if the knowledge or skill taught was learned by the participant
or if their attitudes have changed given the learning environment. This level is often evaluated by
a pre- and post-test method that allows an evaluator to see the change in the participant. A useful
guiding question would be “To what extent has each participant learned what this program
intended?” Clark and Estes (2008) suggest focusing on whether participants can apply the
procedural knowledge learned from the implementation and why they are doing it. An example
of this would be to have a pre- and post-test of students understanding of the financial aid system
to see if the program has in fact produced positive learning results in that area. For the teacher
training, informal or formal observations from supervisors can be used to see if the teachers can
implement what they were taught. The idea is to make sure that learning or attitudes have
changed positively in a measureable way.
The third level of evaluation looks at how well the learned skill or attitude is then
transferred from the educational learning environment to the real world workplace. Thus, transfer
evaluation is looking to see have the improvements made through the training persist to where
they should be used. It is important to encourage participants to apply the new skill or attitude to
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 116
workplace environments as soon as possible. Leadership should clearly communicate the
expectations for the training to the teachers and staff on how the transfer to their work
environment should take place. Leadership should then closely monitor and give feedback to
help participants apply the transferred skill or attitude. The main idea behind this is to make sure
that the program, skill, or attitude continues to be in effect after it has been implemented into the
workplace. For the students, an example could be that students are asked to fill out financial aid
documents that they have been trained to complete. If they complete the form correctly then they
are transferring the practiced learning to real life, and if they are not able to complete the forms
then they can get corrective feedback and support to make sure they are able to do so in the
future. An example for the teacher training would be to check on teachers’ feedback given to
students through graded papers or other assignments to see if the teachers are giving accurate and
timely feedback that would benefit their students. Even though interviews can be used to assess
this level, it is important to see the skill or attitude playing out in a real life environment.
The final level is the results of the implementation for the organization as a whole. In this
case, has the gap at THS narrowed because of the actions taken by this implementation? It is
important to look at the goals of the school and where THS is currently at for those goals as well
as comparing where THS is at after implementation has occurred. For some of these factors, the
results will take a few years to produce reliable results/outcomes, while others may be seen more
quickly. An example of one that could take longer is how many Latino ELL students apply and
are admitted to four-year universities. While a goal that could be seen quicker would be the
midterm grade reports or semester grade reports for Latino ELL students at THS. Other
important goals to keep in mind are the reclassification numbers, standardized test data, and
attitudes of students towards college.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 117
In general, if there is an issue on the lower levels of evaluation, then it is unlikely the
higher levels will achieve the correct result. It is important to take into consideration all the
levels of effectiveness for any program implementation to make sure the program that is being
implemented is achieving what it is set out to achieve. With all evaluation processes, it is
important to use the data found through these evaluations to improve the program for future use
and success. These evaluations are great for results, but are also a time to provide support and
feedback to those in the process to make sure there is continued success.
Limitations
This capstone project comprised several limitations. First, this project was designed and
implemented in a consolation role for the specific school site of Trojan High School and
therefore, the information and solutions are not generalizable to other school sites. Secondly, this
project was limited in scope due to the narrow timeframe available to complete the project.
Specifically, the timeframe of the project was guided by the school’s schedule. Additionally,
because we were not able to obtain IRB approval to interview students specifically, data acquired
were limited.
Malloy (2010) points out that there are at least six other project based inquiry frameworks
that could have been used aside from the gap analysis process. Community action research,
positive deviance, benchmarking, program theory evaluation, policy analysis, and data-driven
decision-making all have their own merits. However, for our purposes, because the gap analysis
process focuses on using knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes to implement
performance solutions, the gap analysis framework provided the best fit for our project to
provide performance solutions on behalf of Trojan high school.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 118
Conclusion
The strategies for achieving the goals described in the beginning of this chapter focus on
two areas: (1) develop a program to help Latino ELL students at THS improve their access to
social and cultural capital that are valued by colleges and universities, and (2) provide training to
MELD teachers to promote accurate self-efficacy and expectancy outcomes for this student
population. Specific recommendations, based on a review of the literature, were provided.
This gap analysis project was implemented using a problem solving, consultant-based
model where issues identified by the staff at THS were analyzed, prioritized, and selected for use
in the gap analysis process. Therefore, all findings and recommendations contained in this
dissertation are limited to THS and more specifically, the college readiness of THS’s Latino ELL
population.
The recommendations offered to THS were suggestions created as a result of analysis of
the results of interviews, surveys, and focus-group sessions conducted and a review of current
literature. It is important that all key personnel are involved in planning and implementing
suggested recommendations in order to acquire fruitful outcomes. Continuous evaluations and
improvements are also a key factor to make sure recommendations are effective towards
bridging the college readiness gap. Although the college readiness gap at THS for Latino ELL
students is currently 75% (Or only 25% are college ready), the openness to change, motivation
from school leadership, and interest in student success will allow THS to close the gap through
the application of these recommendations.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 119
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. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility.
The Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282-2303.
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and
recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.
Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in
large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
3992.2006.00077.x
Academic Models: Explaining Achievement. (2007). In The Praeger Handbook of Latino
Education in the U.S.. Retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry.abclatinoed/academic_models_explaining_
achievement
Alvarez, L., & Corn, J. (2008). Exchanging assessment for accountability: The implications of
high-stakes reading assessments for English learners. Language Arts, 85(5), 354-365.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/la/issues
Anderson, S., Medrich, E., & Fowler, D. (2007). Which achievement gap? Phi Delta Kappan,
88(2), 540-550.
Arias, M., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promoting ELL parental involvement: Challenges in
contested times. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0801-250-
EPRU.pdf
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 120
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review; Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., … Drake., L.
(2010). The Condition of Education 2010 (NCES Publication 2010-028).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(5), 1017-1028.
Behnke, A., & Kelly, C. (2011). Creating programs to help Latino youth thrive at school: The
influence of Latino parent involvement programs. Journal of Extension, 49(1), 1-11.
Bloom, J. (2007). (Mis) reading social class in the journey towards college: Youth development
in urban America. The Teachers College Record, 109(2), 343-368.
Bilingual Education Act, Pub. L. No. 90-247, 81 Stat. 816. (1968).
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information,
16, 645–668.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu P. (1992). Structures, habitus, practices. In P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, (pp.
52–65). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 121
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,
Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/
Bozick, R., Lauff, E., & Wirt, J. (2007). Education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS: 2002): A
first look at the initial postsecondary experiences of the high school sophomore class
of 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55-71.
Cal. Ed. Code § 313 (2011). CELDT Regulations. Retrieved from
http://law.onecle.com/california/education/index.html
California Department Of Education (2009). DataQuest: 2008-2009 high school graduates’
college enrollment. Retrieved from California Department of Education website.
California Department of Education (2010a). DataQuest: California high school exit
exam (CAHSEE) results for mathematics and English-language arts (ELA) by gender and
race/ethnicity designation, (combined 2010) for (Grade 10) state report. Retrieved from
California Department of Education website.
California Department of Education. (2010b). DataQuest: Dropouts by ethnic designation
by grade: State of California for the year 2008-09. Retrieved from California Department
of Education website.
California Department of Education. (2011). 2011 adequate yearly progress report: Information
guide. Retrieved from California Department of Education website..
California Department of Education. (2011). Language census data: 2010-2011 [Dataquest
query]. Retrieved from California Department of Education website.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 122
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2008). Analysis of the 2007-2008 budget bill:
education. Retrieved from California Legislative Analyst’s Office
website: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/education/ed_11_anl07.aspx
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
Callahan, R. M., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking
among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 84–117.
Cal-PASS. (2011). Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE) student outcomes. Sacramento,
CA. Retrieved from www.piqe.org/docs/annualreport/2011_PIQE_AR.pdf
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Urban Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf
Chrispeels, J., & Bolivar, J. (2008). Parent Institute for Quality Education: High school study.
University of California, San Diego.
Clark, K. (2009). The case for structured English immersion. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 42-46.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of
sociology, 95-120.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 123
Collins, J. (1999). The culture wars and shifts in linguistic capital: For combining political
economy and cultural analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
12(3), 269-286.
Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino
school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 475-505.
Contreras, F. E. (2005). Access, achievement and social capital: Standardized exams and the
Latino college-bound population. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 197-214.
Davidson, T., & Cardemil, E. (2009). Parent-Child communication and parental involvement in
Latino adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 99-121.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents'
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Retrieved From
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69045/2/10.1177_
0146167295213003.pdf
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Reviews of
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
Engberg, M. E., & Wolniak, G. C. (2011). Access to Postsecondary Education: The
Interrelationships among High School Contexts and Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved
from https://airweb.org/GrantsAndScholarships/Documents/Mark%20Engberg%20-
%20AIR%20Final%20Report.pdf
Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380, 88 Stat. 514 (1974).

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 124
Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z., & Pachon, H. (2009) Que pasa? Are English language
learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? A Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute Policy Brief. Los Angeles, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to
reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fry, R. (2005). Recent changes in the entry of Hispanic and White youth into college. Pew
Hispanic Center, Nov, 1-38.
Fry, R. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students,
new schools. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/72.pdf
Gandara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual
Research Journal, 24(1-2), 1-13. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Gándara, P. (2005). Addressing educational inequities for Latino students: The politics of
"forgetting." Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 295-313.
doi:10.1177/1538192705277864
Gandara, P. (2010). Meeting students where they are: The Latino education crisis. Harvard
Educational Leadership, 67(5), 24-30.
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., Moran, R., & Garcia, E. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the
United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27-46.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 125
Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does
language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750-782.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15343
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 ERIC database.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). Role of Advanced Placement and Honors courses in college
admissions. UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher education, 4(4), 1-29.
Genesee, F., & Gándara, P. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A cross-national perspective.
Journal of Social Issues, 55, 665-685. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00141
Gist, M., Bavetta, A., & Stevents, C. (1990). Transfer training method: Its influence on skill
generation, skill repetition, and performance level. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 501-
523.
Golan, S., & Petersen, D. (2002). Promoting involvement of recent immigrant families in their
children's education. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-
involvement/publications-resources/promoting-involvement-of-recent-immigrant-
families-in-their-children-s-education
Gold, N., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2006). The high schools we need for English learners. Santa
Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.docstore.com/docs/76489566/The-High-Schools-English-Learners-
Need

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 126
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting
high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom
perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462-482.
Grissom, J. B. (2004). Reclassification of English learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
12(36). Retrieved from ERIC database.
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
Hancock, D. R. (1995). What teachers may do to influence student motivation: An application of
expectancy theory. The Journal of General Education, 44(3), 171-179.
Hill, N., & Craft, S. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated
pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 74-83.
Hill, N., & Taylor, L. (2004). Parental school involvement and children's academic achievement:
Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161-164.
Indiana University (2010). Cultural capital is key to preparing for college and getting
into a good school. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100815111439.htm
Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: the effects on parental involvement on minority children's
academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 127
Jeynes, W. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging
that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Records,
112(3), 747-774.
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706-742.
Jimenez, E. (2013). 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. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA. Team project co-authored by B. Morris & M. Kurland.
Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic
Motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2),
272-285.
Kaufman, J. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of
General Psychology, 14(3), 189-203.
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.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA.
Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kiyama, J. (2010). College aspirations and limitations: The role of educational ideologies and
funds of knowledge in Mexican American families. American Educational Research
Journal, 47(2), 330-356.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 128
Lau v. Nichols. 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html
Lawson, J. L. (2011). AVID participation for college readiness and success (Doctoral
dissertation). California State University.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?
Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino
students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous
ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(6),
531-545. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.611596
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2002). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison
inmates, arrests, and self-reports. Joint Center on Poverty Research Working Paper #287.
Retrieved from www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/lochner_moretti.pdf
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lopez, G. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parental involvement from an immigrant
household. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 416-437.
Maimer, P. J. (2004). Making the square peg fit the round hole: Social and cultural capital in
pre-college programs. Retrieved from https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/
1811/37359/16_Maimer_paper.pdf?sequence=1
Malloy, C. L. (2010). Moving beyond the data: Using inquiry for school improvement. Invited
Presentation. PDK-USC Leadership Symposium, Los Angeles, CA.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 129
McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D’Emilio, T. (2005).
Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 1-5.
McEwan, P., & McEwan, J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's not, and how
to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
McManus, W., Gould, W., & Welch, F. (1983). Earnings of Hispanic men: The role of English
language proficiency. Journal of Labor Economics, 1(2), 101-130.
Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The
consequences of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
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.
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The difficult road for long-term English learners. Educational
Leadership, 66(7).
Morris, B. (2013). A capstone project using the gap analysis model: Closing the college
readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent
involvement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA. Team project co-authored by E. Jimenez & M. Kurland.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011a). The nation’s report card. Mathematics 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2012-458).
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 130
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011b). The nation’s report card. Reading 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2012-457).
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational
Programs (NCELA). (2011). The growing numbers of Limited English proficient students.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf
National High School Center. (2009). Educating English-language learners at the high school
level: A coherent approach to district-and-school-level-support. Retrieved from
American Institute for Research website:
http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/EducatingELLsattheHSLevel_042209.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425
(2002).
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
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/
Ong, A., Phinney, J., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective
influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of
Adolescence, 29, 961-979.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 131
Osorio-O’Dea, P. (2001). Bilingual education: An overview. Washington DC: Congressional
Research Service. Retrieved from
http://202.41.85.234:8000/InfoUSA/educ/files/biling.pdf
Parent Institute for Quality Education (2012). Parent Engagement Education Program.
Retrieved from http://www.piqe.org/prog_parentengage.php
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
Institutes for Research. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website:
http://www.air.org/files/227Report.pdf
Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Lopez, M. H. (2011). Hispanics account for more than half of the
Nation’s growth in past decade. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Payan, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the U.S.
K-12 student population. English Language Learner Symposium, Princeton, NJ.
Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Conferences_and_Events/pdf/ELLsympsium/ELL_factsheet.pdf
Perkins-Gough, D. (2007). Responding to changing demographics: Focus on adolescent English
language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 90-91.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 132
Perez, P. A., & McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice: A
social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3),
249-265.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). From 200 million to 300 million: The numbers behind
population growth. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (2011). The toll of the great recession: Childhood poverty among
Hispanics set record, leads nation. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/09/28/childhood-poverty-among-hispanics-sets-record-
leads-nation/
Portes, A. (2000). Two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1-12.
Proposition 227, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 300-340 (1998). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com
/california/education/index.html
Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading
in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
Roemer, A. (2011). An invisible minority: Mexican English-language learners. College and
University, 86(3), 57-62.
Robinson, J. P. (2011). Evaluating criteria for English learner reclassification: A causal-effects
approach using a binding-score regression discontinuity design with instrumental
variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 267-292.
doi:10.3102/0162373711407912
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 133
Rogers, M., Theule, J., Ryan, B., Adams, G., & Keating, L. (2009). Parental involvement and
children's school achievement: Evidence for mediating processes. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 24(1), 34-57.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental knowledge:
Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic intervention approaches. Current
Issues in Education, 6(14), 1-18.
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
Rumberger, R. W., & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California's English
learners. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032-2056. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2004.00426.x
Rumberger, R. W., Gandara, P., & Merino, B. (2006). Where California’s English
learners attend school and why it matters. UC Linguistic Minority Research
Institute Newsletter, 15(2), 1-2.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1(3), 173-208.
Schunk, D., & Pajares, F. (2001). The development of academic self- efficacy. In A. Wigfield &
J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15–31). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 134
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from Alliance for Excellent Education
website: www.all4ed.org
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/
Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language, by whom, when, and where? The
need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners.
Educational Researcher, 37(4), 189-199.
Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2006). The use of Generalizability (G) Theory in the testing of
linguistic minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 13-22.
Solórzano, D., Rivas, M., & Velez, V. (2005). ommunity collage as a pathway to Chicana/o
doctorate production (Latino Policy Issues Brief No. 11). Los Angeles: University of
California, Los Angeles, Chicano Studies Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/files/news/ProblematicPipeline-DemographicTrends-
JHHE.pdf
Solórzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English
language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260-329.
doi:10.3102/0034654308317845
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society,
43(3), 1066-1109.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 135
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The bilingual education act: Twenty years later. National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021037/Fall88_6.pdf
Stock, J., & Cervone, D. (1990). Proximal goal-setting and self-regulatory processes. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14(5), 483-498.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda.
Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 345-365.
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Educating Latino immigrant students in the
twenty-first century: Principles for the Obama administration. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(2), 327-340.
Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a
teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(1),
29-52.
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29, 51-67.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence. Retrieved from
http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html
Tierney, W. G., & Jun, A. (2001). A university helps prepare low income youths for college:
Tracking school success. Journal of Higher Education, 205-225.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 136
Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2004). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of
families in college preparation. In W. J. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.),
Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Tierney, W. (2009). Applying to college. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 79-95.
Torrez, N. M. (2001). Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227. The Urban
Review, 33(3), 207-220.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). The Hispanic Origin Population in the United States: 2008.
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/cps2008.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). 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). English learners [Ustream video]. Retrieved from
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19031471
Vidano, G., & Sahafi, M. (2004). Organization Special Report on PIQE's Performance
Evaluation. San Diego State University.
Walpole, M., McDonough, P., Bauer, C., Gibson, C., Kanyi, K., & Toliver, R. (2005). This test
is unfair: Urban African American and Latino high school students' perceptions of
standardized college admission tests. Urban Education, 40(3), 321-349.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 137
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2007). Cultural capital. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
sociology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental review, 12(3), 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Zarate, E., & Burciaga, R. (2010). Latinos and college access: Trends and future directions.
Journal of College Admission, Fall, 25-29.
Zellman, G., Stecher, B., Klein, S., McCaffrey, D., Gutierrez, S., Madison, R., … Suarez, L.
(1998). Findings from an evaluation of the Parent Institute for Quality Education parent
involvement program. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 138
Appendix A
Gap Analysis Activity Log

Date Activity Location
2/1/12 Interview – THS Leadership THS
4/5/12 Interviews THS
4/19/12 Interviews THS
4/23/12 Observation – AC* Meeting THS
5/1/12 Interviews THS
5/25/12 Interviews THS
6/4/12 – 6/14/12 Surveys – Students THS
6/11/12 – 6/14/12 Surveys – Parents THS
8/16/12 Interview – Principal THS
9/12/12 Focus Group – Parents THS
10/19/12 Root Cause Brief – Principal USC
*Note: Abbreviation: AC = Administrative Chairs.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 139

Appendix B
Scanning Questions
We are doctoral students looking to help the school. We are here to listen to opinions and
concerns. Anyone who wants to be heard will be. This is an opportunity to be heard. Make it
conversational. Use these questions as guideposts. Generally, interview for about 15-20 minutes,
on their time.
Background
What it is like to be at the school?
I. Who are the stakeholders? Who are the influential people?

II. Who are the informal leaders? Who gets listen to and who doesn’t?

III. What formal committees exist?

IV. What are the informal and formal structures of the school/organization?

A. Does the current structure get accomplished what it wants to get done?

B. How long has this structure been in place?

C. What changes in the organization have taken place here?

1. What is the evolution of the structure?

V. How are policies made?

A. Implemented?

VI. How receptive/open is the school to change/input?

VII. Who are the ones that implement/create change?

VIII. What is the current school climate?

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 140
Appendix B (continued)

IX. What is the relationship between the school and the community?

X. What are your perceptions of the neighborhood?

How do your students live?

XI. Tell me about the ELL population here?

A. Who are your ELL students?
Goals
I. What are the missions or goals of the school?
A. What are your views of the missions/goals?
B. Are they important? Are they important to everyone?
C. How do you implement them?
D. Do these goals get completed?
II. What are the formal goals with respect to ELLs?
III. What are the informal goals?
IV. What gets rewarded or punished?
V. What are the schools goals for improving ELL four-year College attainment and
academic achievement?
VI. Give them the goals that the school thinks they have:
A. How important are they?
B. Are these the right goals? (missing/additions?)
C. Practical?
D. How do they impact you?
E. How do they impact the day to day/teaching and learning?
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 141
Appendix B (continued)
F. How are the goals communicated to everyone?
Perceptions of the Problem
I. Our interest is in English language learners, what issues do you see?
II. The school has identified ELL achievement, Reclassification, and four-year college
attainment as a priority,
A. What do you think about them?
B. What problems/issues do you see?
C. Is this an important issue to focus on?
III. Outside of the problems the leadership identified, are there other issues that need to be
addressed?
IV. Do you feel you are reaching these goals?
A. How so?
V. What would you rank these issues for importance?
VI. What has been done to solve these issues?
A. What (not) worked and why?
VII. What do you think should be done to solve these issues?
VIII. Are you aware of any organizational barriers that would prevent you from addressing the
problems?
IX. How do you view the role of the X (parents, teachers, community, students, admin) for
this issue?
A. Parents
B. Teachers
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 142
Appendix B (continued)
C. Community
D. Students
E. Admin
X. What do you think perpetuates the problem? (contributing factors)
XI. What do you think about us coming in to help tackle this issue?
XII. Do you have any other comments or ideas?
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 143
Appendix C
In-Depth Teacher Interview Questions
Client’s Name:
Position:
Date:
Interviewer:

1. Tell us about yourself.
2. What is it like to be a teacher at THS?
3. Do you receive support from administration?
4. How receptive is the school to change?
5. Have there been changes with the ELL population?
6. What is your understanding of goals in regards to ELLs?
7. What are your perceptions of why Latino ELLs are not performing?

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 144
Appendix D
Student Survey for Trojan High School
Circle your ethnicity (Circle all that apply): White Latino Asian

African American/Black Native American

Other: Please specify _____________________

Circle your grade level: 9 10 11 12
What is your country of birth? __________________________
What is your spoken home language? ________________________
What middle school did you attend? _________________________
Circle your current English Language Learner (ELL) level?
1 2 3 4 5
Circle your parent’s level of education:
Father: No formal schooling, some schooling, graduated high school, some college,
graduated college, graduate degree, don’t know.
Mother: No formal schooling, some schooling, graduated high school, some college,
graduated college, graduate degree, don’t know.
What is your cumulative GPA? _____
What is your grade in English class? _____
Do you know about the following:
Requirements to get into a 4-year university? YES NO
SATs? YES NO
ACTs? YES NO
A-G Courses? YES NO
California High School Exit Exam? YES NO
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 145
Appendix D (continued)
Do you expect the following:
To get B’s or better in your classes: YES NO
To pass the California High School Exit Exam: YES NO
To graduate from Trojan High school: YES NO
To do well on your SATs: YES NO
To attend a 4-year university: YES NO
I have a fair shot at getting into a 4-year university: YES NO
My friends expect me to attend a 4-year university after high school YES NO
My family expects me to attend a 4-year university after high school YES NO
My teachers expect me to attend a 4-year university after high school YES NO
Getting B’s or higher in my classes is important to me: YES NO
Passing the California High School Exit Exam is important to me: YES NO
Graduating from high school is important to me: YES NO
Doing well on the SATs is important to me: YES NO
Attending a 4 year university is important to me: YES NO
My teachers support me to be successful in my classes: YES NO
My teachers provide me enough feedback and help: YES NO
Trojan High School has provided me the support I need
to get into a 4-year university: YES NO
My counselor has informed me of the requirements
to get into a 4-year university: YES NO
I feel the system will allow me to go to a 4-year university: YES NO
I feel money is not an obstacle for me to go to a 4-year university: YES NO

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 146
Appendix D (continued)
If I want to go to a 4-year university my family encourages
me to pursue it: YES NO
I can afford to apply to 4-year university: YES NO
I can afford to attend 4-year university: YES NO
I have access to enroll AP courses if I want to: YES NO
My family expects me to stay close to home after I graduate: YES NO
My friends expect me to stay close to home after I graduate: YES NO
(Finished. Please Return to Administrator in Charge of Conducting the Survey.)
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 147
Appendix E

Parent Survey
Table E1

Parent Survey for Parents of THS Latino ELL Students (English Version)

Circle the number that best
reflects your view of your
son’s/daughter’s progress at
Trojan High School
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Somewhat
Disagree
4
Somewhat
Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
1. Trojan High School keeps
me well informed about my
son’s/daughter’s progress
with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I use the internet to access
either the “Naviance” or
“Parent Connect” program(s)
at Trojan High School
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I have been invited to meet
with Trojan High School
officials to discuss my
son’s/daughter’s progress
with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Within the last six months I
have met with Trojan High
School officials to discuss
my son’s/daughter’s
progress with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I am familiar with English
Language Multi-Cultural
Advancement Committee
meetings (ELMAC)
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I want my son/daughter to
become a skilled
professional
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I want my son/daughter to
get a college degree
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I expect my son/daughter to
go to college upon
graduation from Trojan High
School
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I expect my son/daughter to
get a job upon graduation
from Trojan high School
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Money will be a problem for
my son/daughter attending
college
1 2 3 4 5 6
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 148
Appendix E (continued)

Table E2

Parent Survey for Parents of THS Latino ELL Students (Spanish Version)

Encierre el número que mejor refleje
su impresión acerca del progreso de
su hijo(a) en Trojan High School
1
En total
desacuer
do
2
En
desacuer
do
3
En
desacuer
do con
reservas
4
De
acuerdo,
con
reservas
5
De
acuerdo
6
Total-
mente de
acuerdo
1. Trojan High School me
mantiene bien informado acerca
del progreso escolar de mi
hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Uso la Internet para tener
acceso a los programas
“Naviance” o a “Parent
Connect” en Trojan High
School
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Me han invitado a reunirme con
oficiales de Trojan High School
para conversar acerca del
progreso escolar de mi hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. En los últimos seis meses me he
reunido con oficiales de Trojan
High School para conversar
acerca del progreso escolar de
mi hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Estoy familiarizado con las
reuniones de English Language
Multi-Cultural Advancement
(ELMAC)
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Quiero que mi hijo(a) llegue a
ser un profesional competente
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Quiero que mi hijo(a) obtenga
un título universitario
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Espero que mi hijo(a) vaya a la
universidad una vez que se
gradúe de Trojan High School
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Espero que mi hijo(a) obtenga
un empleo una vez que se
gradúe de Trojan High School

1 2 3 4 5 6
10. El dinero va a ser un problema
para que mi hijo(a) vaya a la
universidad
1 2 3 4 5 6
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 149
Appendix F
Root Causes Group Presentation

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 150
Appendix F (continued)

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 151
Appendix F (continued)

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 152
Appendix G
Student Survey Results

Figure G1: THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “knowledge” domain.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 153
Appendix G (continued)

Figure G2. THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “motivation” domain.

Figure G3. THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “organization” domain.
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 154
Appendix H
Parent Survey Results
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree

Agree
Strongly
Agree
Mean
(Weighted)
Trojan high School
keeps me well informed
of my son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
0 0 0 2 6 5 5.2
I use the internet to
access either the
“Naviance” or “Parent
Connect” program(s) at
Trojan High School
2 0 0 1 5 5 4.6
I have been invited to
meet with Trojan High
School officials to
discuss my
son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
2 2 1 2 3 3 3.6
Within the past six
months I have met with
Trojan High School
officials to discuss my
son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
3 3 1 1 3 2 3.3
I am familiar with
English Language
Multi-Cultural
Advancement
Committee meetings
(ELMAC)
1 1 1 5 2 3 4.1
I want my son/daughter
to become a skilled
professional
0 0 0 0 2 11 5.8
I want my son/daughter
to get a college degree
0 0 0 0 0 13 6
I expect my
son/daughter to go to
college upon graduation
from Trojan High
School
0 0 0 0 0 13 6
I expect my
son/daughter to get a job
upon graduation from
Trojan high School
2 1 2 2 2 4 4
Money will be a
problem for my
son/daughter attending
college
1 0 1 4 6 1 4.3
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 155
Appendix I
Latino ELL Students’ Grade Distribution
Latino ELL Students’ Grade Distribution
Grade Level
GPA of 2.0 or
below
GPA between
2.1 and 2.9
GPA of 3.0 or above
9 19 19 14
10 27 8 11
11 13 19 14
12 12 26 9
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 156
Appendix J
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives
Table J1

Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 1)

Table J2

Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 2 for Cohort 1)

2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of CELDT
Takers
# of Students
Meeting
AMAO 1
% Target
%
Meeting
AMAO
1
Met
Target
for
AMAO
1
Schoolwide
164 122 56.0% 74.8% 
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin,
Taiwanese
5 5 56.0% 100.0% 
Latino - Spanish
80 61 56.0% 76.2% 
Japanese - Japanese
12 7 56.0% 58.3% 
Korean - Korean
13 10 56.0% 83.3% 
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
6 5 56.0% 83.3% 

Less than 5 Years Cohort
2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of
Students in
Cohort
# of Students
Meeting
AMAO 2
% Target
% Meeting
AMAO 2
Met
Target
for
AMAO
2
Schoolwide
52 17 20.1% 32.7% 
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin,
Taiwanese
5 1 20.1% 20.0% X
Latino - Spanish
11 3 20.1% 27.3% 
Japanese - Japanese
5 1 20.1% 20.0% X
Korean - Korean
7 4 20.1% 57.1% 
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
4 1 20.1% 25.0% 
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 157
Appendix J (continued)
Table J3

Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO for Cohort 2)

5 Years or More Cohort
2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of
Students in
Cohort
# of Students
Meeting
AMAO 2
% Target
% Meeting
AMAO 2
Met Target
for AMAO
2
Schoolwide
122 90 45.1% 73.8% 
Chinese - Cantonese,
Mandarin, Taiwanese
2 2 45.1% 100.0% 
Hispanic - Spanish
74 54 45.1% 73.0% 
Japanese - Japanese
7 5 45.1% 71.4% 
Korean - Korean
6 6 45.1% 100.0% 
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
3 2 45.1% 66.7% 

Table J4

Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 3 in English Language Arts – ELA)

English - Language Arts 2011

# of EL
Students
# Proficient
or Above
% Proficient
or Above
Ethnicity - Language
Schoolwide
36 4 11%
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin, Taiwanese
1 1 100%
Hispanic - Spanish
16 2 13%
Japanese - Japanese
6 0 0%
Korean - Korean
6 0 0%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
1 1 100%

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 158
Appendix J (continued)

Table J5

Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 3 in Mathematics)

Mathematics (Grade Level Test) 2011

# of EL
Students
# Proficient
or Above
% Proficient
or Above
Ethnicity - Language
Schoolwide
36 16 44%
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin, Taiwanese 1 1 100%
Hispanic - Spanish 16 3 19%
Japanese - Japanese 6 3 50%
Korean - Korean 6 6 100%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese 1 1 100%

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 159
Appendix K
Project Culminating Presentation To THS Principal

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 160
Appendix K (continued)

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 161
Appendix K (continued)

CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 162
Appendix K (continued)
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 163
Appendix L
Avid Program Cost Handout
*All prices are good faith estimates and are subject to change at any time prior to execution of an agreement without
notice. Please contact your respective AVID division for more detailed information. www.avidonline.org

PROJECTED AVID PROGRAM COSTS – 2012-2013, FIRST YEAR
Nationwide Pricing Per AVID Implementation Agreement (excluding California) - SITE COSTS

AVID MEMBERSHIP FEE $3,315
Yearly site fee provides: Limited use of AVID logo and intellectual property, ongoing consultation, AVID
newsletter and other publications, licensing for reproduction of student worksheets, site certification, comparative
data collection and analysis, and access to members only website. Sliding scale offered for membership fee, with fee
shown based on fewer than 10 schools in the district implementing AVID.

2011 AVID SUMMER INSTITUTE $5,352
Staff development for eight (8) members, including administrator, counselor, lead teacher and subject area teachers,
comprising the new site team. Fee shown is for early bird pricing (8 x $669).

AVID LIBRARIES
High School $4,915
Middle School $4,370
Note: Total below based on High School library; 9% shipping and handling not included.

OTHER SITE COSTS (NOT ON AGREEMENT)
Note: The following costs are provided as an estimate tool only. AVID Center does not provide these services and
these costs are not collected by AVID Center.

TUTOR COST $4,320
Based on four tutors for one AVID elective class of 30 students
($10/hour X 3 hours/week X 36 weeks X 4 paid college tutors X 1 classes)

CONTINUING STAFF DEVELOPMENT $1,050
Substitute release for AVID Coordinator to attend AVID Workshops,
figured at $175 per day for substitutes for 6 days

TRAVEL AND LODGING Varies
For attendance at Summer Institutes
Not included in the agreement and is the responsibility of the district.

TOTAL APPROXIMATE COSTS PER SITE (High) $18,952
Cost per Student (30 students) per day (180 days) $3.51

DISTRICT COSTS – AVID DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEE YEAR 1 $9,000
· AVID National Office & Divisional support
· Complimentary SI for DD’s assisting with site teams
· Two-year intensive small-group training for school district administrator (ADL)
· Curriculum, binders, CD’s, and supplemental materials

TRAVEL AND LODGING Varies
For attendance at ADL in San Diego, Atlanta, or other location TBD
Not included in the agreement and is the responsibility of the district. *All prices are good faith estimates and are
subject to change at any time prior to execution of an agreement without notice. Please contact your respective
AVID division for more detailed information. www.avidonline.org
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 164
Appendix L (continued)

PROJECTED AVID PROGRAM COSTS
2013-2014, SECOND YEAR
Nationwide Pricing Per AVID Implementation Agreement (excluding California)
SITE COSTS
AVID MEMBERSHIP FEE $3,480

Yearly site fee provides: Limited use of AVID logo and intellectual property, ongoing
consultation, AVID newsletter and other publications, licensing for reproduction of student
worksheets, site certification, comparative data collection and analysis, and access to members
only website. Sliding scale offered for membership fee, with fee shown based on fewer than 10
schools in the district implementing AVID.
OTHER SITE COSTS (NOT ON AGREEMENT)
Note: The following costs are provided as an estimate tool only. AVID Center does not provide
these services and these costs are not collected by AVID Center.
2012 AVID SUMMER INSTITUTE $3,495

Staff development for five (5) members, including administrator, counselor, lead teacher and
subject area teachers, comprising the site team. Summer Institute attendance is recommended in
the second year of implementation for program quality but is not required as part of the
agreement. Therefore, it is listed as an ‘other site cost’. Fee shown is for early bird pricing (5 x
$699).
TUTOR COST $8,640
Based on four tutors for two AVID elective classes of 30 students
($10/hour X 3 hours/week X 36 weeks X 4 paid college tutors X 2 classes)
CONTINUING STAFF DEVELOPMENT $1,050
Substitute release for AVID Coordinator to attend AVID Workshops,
figured at $175 per day for substitutes for 6 days
TRAVEL AND LODGING Varies
For attendance at Summer Institutes
Not included in the agreement and is the responsibility of the district.
TOTAL APPROXIMATE COSTS PER SITE (High) $16,665
Cost per Student (60 students) per day (180 days) $1.54
DISTRICT COSTS – AVID DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEE YEAR 2 $6,000
· AVID National Office & Divisional support
· Complimentary SI for DD’s assisting with site teams
· Two-year intensive small-group training for school district administrator (ADL)
· Curriculum, binders, CD’s, and supplemental materials

TRAVEL AND LODGING Varies
For attendance at ADL in San Diego, Atlanta, or other location TBD
Not included in the agreement and is the responsibility of the district. *All prices are good faith
estimates and are subject to change at any time prior to execution of an agreement without
notice. Please contact your respective AVID division for more detailed information.
www.avidonline.org
CLOSING THE GAP ON COLLEGE READINESS 165
Appendix L (continued)

PROJECTED AVID PROGRAM COSTS
2014-2015, THIRD YEAR
Nationwide Pricing Per AVID Implementation Agreement (excluding California)
SITE COSTS
AVID MEMBERSHIP FEE $3,655

Yearly site fee provides: Limited use of AVID logo and intellectual property, ongoing
consultation, AVID newsletter and other publications, licensing for reproduction of student
worksheets, site certification, comparative data collection and analysis, and access to members
only website. Sliding scale offered for membership fee, with fee shown based on fewer than 10
schools in the district implementing AVID.
OTHER SITE COSTS (NOT ON AGREEMENT)
Note: The following costs are provided as an estimate tool only. AVID Center does not provide
these services and these costs are not collected by AVID Center.
2013 AVID SUMMER INSTITUTE $3,645

Staff development for five (5) members, including administrator, counselor, lead teacher and
subject area teachers, comprising the site team. Summer Institute attendance is recommended in
the third year of implementation for program quality but is not required as part of the agreement.
Therefore, it is listed as an ‘other site cost’. Fee shown is for early bird pricing (5 x $729).
TUTOR COST $12,960
Based on training four tutors for three AVID elective class of 30 students
($10/hour X 3 hours/week X 36 weeks X 4 paid college tutors X 3 classes)
CONTINUING STAFF DEVELOPMENT $1,050
Substitute release for AVID Coordinator to attend AVID Workshops,
figured at $175 per day for substitutes for 6 days
TRAVEL AND LODGING Varies
For attendance at Summer Institutes
Not included in the agreement and is the responsibility of the district.
TOTAL APPROXIMATE COSTS PER SITE (High) $21,310
Cost per Student (90 students) per day (180 days) $1.32

Asset Metadata

Creator Kurland, Michael A. T. (author)

Core Title 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

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/05/2013

Defense Date 01/24/2013

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

Tag achievement,college affordability,college readiness,gap analysis,High School,latino english language learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,student grades,Students

Language English

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email makurland@yahoo.com,mkurland@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-233201

Unique identifier UC11293858

Identifier usctheses-c3-233201 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KurlandMic-1521.pdf

Dmrecord 233201

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kurland, Michael A. T.

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This capstone dissertation inquiry project focused on the underperformance of English language learners (ELLs) at a high school. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was the analytical framework used to conduct this inquiry. At the request of the school, the inquiry focus was on gaining a better understanding of the underachievement of ELL students as measured by standardized tests and grades, reclassified to fluent English proficient rates, and student eligibility to a four-year university, which ultimately became the focus. This study identified root causes and suggested research-based solutions, specifically developed to increase the number of Trojan High School (THS) Latino ELLs who would be eligible for acceptance to a four-year college. The research team acted as consultants to THS leadership, reviewed relevant research, conducted interviews, reviewed achievement data, assisted school officials in administering surveys, and hosted a parent focus group. The gap analysis process focused on the identification of root causes and possible solutions around three dimensions of performance gaps: knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers. Each team member identified and studied two root causes and offered research-based recommendations (Jimenez, 2013