University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR LOW
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS HISPANIC ENGLISH LEARNERS

By

Sahar Moshayedi

____________________________________________________________________________

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 2018

ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Dedication vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Background of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
The Achievement Gap 3
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 6
Organization of the Study 7
Chapter 2: Review of Literature 8
A Review of History in Education Reform and Equalization 9
A Review of Policies Targeting Hispanic and Bilingual Students 10
The Hispanic Experience and Constructs of Power in American Society 13
Leadership 16
The Role of Cultural proficiency versus Stereotype Threat in Instruction 20
Language Acquisition in Instruction 22
Understanding Low-SES Barriers to Achievement 24
Mentorship and Inclusion 25
Involvement of Parents and the Community 26
Methods of Evaluating Effective Practices 28
Summary 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 37
Statement of the Problem 37
Purpose of the Study 37
Research Questions 38
Research Design Methods 38
Sample and Population 39
Instrumentation 40
Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 43
Summary 43
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion 45
Purpose 46
Response Rate 46
Quantitative Demographic Data 47
iii
Qualitative Demographic Data 47
Methodology 49
Coding of Data 50
Findings 50
Research Question One 50
Research Question Two 60
Research Question 3 68
Research Question 4 76
Summary 82
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 85
Purpose of the Study 85
Research Questions 86
Methodology 86
Results and Findings 87
Implications of the Study 93
Recommendations for Future Study 95
Concluding Remarks 95
References 98
Appendix A: Leadership Survey 103
Appendix B: Request to Participate Letter 108
Appendix C: Interview Questions 109
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form 110

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Bolman and Deal’s four frames 17

v
List of Tables
Table 1. Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes 30
Table 2. Early Childhood Education Cares (ECE Cares) Initiative Outcome 1 Activities,
Quantity Indicators, Data Collection Tools, and Person Responsible 31
Table 3. Early Childhood Education (ECE) Cares Monthly Training Update Data Collection
Form 32
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 46
Table 5. Quantitative Survey: School Demographics 47
Table 6. Qualitative Interview: Demographic and CAASPP Proficiency 48
Table 7. Qualitative Interview: CAASPP Proficiency 49
Table 8. Principal Ratings of Instructional Programs used to Academically Support Hispanic
EL Low-SES Students 52
Table 9. Principal Ratings of Other Programs Used to Academically Support Hispanic EL
Low-SES Students 56
Table 10. Principal Ratings of Leadership Strategies Utilized 62
Table 11. Parent and Community Engagement Practices 69
Table 12. Methods of Evaluating Programs and Practices 77

vi
Dedication
I dedicate this project and the Doctoral degree to my family. In particular, my mother, the
epitome of strength, intelligence, elegance, and ability. My mother, who always wanted the title
“Doctor Moshayedi,” but had to raise children instead. My mother, who taught me fierce
decisiveness and persistence, and ingrained in me that I am capable of anything.
My father, the pillar of positivity, support, understanding, and encouragement. The one
who calmed me down when I thought I couldn’t keep going. The one who reminded me why I
started this journey and that I would finish it no matter what obstacles I encountered.
My sister, the nurturer. The one who endured my turbulent emotions throughout this
program and didn’t hold it against me. The one who I will always support in her life and career
not just because of this degree, but because of our blood. I love you all.
I would like to thank my friends for their continuous compassion when hearing, “Sorry, I
can’t make it,” due to my intensive work and study schedule.
I am grateful to my mentors, in particular, retired Superintendent of San Diego County
Office of Education, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and retired Superintendent of Nashville Metropolitan,
Corona-Norco and Carpinteria Unified School Districts, Dr. Pedro Garcia. What I learned from
you in 20 minutes was more than most learn in 10 years of work experience. I am so fortunate to
work with you.
I am grateful to my colleagues and the USC Trojan Network who have shown me that no
man or woman is an island. Thank you to the students, families, and communities to whom I
dedicate my life through public education. You give my work meaning and I am fulfilled by the
contributions I have the opportunity to make throughout my years of service. We’re in this
together! Thank you!
vii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand how elementary principals with high
populations of Hispanic English learners (Els) and low socioeconomic-status (SES) students
were able to increase achievement outcomes in high performing schools. This study aimed to
determine: (a) what programs successful elementary principals implement to academically
support Hispanic EL students in urban settings, (b) what leadership strategies elementary
principals use to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic EL students, (c) how elementary
principals involve parents and the community to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic EL
students, and (d) how successful elementary school principals evaluate the effectiveness of
programs that are designed to increase achievement for Hispanic EL students. This study, which
implemented a mixed-methods approach, identified 2 Southern California school districts as
having high Hispanic ELs and low socioeconomic student demographics. Between the 2 school
districts, 34 elementary principals responded to a survey, 5 of whom also participated in a
structured interview. Both quantitative survey responses and qualitative interview responses
were analyzed and reviewed. Through transcription and coding, the data were reduced to reveal
themes, patterns, relationships, causes, explanations, and conclusions in relation to the research
goals. The study’s findings indicate that elementary principals with high populations of Hispanic
ELs from low-SES communities who experience high achievement outcomes utilize
transformational leadership to counter negative belief systems that empower both staff and
students. The study also found that instructional strategies that target English language
acquisition both in tandem and in addition to core subject matter were essential to improving
learning outcomes. Further, positive relationships between parents and the school site were found
to be critical components of student success. Frequent practice of data-driven decision making
viii
and using data to inform instructional practices were found to be foundational ways of best
meeting students’ needs. Overall, this study provides hope for elementary principals with high
poverty Hispanic EL populations and how they can lead their school sites to increased
achievement outcomes.

1
Chapter 1: Background of the Study
The widely accepted ideology of the American Dream states that all individuals,
regardless of background, end up where they do based on merit and individual achievement
(Johnson, 2014). The American public education system functions as the fundamental pathway
for the attainment of success and financial prosperity (LendingTree LLC, 2012). Educational
leaders, teachers, and policymakers are burdened with the task of creating and maintaining a
system that meets the needs of all students regardless of race or socioeconomic status (SES).
Their purpose is to ensure that access to public education is equitable and opportunities are
provided for all those who wish to work hard enough to achieve success.
Currently, a wealth gap exists in the United States between racial and socioeconomically
disadvantaged subgroups (Johnson, 2014). African American and Hispanic communities have
the lowest SES compared to all other racial groups despite the implementation of equal
opportunity policies that have been designed to give the disadvantaged a greater advantage
(DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). There is also an achievement gap within the education system,
which plays into the wealth gap of American society. African American and Hispanic students
are consistently underperforming compared to White and Asian racial groups (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Hispanic students are the very
lowest performing of all due to the fact that they face a language barrier as non-native English
speakers, presenting higher obstacles to learning in addition to the shared impoverished
circumstances of African American populations. This phenomenon is evidenced by the fact that
Hispanic students are underserved in schools based on race, poverty, and language, whereas
African Americans are underserved in schools based on race and poverty (Gándara & Contreras,
2009). There is clearly a correlation between the lack of educational opportunities provided to
2
Hispanic students and their lack of socioeconomic success, resulting in a wealth and educational
achievement gap in the United States. The disparity leads to an examination of the history of the
achievement gap, what has been done to close it, and why the efforts have not been effective.
This study sought to examine what current elementary school principals are doing to help
Hispanic English Learner (EL) populations from low SES communities attain higher academic
outcomes.
Background of the Problem
The Hispanic population in the United States is growing rapidly, but they continue to
make up a growing number of disadvantaged groups. Between 1980 and 2008, the White
population decreased from 80% to 66% while the Hispanic population more than doubled from
6% to 15% (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010). In 2014, the total United States population was
composed of 77.4% Whites, 17.4% Hispanics, 13.2% African Americans and 5.4% Asians (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015). Hispanic populations are considered a minority of the American
population as demonstrated by statistics. However, a disproportionate percentage are living in
impoverished circumstances and continue to struggle toward upward socioeconomic mobility
(DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015).
The U.S. Census Bureau (2015) reported that 23% of individuals in the publicly funded
juvenile justice system are of Hispanic origin. It predicts that the number of Hispanic youth in
the juvenile justice system will increase 37%. This means that by the year 2030, 30% of all youth
in the juvenile justice system in the United States will be Hispanic. By 2050, this number is
expected to increase further, making up 36% of the juvenile justice system. The Federal Bureau
of Prisons (n.d.) reported that in 2015, 33.8% of all prison inmates in the United States were
Hispanic, most of whom were serving time for drug-related charges. In 2013, 41% of teen
3
pregnancies occurring between the ages of 15 and 19 years old were Hispanic females (Martin,
Hamilton, Osterman, Curtin, & Mathews, 2015). These alarming numbers reflect low SES
conditions that apply to the Hispanic population. The U.S. Census Bureau (2015) offered
confirmation of this phenomenon, stating that 23.6% of people living below the poverty line
were members of the Hispanic minority, compared to 12.7% of Whites who represent the
majority of the American population. Low paying jobs and government unemployment programs
do not provide quality health insurance benefits, including medical care, mental health care, and
drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Therefore, the population with the highest need for
social services is the very group with restricted access.
In reflection of the growing Hispanic population, there is a great need to provide
education that can offer access to high school graduation and completion of higher education
programs. There is a high correlation among academic success and incarceration rates, drug use,
and the need for social services (Harlow, 2003). Urgent reform for low performing schools with
large Hispanic populations is imperative to ensuring that the future majority population has
opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility. Quality elementary and secondary education,
successful high school graduation, and higher education opportunities are mechanisms that are
designed to provide a chance for everyone to achieve greater financial prosperity in American
society.
The Achievement Gap
The achievement gap in the American public school system has been concerning for
students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial minorities, non-native English
speakers, or identified as learning disabled. SES has historically been a determining factor in low
academic achievement and has contributed to the difference in learning between those from
4
affluent communities in contrast to those from impoverished ones. This difference in relation to
socioeconomic levels has not only remained present in the education system for many decades,
but also continued to grow larger (Huang, 2015). Several subfactors of the low SES group
contribute to the resulting achievement, including a lack of parental involvement, family
obligations due to lack of childcare, more sick day absences without medical insurance, and
further attendance issues due to unreliable transportation (Yelgün & Karaman, 2015).
Non-native English speakers continue to struggle to reach proficiency as a result of the
language barrier in American schools, despite the numerous laws and policies that have been put
into place to foster their language development. It is estimated that by the year 2020, half of all
U.S. public school students will be Hispanic and of low SES. Half of those students will be non-
native English speakers who speak a language other than English upon their first day of school
(Reyes & Garcia, 2014). Racial minorities other than White or Asian subgroups have made up a
large part of the achievement gap for as long as data on academic achievement has been
collected by the U.S. Department of Education. African American and Hispanic students are
consistently at the low end of performance when compared to White and Asian subgroups (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Although African
American and Hispanic populations both struggle with low SES-related obstacles to success in
education, Hispanic populations have the added burden of language acquisition to impede their
academic growth. This problem has resulted in the Hispanic population being the lowest
performing of all racial subgroups in the United States (Giambo, 2010). Students with learning
disabilities definitely face particular barriers to success in school. However, African American
and Hispanic students make up a disproportionate number of students identified as learning
disabled or emotionally disturbed, further impeding the achievement of these subgroups (Connor
5
& Baglieri, 2009). Current and historical trends repeatedly show that non-native English-
speaking Hispanic students of low SES are the lowest performing group in terms of academic
achievement.
Statement of the Problem
The problem is low Hispanic academic achievement as evidenced by the highest dropout
rate of all the racial categories compared to African American, White, and Asian subgroups (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). The researcher
examined this problem because trends continue to persist over decades of educational practice,
regardless of the tedious efforts of educational reform that have taken place to improve their
achievement. Hispanics continue make up significant portions of disadvantaged groups within
American society as a result of the academic disparity. Gándara and Contreras (2009) declared
the current disparities an education crisis that puts Hispanics at risk of becoming a permanent
underclass.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study was to examine what elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations in urban settings do differently
than their counterparts in low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic
success as evidenced by meeting annual yearly progress targets. By understanding which
effective leadership practices best meet the needs of this population, further advances can be
made in low performing schools who cater to the same population of students with the same
needs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
6
1. What programs do successful elementary principals implement to academically
support Hispanic English Learner students in urban settings?
2. What leadership strategies do elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes
for Hispanic English Learner students?
3. How do elementary principals engage parents and the community to improve learning
outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students?
4. How are successful elementary school principals evaluating the effectiveness of
programs and instruction that is designed to increase achievement for Hispanic
English Learner students?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it sought to broaden the knowledge base pertaining to
elementary principals who have been successful in improving learning outcomes for
socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic ELs in urban schools. The study strove to identify
best practices and methods that elementary principals implement effectively specifically for
socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic ELs in urban school settings. The findings will
indicate whether or not an effective leadership model exists for future practice in schools that are
still struggling to improve academic performance for this population, or those who may benefit
from any methods found. Superintendents may choose to use the findings to train principals who
would benefit from the acquired research results.
Definition of Terms
 Achievement Gap: The difference in academic performance between students from
different economic circumstances and racial/ethnic backgrounds.
7
 English Learners (ELs): Students who do not speak English as their first language, or
who speak more than one language without designated English proficiency, as
evidenced by the CELDT (California English Language Development Test) or other
accepted assessment.
 Non-native English Speakers: Individuals who have learned English as a child or
adult rather than from infancy, and already have a primary language other than
English.
 Principal: The person with the most authority and greatest responsibility for the
management, leadership, and outcomes of a school site.
 Socioeconomic Status (SES): An economic and sociological measure of an individual
or family’s economic and social position in relation to others based on income,
education, and occupation.
● Wealth Gap: Also known as wealth inequality the unequal distribution of assets
among individuals in the United States. Wealth refers to home values, incomes,
personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the
study, including the statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
significance of the study, definition of terms, and organization of the study. The following
chapter presents a literature review pertaining to relevant information addressed in this study
with regard to the leadership skills and tasks of elementary principals and superintendents.

8
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
The problem of low Hispanic academic achievement—as evidenced by the highest
dropout rate of all the racial categories compared to African Americans, Whites, and Asians—
puts Hispanics at risk of becoming a permanent underclass (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). This problem must be addressed because the
trend has continued to persist over decades of educational practice, regardless of the educational
reforms that have been implemented in an effort to improve their achievement. The Hispanic
population continues to suffer the most in low-SES conditions due to their academic
performance outcomes compared to all other racial categories (Giambo, 2010). The urgency of
this problem is apparent in the education system, the criminal justice system, and social services
organizations, where Hispanics continue to be a prominent demographic. If action is not taken,
the achievement and wealth gap will continue to widen, putting Hispanics at a continued and
unjust disadvantage (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).
This section provides a review of relevant literature pertaining to the history of policy
reform designed to equalize education, as well as recent policies targeting Hispanic, EL, and
low-SES populations. The examination of literature goes on to discuss why these reforms have
been largely ineffective in closing the wealth and achievement gap. In the area of principal
leadership, themes including multiple leadership theories and strategies used to increase
performance outcomes are reviewed. In addition, effective programs and factors pertaining to the
achievement outcomes of low-SES, Hispanic, EL students are presented. The literature includes
parent involvement and community partnerships as they contribute to learning outcomes. Finally,
methods of evaluating effective practices that improve learning outcomes are outlined.
9
A Review of History in Education Reform and Equalization
Universal access to education is a civil liberty that entitles all students regardless of race,
gender, learning ability, or SES the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE; U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2010). Therefore, students from any
background have a legal right to achieve the same level of success and opportunities for higher
education and, ultimately, upward socioeconomic mobility. The public education system has
evolved to a high degree in the effort to provide a FAPE for all.
The case of Brown v. Board of Education (Warren, 1954) was a major breakthrough
toward a truly FAPE for all students by abolishing segregated schools for White and African
American students in the year 1954. Since then, Proposition 187 declared the restrictions on
public school attendance for undocumented United States immigrants unconstitutional in 1997
(McDonnell, 1997). This proposition afforded children from undocumented immigrant families
the ability to attend American public schools with the same liberties as United States citizens or
legal residents. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated high stakes
assessments, school achievement accountability measures, and penalties for schools that did not
meet progress criteria towards higher proficiency for every student in the public education
system (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). NCLB was designed to ensure that all students
from all backgrounds were being provided with an equitable public education that results in the
same level of proficiency for students in every state in core subject areas. In the attempt to
further equalize educational access, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, also
known as IDEA, became aligned with NCLB (California Department of Education, 2015). IDEA
mandated schools to use Response to Intervention (RTI), which outlines methods to identify and
accommodate students at risk of academic underachievement based on research-based best
10
practices for instruction (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). This initiative was designed to ensure that
students with various learning disabilities would receive the same educational services as
students without disabilities, regardless of race, gender, or SES. In 2009, the Common Core State
Standards were adopted and implementation procedures were put into effect in an effort to
ensure high quality standards as well as college and career readiness for students in public
schools across the country, particularly for those receiving Title I funds (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.).
A Review of Policies Targeting Hispanic and Bilingual Students
Hispanic non-native English-speaking and bilingual students have been, and continue to
be, a targeted subgroup in need of educational reform to increase academic performance and
opportunities for higher education (Gándara, 2010). Reforms that have targeted them specifically
include the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) Title I initiative, which was
designed specifically for low income students as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty
effort (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
2017). As a result, low-SES immigrant families who did not speak English became entitled to
services that accommodated their needs in progressing towards higher academic proficiency for
the first time. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development (2017), Title I specifically designates resources and funding to be
allocated to schools with significant minority, immigrant, and high poverty populations so that
students are able to experience the same educational opportunities as other non-
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Further, strict accountability measures are put into
place to ensure the legitimate and proper use of funding, as well as the progression toward
improved academic proficiency results through the use of high stakes accountability tests.
11
Schools that are identified as being in need of improvement are acutely monitored for growth
and the use of effective programs to meet the needs of the demographic they serve. This
provision also requires schools to assess English language proficiency for all bilingual students
annually, as well as to employ of highly qualified teachers to instruct these populations.
Title III, or the Bilingual Education Act, another part of the ESEA (California
Department of Education, 2016b), is designed to target Limited English Proficient (LEP) and
immigrant students for accommodations that increase academic performance. The use of Title III
funding is allocated to the implementation of language instruction programs that hold schools
accountable for increasing English language and core subject area proficiency. Further, English
Language Development (ELD) standards are formally designed to benchmark and assess
appropriate language proficiency. Students of affected populations are expected to meet the same
educational standards of all other students in the nation, regardless of race, gender, ability, or
SES.
In 1998, Proposition 227 was adopted in the state of California to teach non-native
English-speaking students the English language by receiving instruction in English only
classrooms (California Department of Education, 2016a). This proposition states that rapid and
effective English language acquisition is only possible through full exposure to spoken and
Academic English. It argues that English immersion is necessary because the majority of the
population in the United States, including California, operates through a primary language of
English. Since the passing of Proposition 227, programs such as Dual Language Immersion,
Secondary English Instruction, and Transitional Bilingual Education have evolved to ease the
transition of receiving instruction in English instead of the native language. This is particularly
12
true for students in kindergarten through third grade, who are just beginning to learn English at
school in cases where another primary language is spoken at home.
The aforementioned federal and state legislation, which are designed to benefit Hispanic,
bilingual immigrant students, are only the most recent examples of the many reforms American
education has made in order to provide equitable access to academic achievement for all
students. However, despite these tedious efforts, the Hispanic high school dropout rate in 2013
was 11.5%: nearly three times the dropout rate for White students (4.6%), and significantly
higher than the African American dropout rate of 7.9% (U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014).
Laws and policies must reflect the needs of students and families as individual groups
with multiple needs rather than one large umbrella group. Gándara (2010) examined the
education crisis as it pertains to Hispanic populations in the United States. NCLB was
implemented as an effort to identify underachieving schools and hold them accountable for their
scores. However, it failed to identify why students were underachieving. Hispanic and African
American students often fall under socioeconomically disadvantaged groups; however, the needs
of Hispanic students are different due to language barriers and cultural proficiency dynamics.
Further, Hispanic groups have subgroups with various cultural values and SESs among
Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans. Gándara continued to explain that each low achieving
group must be identified and have its individual needs met with accountability measures to
match the demand. In other words, Cuban families living in middle class communities with high
values for education may have language acquisition as their highest need for increased
achievement. Mexican families living in low-income communities may need language
acquisition, mentoring, at risk behavior education, parent education, and childcare
13
accommodations. Gándara noted that policymakers must take into account the individual needs
of low performing groups and help these students achieve and mobilize upwards to higher SESs.
Large umbrella policies may accommodate only one or a few of the needs of these groups that
have multiple needs to improve achievement outcomes.
According to Flores and Chapa (2009), Hispanic students continue to have restricted
access to education due to immigration laws. The authors examined the ability of these students
to enroll in higher education institutions as immigrants or non-residents. Unfortunately, their
access was restricted through elevated tuition costs for foreign students compared to U.S.
citizens and legal residents. The authors suggested that the implementation of the DREAM
(Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act at the federal level would resolve the
obstacle for new immigrants. The DREAM Act allows foreign students who have demonstrated
good moral character and possess a high school diploma or equivalent to enroll in higher
education institutions at the same tuition rates as legal U.S. residents. The legislation would
reduce crime and the need for social service interventions due to disproportionate numbers of
immigrants who are trapped in at-risk neighborhoods as a result of inequitable access to
education.
The Hispanic Experience and Constructs of Power in American Society
Stanton-Salazar (2001) discussed how American ideologies contribute to an overarching
system of societal oppression and inherent disadvantage for ethnic and SES groups who are non-
White upper middle class. The author explained that the conformity of non-Whites to White
American values is the true marker of success and upward mobility. Stanton-Salazar also
discussed the role of significant others in the lives of children and how they shape children’s
developing identities, feelings of self worth, and ability-related beliefs. Significant others are
14
adults who ingrain their beliefs and attitudes in children, who consequently internalize these
beliefs and manifest self-fulfilling prophecies of achievement. In school, adults who hold
conformist ideologies, believing that congruence to White American values is a valid societal
and institutional standard, are putting students at risk. Adherence to these values creates a set of
inherent expectations for behavior and achievement that are inevitably manifested in either
conformity or non-conformity. Deviation from the conformist norm deems an individual
unworthy and incapable of attaining success within the social and academic construct. Further,
every student is forced to become aware of his/her ability to operate within the framework of
White American culture as one who belongs or does not belong. If one is able to assimilate to
American values, he/she is labeled as capable of achieving success in society.
It is important to acknowledge the presence of cultural and socioeconomic deficit
perspectives within American society, even as they relate to scholarly publications and schools
of thought (Gorski, 2008). Ruby Payne (2003), a self-proclaimed educational authority for
improving academic performance in underprivileged schools, has claimed:
The culture of poverty does not provide for success in the middle class, because the
middle class to a large extent requires the self governance of behavior. To be successful
in work and in school requires the self-governance of behavior. What then can schools do
to teach appropriate behavior? (p. 1)
According to Gorski (2008), Payne’s statement offers a clear example of bias in published
educational work that attempts to shed light on the circumstances of minority, lower class
students in American schools. Payne is generalizing the notion that impoverished student groups
are inherently incapable of self governing behavior and that middle to upper class student groups
are capable of self governance, which makes them more successful. Gorski pointed out the
15
deficit perspective from which Payne operates by quoting her again: “’It is the responsibility of
educators and others who work with the poor to teach the differences and skills/rules that will
allow the individual to make the choice (to adopt the culture of the middle class).’ (Payne, 2003,
p.113) ” (p. 132). Gorski emphasized the critical consumption of such authoritative views in the
field. He points out that such authors hold ingrained biases within American society which
contribute to the problem of inequality.
Urgent action is needed to close the achievement, wealth, and opportunity gaps that
currently exist, putting Hispanics at risk of becoming a permanent underclass in American
society (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Valenzuela, Garcia, Romo, and Perez (2013) outlined the
major structural, political, and cultural themes that put Hispanic students at a disadvantage with
respect to achievement. The first barrier identified is the NCLB accountability and testing
regime, which put Hispanic EL students at an inherent disadvantage due to its ingrained White,
English language proficiency construct that was necessary for successful performance on
assessments. The second barrier is how the school system fails to accommodate for poverty,
which affects academic achievement. The third barrier is the dropout crisis, which explains why
Hispanic students are more likely to drop out of school due to a lack of inclusion and
accommodation, thus creating the highest rates of unsuccessful high school completion. Fourth is
teacher quality and how teacher backgrounds that do not align with the backgrounds of students
causes a disconnect in the learning process. Fifth is the over-identification of Hispanic students
as learning disabled in special education due to biased deficit perspectives of staff, putting them
at even more of a disadvantage with respect to achievement and upward socioeconomic mobility.
Last is the barrier of undocumented immigrant laws and language proficiency issues, which pose
obstacles to the attainment of opportunities achievement and wealth in American society.
16
Valenzuela et al. explained how all of these factors must be taken into consideration when
creating structural, legislative, and educational reforms to improve opportunities for success for
Hispanic, non-native English-speaking, low-SES groups.
Leadership
Leadership theories and addressing underachievement of disadvantaged Hispanic
ELs. Strong leadership is necessary to carry out a common goal, particularly one that is
perceived as challenging and requires a change in beliefs and behavior (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). Various literature sources explain approaches that make a leader most effective.
Marzano et al. (2005) discussed transformational leadership as a favored style of leadership that
produces change beyond expectations. Individual consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence are specific components of the transformational
leadership style. This concept means that a school principal would attend to the needs and
concerns of teachers who feel left out or unheard while providing a way for them to tackle old
problems in new ways. Inspirational motivation and idealized influence pertain to
communicating high expectations, urgency, and significance to the proposed goals, while also
creating an idealized expectation of behavior and results.
Leadership and management are often intertwined for school principals; however, they
are not synonymous. Northouse (2015) discussed the difference between a manager and leader.
A manager is one who is responsible for the day-to-day operations and functioning of an
organization, whereas a leader creates vision and significance to the work ahead. Northouse also
explained how assigned leaders differ from emergent leaders. In the case of school sites and
districts, leaders are assigned to their positions. However, emergent leaders are more effective at
creating buy-in with their team due to their unique traits, skills, and personalities. Although the
17
current public school system continues to assign individuals to leadership positions, it is
important that principals possess emergent leadership traits in order to influence stakeholders to
work towards the common goal. It is also critical that they create a vision and meaning to the
common goal as leaders, while also managing the day-to-day operations required of the school
site. Bolman and Deal (2003) identified the four frames of organizations that an effective leader
must take into consideration. Figure 1 shows the four frames and their components.
Recognizes major
constituencies

Coalition
Political
Framework
Human
Resource
Framework
Heart of the
organization is people

Empowerment

Servant

Problem based

Processes

Analysis

Design
Structural
Framework
Symbolic
Framework
Inspiration

Prophet

Visions

Figure 1. Bolman and Deal’s four frames. Adapted from Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons. Copyright 2003 by the authors.

The political frame refers to the constituents of the organization and the dynamics among
them. It pertains to who is accountable, maintains or distributes resources, and holds the power in
hierarchical decision-making. The structural frame relates to the components of the organization,
including goals, division of labor, rules, policies, and procedures. The human resources frame
identifies people at the center of the organization, as well as their needs, value, self-esteem, and
sense of belonging. Finally, the symbolic frame relates to the meaning, beliefs, significance,
vision, and anchor of hope and faith in the positive impact of the work ahead (Bolman & Deal,
18
2003). Truly effective and well-rounded organizational leaders do not concentrate weight in only
one or two of these frames, and instead are constantly operating on the cusp of all four frames at
any given time.
Diversity and principal leadership. Diverse school demographics call for principals
who are responsive to the needs of those they serve. The literature indicates that principals who
understand the needs of their students are better able to communicate practices, expectations, and
outcomes that benefit the student population to the teachers at their sites. Riehl (2000) explained
the importance of inclusive administrative practice as a moral obligation to the community,
encouraging a culture of empowerment and transformation for students of oppressed groups.
Aggressive advocacy on behalf of the student population in need and social criticism of
collective negative belief systems should be brought to the surface. This practice encourages
teachers to reflect on their individual beliefs and how their participation in the school system
contributes to larger social constructs of oppression. Schools are more likely to progress toward
an inclusive and empowering educational experience for diverse students if they have
administrators who are representative of their demographics. As a result, students who have
representative role models in positions of authority are more likely to absorb positive feelings in
hopes of higher academic achievement. Empowering and inclusive school environments would
make students less likely to internalize negative ability stereotypes based on their race or SES by
biased adults or peers.
Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2014) examined practices that lead to transformative
educational leadership in culturally diverse schools. Their findings showed that cultural deficit
theories or culturally celebratory theories embedded within leadership correlate to various
degrees of regressive, stagnant, or progressive learning outcomes for students. Cultural deficit
19
approaches were strongly correlated to a transactional approach in which school staff did not
perceive there to be a problem with the structural and pedagogical frameworks of the site.
Rather, the staff perceived culturally diverse students to be inherently incapable of achievement
as opposed to reflecting on best practices to meet their learning needs. A culturally celebratory
approach was strongly correlated to transformational leadership (Marzano et al., 2005) in which
school staff embraced the cultures of diverse students and reframed their pedagogical practices in
a way that was appropriate for their students. Hajisoteriou and Angelides also suggested that
leadership should emphasize the existing overarching social injustices that pertain to the ethnic
group within society, and reexamine structural allocation of resources and programs that improve
or impede the success of the group. The authors encourage leaders to practice democratic
participation in decision making to foster discussions among school staff regarding structural,
cultural, and pedagogical changes that are necessary to create an inclusive school setting.
Good, Masewicz, and Vogel (2010) described barriers to achievement for Hispanic ELs.
It is essential for principals to be aware of and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders in order
to serve as transformative leaders in high need schools. The authors identified five major themes
relating to low performance outcomes in diverse, high need schools. First, the authors discussed
the existence of communication gaps between teachers and students, teachers and parents,
parents and children, and schools within the district. Increasing effective communication
between stakeholders is imperative for progress. Often, a language barrier exists with non-native
English-speaking parties, which prevents ideal communication. The second category involved
culture clashes between American school culture and the culture of the families. Cultural
proficiency must be taken into account when the majority of students being served are from
diverse ethnic groups or are struggling groups in need of accommodation. The third category was
20
the lack of a systematic, articulated EL plan. According to Good et al., teachers felt that there
was no clear structure in place to deliver EL instruction, or a well-organized goal for every grade
level to accommodate EL students. The fourth category was a lack of teacher preparation in
multiculturalism, language acquisition, and EL instructional strategies. Last was a lack of
support systems in place for newcomer families in transition to a new environment and culture.
All of these themes relate to instructional strategies designed to target EL student needs, as well
as a culturally proficient environment and team that is able to serve the community. Based on
this research, a new or existing principal with a high Hispanic EL demographic is able to assess
whether these themes exist at their school sites and work toward creating a school environment
that is inclusive, appropriate, and effective.
The Role of Cultural proficiency versus Stereotype Threat in Instruction
Cultural differences among educational leaders, teachers, and students are an important
factor in delivering quality instruction to non-native English-speaking students. Multiple
literature sources emphasize the importance of cultural proficiency and the need to adjust
practice in diverse classrooms. Irizarry’s (2015) work in surveying Hispanic students identifies
three important accommodations for Hispanic families in order to ensure that students are
receiving the instruction they need. The first was to counter deficit theory perspectives. In other
words, measures need to be taken in order to counter the idea that a student’s culture or race puts
him/her at a disadvantage related to achievement due to stereotypes associated with him/her.
Next, the students in the author’s study explained how their cultural backgrounds bring various
frames of reference that can be used in the learning experience: a strength that is often
overlooked. Students claim that teachers focus more on teaching content rather than teaching
students in relation to their cultural backgrounds. Students in the study indicated that frames of
21
reference that pertain to their backgrounds and cultures are important to make content relatable,
leading to a higher depth of knowledge. The last category involved closing opportunity gaps for
culturally diverse students. Students claimed that negative historical trends in Hispanic academic
achievement contribute to negative self-fulfilling prophecies for students. When they are told
that they are consistently at the lowest performing of all racial groups, they become discouraged
and disengaged because they feel their outcomes are predetermined. Irizarry argued that
grouping students according to ability is not effective in improving learning outcomes because it
draws attention to the fact that some are already considered to have low abilities. Therefore, the
low ability grouping manifests itself in low performance rather than students’ actual ability.
Owens and Lynch (2012) agree that students’ abilities should be measured accurately
according to merit rather than preconceived notions of ability based on race or SES. The authors
examined the effect of negative ability stereotypes experienced by Hispanic students. Their
findings indicated that first generation immigrants enter the country with determined attitudes for
success and are less likely to internalize negative ability stereotypes because they believe the
U.S. is a country of opportunity and equality. The assimilation and immigration process itself
poses a big challenge for new students who are learning the culture, system, and language of the
United States. Owens and Lynch’s study findings show that second generation immigrants are
more likely to internalize negative ability stereotypes because of their awareness of the American
class system. At elite universities, Hispanic and African American students surveyed said they
felt as though there was a collective expectation of lower student performance by faculty and
peers. However, they still achieved more than their first generation parents due to performance
burdens of what their parents sacrificed to provide better opportunities for them. If Hispanic and
African American students at elite universities claim they experience negative ability
22
stereotypes, one can imagine the severity of these experiences for K-12 students. The
internalization of these biases by school-aged children whose identities, attitudes, and beliefs are
developing can have a devastating impact on their learning.
Language Acquisition in Instruction
Hispanic ELs face a major challenge in academic achievement due to the fact that they
are non-native English speakers receiving instruction in English-speaking schools. Educators are
responsible for assessing the needs of their students and providing instruction that is appropriate
for their students’ current skill levels. Scholars agree that English language acquisition must be
factored into standards-based content instruction in order to accommodate ELs’ needs.
Echevarria, Short, and Powers (2006) examined the effectiveness of implementing EL-based
instructional strategies to teach standards-based content. The Sheltered Instruction Observational
Protocol (SIOP) was used in the study in order to embed English language objectives within
content objectives of daily classroom lessons. The results showed that EL students who received
SIOP instruction made higher assessment gains than the non-SIOP EL group. This finding points
to the effectiveness of embedded language objectives in delivering standards-based content to EL
students.
Slavin and Cheung (2003) discussed the effectiveness of bilingual versus English only
programs for English immersion programs for EL students in primary grade levels. The authors’
analysis over multiple studies showed that programs that delivered instruction in the students’
native language over a period of at least 3 years were more effective in facilitating content
mastery than English immersion programs. The authors suggested that bilingual instruction be
delivered with necessary adaptation for EL transitions to English immersion and eventual
reading, language, and content mastery in English only.
23
Kamps et al. (2007) studied the use of small group reading instruction for ELs in the
elementary school setting under the RTI model. The researchers identified primary, secondary,
and tertiary level interventions to accommodate EL students in reading mastery based on skill
sets in both areas. The interventions were focused on English language skills in tandem with
reading skills known as balanced literacy and English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction.
The interventions emphasized phonemic and phonological awareness, word and alphabet
recognition, and group and individual story reading for various lengths of time depending on
their tier of intervention. The study showed that students in balanced literacy and ESL instruction
had more success in grades one through three prior to entering upper elementary or secondary
grades than those who did not receive the same instruction.
Giambo (2010) discussed the results of high stakes accountability testing that consistently
demonstrated Hispanics performing lower than all other racial groups. The author noted that
Hispanic students perform poorer than African American students due to language and cultural
barriers to achievement. State accountability tests are not designed to assess content knowledge
independent from English language abilities. This dilemma leads to the question of whether the
assessments measure standards-based content knowledge or actually measure language abilities.
Further, the assessments confer an unfair disadvantage, since clearly White native English
speakers are far more likely to be able to decode questions, performance tasks, and response
choices than ELs. The results of these tests are used to determine whether or not students are
admitted to higher-level classes or placed in remedial classes. Students who are in remedial or
intervention classes are more likely to have negative attitudes about school, lower self-esteem,
and difficulty graduating or gaining college entry acceptance as a result of their non-native
English-speaking backgrounds.
24
Understanding Low-SES Barriers to Achievement
It is widely accepted that low-income students have a disadvantage in comparison to their
higher income peers for many reasons. According to Yelgün and Karaman (2015), extensive
factors contribute to obstacles in academic achievement in socioeconomically disadvantaged
communities. The most challenging factors include students being forced to work outside of
school, lacking internet connection or other resources in the home, caring for siblings due to
unaffordable childcare, experiencing a lack of parental supervision, living in crowded and
multiple family homes, having unreliable transportation, and living with safety issues in poverty-
stricken communities. Yelgün and Karaman discussed attitudes and behaviors of students from
low-income families, including low expectations of performance from parents, adults at school,
and themselves. Early gang activity, drug use, sexual promiscuity, or other negative peer
interactions that are characteristic of at-risk neighborhoods further impede student performance.
The authors explained that schools in impoverished areas have a lack of proper facilities like
locker rooms, computer labs, libraries, science labs, or important modern resources, in addition
to having overcrowded classrooms. In addition to these extensive factors, parents and adults in
the community do not always support the educational process as a result of poor beliefs about the
efficacy of education. Many of these adults are poor role models to students due to their negative
experiences in school and continued poverty.
According to Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009), parents’ education and income level has a
direct correlation with student achievement in school. Parents from low-income communities are
less likely than higher income parents to support their children in their education. Their study
evaluated a number of factors, including how mothers in middle to upper class families with
higher levels of education are more emotionally responsive to their children. In contrast, mothers
25
from low-SES backgrounds without higher levels of education have been more likely to exhibit
hostile or resentful behaviors with their children. Emotionally disturbed students experience
significant challenges in their ability to learn due to preoccupation with negative emotions. They
are also more likely to act out at school, disrupting their learning and the learning of their peers.
The authors agreed with Yelgün and Karaman (2015) in discussing how parental attitudes,
education levels, and income have consistently provided accurate predictions of student
performance based on the communities in which they live.
Mentorship and Inclusion
To some degree, positive behavioral support programs are in place in most schools.
However, it is essential that behavioral expectations are taught in a way that is appropriate for
the school demographic. Scholars agree that the American education, justice, and legislative
systems trap low-SES families into continued underprivileged circumstances through a system of
inherent exclusion that often begins with school discipline systems. Noguera (2012) discussed
how the discipline systems in schools make high-risk students more likely to underachieve or
leave school prior to graduation. The author suggested that schools use mentoring programs to
counter street culture in high-risk neighborhoods; use progressive discipline in conjunction with
these mentoring programs; utilize a range of consequences rather than immediate exclusion
through detention, suspension, and expulsion; as well as understand the root of the students’
problems. As a result of traditional exclusion techniques like suspension and expulsion, non-
conforming students are more likely to enter the justice system due to unsupervised time outside
of school campuses. Further, they are also missing out on foundational instruction that
contributes to their ultimate upward socioeconomic mobility through graduation and higher
education pathways. According to Noguera, an inclusive and mentoring culture, particularly one
26
populated by representative members of the community, is likely to ensure that students’ needs
are met prior to their exhibiting undesirable behavior. Noguera explained that inclusive
mentoring is more effective for keeping students in school, rather than students being kicked out
of school because they failed to conform to expectations.
Stanton-Salazar (2011) discussed the importance of representative members of the school
staff providing empowering and supportive environments for at-risk students. In order for
students to meet the academic and developmental demands of society, they need resourceful and
supportive relationships. These individuals would operate as socialization agents, natural
mentors, pro-academic peers, and institutional representatives who are found within the network
of family, school, neighborhood, and community. Such relationships would support students in
their various stages of social and academic development, help prepare them for adulthood,
provide advice and guidance, and offer training on effective communication and help seeking
skills. The more a school site is able to provide access to these relationships through their staff or
networks, the more likely students are to feel emotionally supported and able to engage in
learning.
Involvement of Parents and the Community
Parent and family involvement are essential components of a student’s learning
experience. An overwhelming body of literature suggests that parents with poor attitudes and
beliefs about the school system are less likely to foster values of academic achievement in their
children (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009; Yelgün & Karaman, 2015). Schools that create positive
relationships with families are more likely to produce students with higher learning outcomes.
Lopez, Scribner, and Mahitivanichcha’s (2001) study on effective parental involvement in
migrant-impacted schools showed that the schools’ success was highly contingent upon meeting
27
the diverse needs of the families they served. Successful schools made relational bonds with
families and held themselves accountable for initiating parent contact regularly. Further, because
the majority of families in participating schools were migrant, they made the effort to bring
school to the home by conducting regular home visits to strengthen relational bonds, show levels
of school commitment to the families, and provide struggling parents with social resources for
clothing, food, and other basic needs. They also held adult training sessions on how to support
their students’ learning, make parents aware of their rights, and connect them with organizations
to assist them with vocational or ESL training. According to Lopez et al., once these families
saw the level of commitment and service of the school sites, they had more supportive
relationships when it came to student learning or behavior.
Ingram, Wolfe, and Lieberman (2007) identified the ways that parent involvement can
contribute to higher academic achievement for underprivileged students. Their study examined
degrees of parenting, communication, volunteering, home learning, decision making, and
communal collaboration. It also examined the way in which parents viewed their roles in
contributing to the learning process for their children. The authors suggested that schools provide
parent education courses that help maximize their impact on student learning by understanding
age-related development milestones and grade level learning expectations. Further, Ingram et al.
explained that teacher training is necessary to increase competency in working with parents of
diverse backgrounds. Ideally, leadership would provide time for teachers and parents to be
trained together in practicing effective communication. The authors encouraged schools to create
community partnerships with local libraries, museums, zoos, and theaters so that parents are able
to nurture student learning outside of school. Lopez et al. (2001) and Ingram et al. agree that
28
collaboration among school staff, parents, and the community is a necessary factor in creating an
optimal learning support system for underprivileged and diverse students.
Jones (2008) examined how Hispanic parents perceive the education that their students
are receiving in the elementary school setting compared to the experience of other racial student
groups. First, Hispanic parents felt that White students were offered more academic support than
Hispanic students. They complained there was a disproportionate ratio of Hispanic students to
White students in lower level classes versus traditional classes. Similar perceptions were
ascribed to the gifted program, in which parents felt there was a racially biased disproportion that
was predominantly White, which was not aligned to the non-White racial proportion of the
district. Parents reported feeling ignored or mistreated and experiencing significant
communication barriers with school staff, even when requests were made to speak directly with
teachers in regard to their children. Hispanic students claimed adults and peers on campus had a
negative attitude toward their native culture and language. Jones identified communication
barriers, cultural misunderstandings, discriminatory feelings, lack of bilingual or culturally
representative staff within the school setting, opportunities for Hispanic parent involvement, and
inequitable student opportunities as detrimental factors to academic achievement for Hispanic
students. Therefore, Hispanic parents felt that the education their students were receiving was
inequitable to the education that White students were receiving.
Methods of Evaluating Effective Practices
There are many ways in which institutions, personnel, and programs can be evaluated to
determine progress toward desired results. Sources agree that outcomes-based performance
measures are useful in planning, monitoring, and assessing the effectiveness of organizational
performance. Heinrich (2002) called for outcomes-based performance measures in a study that
29
examined organizational management practices in public government sector programs. The
author emphasized that institutional and personnel evaluations should include a strategic plan
that specifies organizational goals and how they will be achieved, suggesting annual
performance plans that specify quantifiable, measurable goals and targets. Heinrich emphasized
the importance of annual performance reports that compare the obtained quantified outcomes to
original target goals. Based on these three factors, institutional leaders are able to strategize
regarding necessary inputs such as allocation of time and resources, professional development, or
organizational restructuring in order to meet targets more effectively based on outcomes such as
assessment performance. In a school setting, this would entail an examination of current student
data, the identification of target outcomes, benchmarking data to monitor progress, and yearly
summative data to assess effectiveness and results.
The National Education Association (NEA, 2013) recommends taking an outcomes-based
approach as well, while using multiple indicators of success when evaluating school
effectiveness in promoting achievement. Table 1 shows a number of achievement outcomes as
possible indicators of success that extend beyond the traditional notion of assessment scores as
the main indicator of student performance. Although assessment is an important aspect of
measuring student learning, accomplishments, attitudes, retention rates, school safety, discipline,
and attendance are also markers of student engagement. Many of these indicators can be
measured quantifiably through assessment data, attendance, retention, and discipline rates.
However, attitudes and feelings regarding school safety may be quantified through surveying or
qualitative investigations through interviewing in order to gain a deeper understanding of
stakeholder experiences that contribute to school dynamics. After the current and desired
30
outcomes have been identified, backwards mapping to processes and inputs that lead to the
desired outcomes can be strategized.
The NEA (2013) also cautions school leaders to choose what they identify as
performance indicators wisely. According to the NEA, one of the drawbacks of NCLB was that
it only held schools accountable for English Language Arts (ELA), Math, and grade span
Science assessments. This limitation resulted in the notion that only these three areas were of
utmost importance, while other areas such as social studies, music, arts, and physical education
seemed to be deemed less critical.
Table 1
Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes
Inputs Processes Outcomes
 Financial (e.g.,
expenditures per
average daily
attendance; local,
state, and federal
revenue per average
daily attendance
 Personnel (e.g., pupil-
teacher ratio, average
teacher salary)
 Facilities
 Equipment
 Materials
 School policy/law
 Student attributes
(e.g., predominant
socio-economic level,
average ability)
 Curriculum and
instruction
 Implementation of
policies (e.g.,
admission, grading,
promotion, etc.)
 Diverse educational
opportunities
 Parent involvement
 Leadership (e.g.,
planning, style,
efficiency, etc.)
 Academic
achievement (e.g.,
SAT, exit exam,
writing tests)
 Accomplishments
(e.g., graduation rates,
college attendance)
 Attitudes
 Retention/dropout
rates
 School safety
 Discipline
 College enrollment
and completion rates
Note. Adapted from “Multiple Indicators of School Effectiveness (NEA Policy Brief),” by the
National Education Association, 2013 (http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/
NEAPolicyBriefMultipleMeasures.pdf). Copyright 2013 by the author.
31
Gajda and Jewiss (2004) expanded on the suggestions of Heinrich (2002) and the NEA
(2013) by outlining two different ways in which program effectiveness should be evaluated. The
first investigates the quantity and quality of the programs being delivered, also known as process
indicators. The second way explores the quantity and quality of the outcomes the programs are
producing. Quantity must be evaluated to ensure that sufficient action or involvement is taking
place in order to build the input capacity necessary towards desired outcomes. Tables 2 and 3
show examples of how quantity is measured with regard to specific indicators.
Table 2
Early Childhood Education Cares (ECE Cares) Initiative Outcome 1 Activities, Quantity
Indicators, Data Collection Tools, and Person Responsible
Project Activities Indicators Data Collection Tool(s)
Person(s)
Responsible for
Gathering
Documentation
1.1. To offer ECE
Cares skill curriculum
training and
professional mentoring
to early childhood
providers from the
school district and the
community.
1.1.1. Fifty early childhood
education providers, representing
settings within and outside the
school district, will be trained in
the ECE Cares curriculum by the
end of the first year.
Monthly training
update form

Training session
attendance log
ECE Cares
Trainer
1.1.3. Children in early
childhood classroom settings will
demonstrate an increase in pro-
social behavior.
Analysis of daily sheets
that record incidents of
sharing, physical, and
verbal interactions.
Providers and
project educator.
Note. Outcome 1: To increase the pro-social behavior of young children in early childhood settings
throughout the community. Adapted from “Thinking about How to Evaluate Your Program? These
Strategies Will Get You Started,” by R. Gajda & J. Jewiss, 2004, Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 9(8), pp. 3-4 . Copyright 2004 by the authors.

32
Table 3
Early Childhood Education (ECE) Cares Monthly Training Update Data Collection Form
Date
Number of
service
providers from
the school
district who
completed
ECE Cares
Training
Number of
service
providers from
the community
who completed
ECE Cares
Training
Total number
of service
providers who
completed
ECE Cares
Training
Total number
of children
served by ECE
Cares trained
providers
Number of
service
providers who
have been
observed on
site after ECE
Cares training
Sept. 2003 14 12 26 780 10
Note. Adapted from “Thinking about How to Evaluate Your Program? These Strategies Will Get You
Started,” by R. Gajda & J. Jewiss, 2004, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(8), p. 4 .
Copyright 2004 by the authors.

The authors also demonstrated how quality measures should be devised in order to assess
the effectiveness of programs and activities that contribute to outcomes. Numerical outcomes are
a quantitative tool demonstrating program effectiveness from raw data on particular indicators.
However, Gajda and Jewiss (2004) encourage the use of qualitative measures like interviewing
to gain in depth understanding of personnel and participant experiences. They suggest interview
questions for personnel such as what factors they felt made the program successful, how the
program contributed to desired outcomes, challenges or concerns they faced with the program,
and how the program could be improved. Interview question suggestions for participants
included what they gained from the program, how they might use these gains in the future, what
aspects of the program were most and least desirable, whether they would recommend the
program to others, and how the program could be improved to better suit their needs. A mixed
methods approach to evaluating the two distinct factors of quantity and quality of programs, as
well as the quantity and quality of outcomes, provides a comprehensive, in depth understanding
of inputs, indicators, processes, and outcomes.
33
Summary
State and federal authorities have used data-driven techniques to justify the allocation of
funding and resources to benefit populations with the most need in public education. The
question that remains is why low-income Hispanic students continue to perform at the bottom of
the achievement spectrum even with all of the policies that have entered the educational arena
designed to improve their performance. It is necessary to treat each ethnic and economic group
as unique and having multiple needs to improve performance outcomes when creating policies.
This concept stands in contrast to broad, umbrella policies that lump multiple groups with
various needs into one overarching group. Accountability measures must be evaluated critically
as to whether or not they accommodate the needs of disadvantaged groups, putting them at
further risk of underperformance and widening the opportunity and achievement gaps (Gándara,
2010). Lawmakers must reconsider equitable access to education and opportunity to assess
current legislation that restricts access to success for immigrant or underprivileged populations
(Flores & Chapa, 2009).
Systems of ingrained White American societal values and deficit stereotypes must be
considered when examining the underachievement of disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations.
Stanton-Salazar (2001) and Gorski (2008) cautioned against negative biases that exist among
those in leadership positions and the damaging effects they have on groups that internalize these
beliefs, developing self-fulfilling prophecies of underachievement. It is widely acknowledged in
the literature presented that it is necessary to counter deficit theory perspectives in relation to
Hispanic EL groups in American society and the education system to improve upward
socioeconomic mobility (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014; Irizarry, 2015; Owens & Lynch, 2012;
Riehl, 2000). Scholars also indicated that models of overcoming negative ideological discourse
34
are most effective when representative members of the disadvantaged groups are in leadership
roles (Jones, 2008; Noguera, 2012; Riehl, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
The study of how school leadership contributes to the success or low achievement of
Hispanic ELs from low-income communities is based on several components. School leaders and
staff must understand the needs of the Hispanic community in American schools. A sense of
cultural inclusion and proficiency is essential for families who are in transition to American
society (Noguera, 2012; Valenzuela et al., 2013). Negative stereotypes that are harbored by staff
and American society must be taken into consideration and countered at all costs. Principals can
begin dialogues at their school sites by asking staff to examine their beliefs, as well as societal
beliefs, and inviting them to consider what they can do to empower students and their families to
overcome these negative belief systems. (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014). Students must never
internalize negative beliefs about their abilities due to societal paradigms of bias and
discrimination, as doing so often leads to self-fulfilling prophecies of underachievement
(Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
School leaders would be wise to consider creating a culture of inclusion and mentorship
rather than implementing traditional discipline procedures that exclude students from school and
disrupt their access to learning. Stanton-Salazar (2001) and Noguera (2012) agree that mentors
and representative members of the community are better able to empower and understand
students’ needs by building relationships with each other. Such relationships make students feel
included and cared for, making them more likely to learn and stay engaged at school.
Principals must understand the barriers these students face in their English language
acquisition with respect to their native languages. In addressing the language barrier through
research-based programs that have been shown to be effective, students are able to learn both the
35
English language and content standards. Several methods of effective EL instruction have been
outlined in the literature, such as English immersion, dual language Immersion, bilingual
instruction, small group reading, RTI, transitional bilingual education, and secondary English
instruction strategies (Echevarria et al., 2006; Giambo, 2010; Kamps et al., 2007; Slavin &
Cheung, 2003).
Specific challenges pertaining to low-income families must be acknowledged and
accommodated. Yelgün and Karaman (2015) and Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) agree that
consideration and action are needed to ensure that students’ and families’ basic needs are met.
Clothing, medical care, transportation, access to the internet, childcare, and emotional counseling
are a few of the needs mentioned. Principals who work in collaboration with social services to
provide solutions to logistical and emotional issues impoverished students face daily are more
likely to provide conditions that are conducive to student learning and familial support.
The involvement of parents and the community is a critical factor in creating supportive
relationships with the school site and students. Yelgün and Karaman (2015) and Davis-Kean and
Sexton (2009) agree that negative parental attitudes toward school and education show a higher
correlation to having underperforming students with similar beliefs. Ingram et al. (2007), Jones
(2008), and Lopez et al. (2001) suggest ways that schools can accommodate and build
relationships with parents that support student learning and family needs. Conducting home
visits, offering parent training and education, and having regular contact with families initiated
by school staff are a few of the strategies mentioned.
The evaluation of program effectiveness and learning outcomes is important in
understanding whether students’ needs are being met, as well as in creating a roadmap to higher
outcomes. Heinrich (2002), the NEA (2013), and Gajda and Jewiss (2004) provide outcome-
36
based evaluation methods that can help principals or organizational leaders improve performance
results. They suggest identifying current performance outcomes and creating desired target
outcomes as goals. Next, the NEA (2013) suggests identifying multiple indicators of success
beyond mere assessment scores. Gajda and Jewiss suggest evaluating the quantity and quality of
both processes and outcomes. They present quantitative methods such as raw data collection, and
qualitative methods such as interviews as ways of creating greater depths of knowledge on
processes and indicators being evaluated.
In diverse schools, the role of school principals is to serve as not only an instructional
leader, but also a transformative leader (Marzano et al., 2005). The first goal of transformative
leadership entails being responsive to the needs of the population. Next, leaders must create
systems and procedures to work toward a vision that requires changes to teachers’ belief systems
and practices. In order to truly meet the needs of Hispanic ELs, principals must establish
expectations for appropriate instruction and a positive, empowering school culture. They must
include parents and create supportive relationships to facilitate effective learning experiences for
student success. Further, they must identify and communicate current levels of performance to
school staff, as well as strategize methods to improve outcomes. Continuous evaluation, progress
monitoring, and leadership are required to truly provide a FAPE for Hispanic EL students.

37
Chapter 3: Methodology
In this chapter, the methodological design is presented, identifying the setting and
participants of research. It outlines methods of data collection and analysis, the instruments used,
and ethical considerations of the study, closing with a summary.
Statement of the Problem
The problem is low Hispanic academic achievement as evidenced by the highest dropout
rate of all the racial categories compared to African American, White, and Asian subgroups (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). The researcher will
examine the problem because trends continue to persist over decades of educational practice,
regardless of the tedious efforts of educational reform that have taken place to improve this
population’s achievement. Hispanics continue to make up significant portions of disadvantaged
groups within American society as a result of this academic disparity. These current and
historical academic inequities have been declared an educational crisis, putting Hispanics at risk
of becoming a permanent underclass (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine what elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations in urban settings do differently
than principals of low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic success.
Higher outcomes are evidenced by at least 40% of students meeting or exceeding proficiency in
ELA and Math on the CAASPP. The study’s primary purpose was to understand the leadership
practices and programs that principals of highly effective urban elementary schools have used to
make gains for these students. The study’s secondary purpose was to examine how principals
engage parents in the student learning process, and how the effectiveness of programs that
38
contribute to learning outcomes for this demographic is evaluated. By understanding these
practices, further advances can be made in low-performing schools that cater to the same
population of students and needs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What programs do successful elementary principals in urban settings implement to
academically support Hispanic English Learner students?
2. What leadership strategies do elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes
for Hispanic English Learner students?
3. How do elementary principals engage parents and the community to improve learning
outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students?
4. How are elementary school principals evaluating the effectiveness of programs and
instruction that is designed to increase achievement for Hispanic English Learner
students?
Research Design Methods
The study was designed with a mixed-methods approach and was conducted with 57
elementary schools that have at least 50% Hispanic ELs and at least 50% low-SES enrollment in
two southern California school districts. Creswell (2014) defined mixed-methods research as a
combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches in a study. The study involved
quantitative data obtained through surveys to strategically involve elementary principals at
schools with the identified demographics. Survey research is a form of quantitative methodology
that provides numerical descriptions of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a group by studying a
sample of participants (Creswell, 2014). The study will also involve qualitative data obtained
39
through open-ended interviews with principals at school sites demonstrating at least 40%
proficiency or greater in ELA and Math, as measured by the CAASPP. According to Maxwell
(2013), qualitative research seeks to explain local causality: the processes within a specific
context that leads to particular outcomes. These research approaches are open-ended without
predetermined responses, providing a depth of knowledge to this study.
Mixed-methods approaches to research can be highly beneficial because quantitative
numerical data can be collected to identify degrees of correlation between variables and
qualitative data can be collected to explain processes and contexts within the researched setting
(Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). The quantitative data acquired through surveys allowed the
researcher to identify correlations between effective principals and the leadership strategies,
instructional programs, degrees of parental involvement, and outcomes-based evaluation
methods they utilize. The qualitative data acquired through interviews allowed the researcher to
understand the context and strategies of effective principals with regard to these variables within
the school setting.
Sample and Population
The population of the sample was urban elementary principals from two selected school
districts in southern California. Surveys were emailed to principals who are assigned to schools
with at least 50% Hispanic ELs and 50% low-SES students. Of those participants, school
principals with a proficiency rate of 40% or greater in the area of ELA and Math as measured by
the CAASPP were interviewed. The study implemented a two-tiered approach to data gathering
in which the researcher first selected the schools to be studied, and then sampled a subgroup of
those schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The research identified schools with the necessary
demographics identified in the first tier. Principals at these sites were then sampled purposefully
40
based on CAASPP performance metrics in the second tier. Patton (2015) described purposeful
sampling as powerful and logical because of the information rich, in-depth understanding
obtained from participants who are of central importance to the purpose of the research inquiry.
The results obtained from survey and interview data were then be triangulated with the literature
(Creswell, 2013) in order to connect findings to overarching themes and practices as they pertain
to the purpose of the study.
Instrumentation
Survey and interview questions designed for this study were based on the analysis of
literature and gaps in research. These instruments were field tested in a pilot study by a district
office administrator and director in order to ensure the clarity of questions presented within the
participants’ appropriate time constraints. It also allowed the researcher to test for potential
biases and the transparency of interview and survey protocols. Revisions were made to the
instruments and protocols based on the feedback of pilot participants.
Quantitative instrumentation. The quantitative portion of this study was conducted
through a survey emailed to urban elementary principals at schools in two selected southern
California school districts with the necessary demographic criteria. The survey questions were
created according to the literature reviewed, which outlined four themes: (a) specific leadership
theories and strategies, (b) instructional programs, (c) degrees of parental involvement, and
(d) outcomes-based evaluation methods. Although these topics are presented in the literature as
necessary variables to consider, they do not explain the degree to which their combined presence
or absence at a given school site effects achievement outcomes for the disadvantaged Hispanic
EL population. The 50 Likert scale survey items asked principals to assess on a scale of 1-5 the
degree to which they (1) strongly agreed with, (2) agreed with, (3) were indifferent to
41
(4) disagreed with, or (5) strongly disagreed with the presented questions as they relate to the
five themes (Appendix A).
Qualitative instrumentation. The qualitative methods used for the purpose of this study
were face-to-face interviews of approximately 30 minutes each. Principals selected to participate
in interviews were survey respondents who worked at schools with at least 40% proficiency or
greater in ELA and Math as evidenced by the CAASPP. The 10 open-ended questions were
based on the same research variables as the surveys, but allowed principals to share detailed
accounts of their experiences without being limited to predetermined answer choices on a survey.
When necessary, follow up questions were asked in order to better understand participants’
experiences and accounts.
Data Collection
Data were collected using both quantitative and qualitative research methods.
Quantitative survey data were collected from elementary principals whose schools met the
necessary Hispanic, EL, and low-SES demographic data. Qualitative interview data were
collected from survey participants who met the necessary CAASPP proficiency metrics in ELA
and Math. This process allowed differences in leadership strategies between high performing and
low performing schools to be identified quantitatively through surveys and researched in depth
through qualitative interviews. All necessary guidelines and procedures required by the
Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California were followed to ensure
compliance in data collection and participant protection. Participant identities were kept
confidential during the course of the study and will remain confidential after findings have been
published. Further, all identifiable data records were only accessible to the researcher. Research
42
subjects were informed that their participation in the study was completely voluntary and they
had the option to discontinue participation at any time.
Quantitative data collection. Emails were sent to the 57 elementary principals at
schools from the two selected southern California school districts with the identified
demographic requirements of the study. The email included a Request to Participate letter
(Appendix B), which stated the purpose of the survey and the research study. Research subjects
were instructed to first read the email, and then follow the link provided to the survey if they
agreed to participate. The method of survey delivery was Google Surveys, a program that allows
for convenient and accurate survey reporting and data collection. If participants had not taken the
survey within 14 days, the researcher sent a follow up email or made a reminder phone call.
Qualitative data collection. The principals selected to participate in interviews were
survey respondents at schools with at least 40% proficiency or greater in ELA and Math as
evidenced by the CAASPP and meeting the demographic criteria of the study. Phone calls were
made to the elementary principals in order to ask for their willingness to participate in the
interview. Principals were informed about the purpose of the study during the call, and an
appointment was made to conduct the interview. A follow up email was sent to the consenting
participants restating the purpose of the interview and research study. The email also contained
the interview questions prior to the appointment. Interviews were conducted in the offices of the
elementary principals in order to ensure a level of comfort and confidentiality. The interviews
were recorded with permission from the participants. The researcher then transcribed and coded
the recordings for data analysis.
43
Data Analysis
Quantitative analysis. Data collected from survey reporting will involve selected
elementary principal participants in three selected southern California school districts who meet
the necessary demographic requirements for the study. The responses will be quantified by the
researcher using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which allows for convenient and accurate
formulation of the data.
Qualitative analysis. The analysis of the qualitative interview data involved elementary
principals who participated in the survey and met the necessary CAASPP and demographic data.
The data were transcribed and coded by the researcher according to the four main summarizers
outlined by Huberman and Miles (2002), which include categories and themes, causes and
explanations, relationships among people, and theoretical constructs. The overarching codes that
were used included leadership, teachers, culture, stereotype, professional development, parental
involvement, instruction, engagement, partnerships, and evaluation. This method not only
condenses the information in a way that makes it easier to categorize the data, but also helps to
create a thinking map of the interactions among the participants, their practices, and beliefs. This
process is referred to as data reduction: display and conclusion drawing derived from the coding
process (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Summary
Chapter 3 restated the statement of the problem, purpose of the study, and research
questions guided the study. It outlined the research design methods, sample and population,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis processes to be used in the study. A mixed
methods approach was needed in order to acquire the quantitative survey responses and
qualitative interview responses necessary to draw conclusions related to the research questions.
44
The findings from the two-tier (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) mixed methods approach, along with
the literature findings, were triangulated (Creswell, 2014) in order to provide an in-depth
understanding of the topic at hand. The results of this study are intended to identify what makes
elementary principals effective in improving learning outcomes for Hispanic EL students in low-
SES communities. These results are presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

45
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
The goal of this study was to examine what elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations in urban settings do differently
than their counterparts in low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic
success as evidenced by CAASPP assessment scores. By understanding which effective
leadership practices best meet the needs of this population, further advances can be made in low
performing schools that cater to the same population of students.
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings of the study based on data collected using a
mixed methods approach. The study included of a quantitative survey completed by 34 out of 57
contacted elementary principals whose schools included at least 50% Hispanic EL and 50% low-
SES student demographics. Qualitative interviews were conducted with five elementary
principals from high achieving schools with the same student demographics and at least 40%
proficiency in ELA and Math as evidenced by the CAASPP assessment. The mixed methods
study set out to answer the following research questions:
1. What programs do successful elementary principals implement to academically
support Hispanic English Learner students in urban settings?
2. What leadership strategies do elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes
for Hispanic English Learner students?
3. How do elementary principals engage parents and the community to improve learning
outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students?
4. How are successful elementary school principals evaluating the effectiveness of
programs and instruction that is designed to increase achievement for Hispanic
English Learner students?
46
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine what elementary principals with high
populations of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations in urban settings do
differently than principals of low performing schools to achieve higher learning outcomes.
Higher outcomes are evidenced by at least 40% of students meeting or exceeding proficiency in
ELA and Math on the CAASPP. The study’s primary purpose as to understand the leadership
practices and programs that principals of highly effective urban elementary schools have used to
make gains for these students. The study’s secondary purpose was to examine how principals
engage parents in the student learning process, and how the effectiveness of programs that
contribute to learning outcomes for this demographic is evaluated. By understanding these
practices, further advances can be made in low-performing schools that cater to the same
population of students.
Response Rate
The selection criteria used for sampling in this study included two Southern California
school districts with at least 20 elementary schools composed of 50% Hispanic ELs and 50%
low-SES student populations. Table 4 shows that of the 56 potential participants, 34 agreed to
participate, resulting in a response rate of 60% of elementary principals. This sample size and
response rate was sufficient in terms of obtaining at least a 50% response rate.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure
No. Invited to
Participate No. Participated % Participated
Elementary
Principals
56 34 60.7%

47
Of the 56 elementary principals selected to participate in the quantitative survey, 34
participated. Of the 34 who participated in the survey, five met the criteria to participate in the
qualitative interview and were selected by the researcher for this opportunity. All five elementary
principals agreed to participate in the interview. Reasons reported by elementary principals who
did not participate in the survey included a lack of time, motivation, or willingness to respond.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 5 presents the number of schools in two Southern California school districts with at
least 50% Hispanic EL and 50% low-SES student demographics.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: School Demographics
Measure
No. of
Elementary
Schools in
district
No. of
Schools with
≥ 50%
Hispanic EL
students
No. of
Schools with
≥ 50% low-
SES students
No. of
Schools
Selected
% of Schools
in District
Meeting
Criteria
District 1 22 22 22 22 100%
District 2 45 34 34 34 75%

Of the two Southern California school districts selected for the sample in this study, both
had at least 75% of their elementary schools meeting the 50% or greater Hispanic EL and 50% or
greater low-SES student demographics set by the researcher. District 1 had 100% of their
elementary schools meeting the researcher’s demographic criteria, with District 2 having 75% of
their elementary schools meeting the researcher’s demographic criteria.
Qualitative Demographic Data
Table 6 shows schools in the two Southern California school districts with 50% Hispanic
EL and 50% low-SES demographics. Since only elementary principals who had previously
participated in the quantitative survey instrument were selected for qualitative interviews, the
48
schools with principals who responded to the survey are listed in Table 6. Interview participants
were selected based on survey respondents at schools with 40% or more proficiency in ELA and
Math on the CAASPP assessment. Table 7 shows the number of schools selected based on the
school sites with principals who responded to the surveys, and also met the necessary CAASPP
requirements set by the researcher.
Table 6
Qualitative Interview: Demographic and CAASPP Proficiency
Measure District
% Hispanic
EL % Low-SES
% ELA
Proficient
% Math
Proficient
School 1 District 1 88.96% 93.75% 40.9 43.2
School 2 District 1 71.04% 87.92% 29.7 25
School 3 District 1 71.55% 94.54% 19.6 9.8
School 4 District 1 94.11% 92.95% 31.1 26.6
School 5 District 1 87.55% 91.17% 32 23.6
School 6 District 1 72.99% 90.63% 23.8 17.1
School 7 District 1 82.62% 86.65% 24.7 21.4
School 8 District 1 94.01% 92.32% 42.9 42.6
School 9 District 1 87.80% 88.76% 23.4 21.5
School 10 District 1 76.97% 84.85% 54 45.2
School 11 District 1 60.22% 86.99% 26.3 21.1
School 12 District 1 64.72% 93.71% 27.6 23.6
School 13 District 1 83.13% 91.67% 22.2 17.1
School 14 District 1 89.06% 90.47% 23.2 18.8
School 15 District 1 61.88% 92.08% 13.9 10.1
School 16 District 1 51.59% 81.30% 20.7 11.7
School 17 District 1 86.96% 93.48% 19.5 10.5
School 18 District 1 55.03% 84.42% 8.8 2.9
School 19 District 1 83.97% 110.74% 27.4 21.3
School 20 District 1 93.19% 90.43% 30.7 26
School 21 District 1 50.17% 85.02% 41.9 40.1
School 22 District 1 82.19% 91.86% 22.3 25
School 23 District 2 68.58% 95.88% 15.3 20
School 24 District 2 61.66% 95.85% 19.9 17.2
School 25 District 2 51.04% 73.07% 47.7 40.6
School 26 District 2 57.05% 96.36% 32.9 30.6
School 27 District 2 66.47% 95.88% 21.3 24.3
School 28 District 2 71.98% 96.17% 14.6 14.8
School 29 District 2 73.32% 96.63% 11.3 14.3
(continued)
49
Measure District
% Hispanic
EL % Low-SES
% ELA
Proficient
% Math
Proficient
School 30 District 2 69.86% 95.98% 16.1 27.2
School 31 District 2 79.07% 97.73% 19.7 16.9
School 32 District 2 58.66% 97.88% 22.1 17.6
School 33 District 2 64.39% 97.54% 21.7 23.1
School 34 District 2 53.67% 95.62% 20 20.2

Table 7
Qualitative Interview: CAASPP Proficiency
Measure
No. of Schools
with Survey
Respondents
No. of Survey
Respondents at
Schools with ≥
40% CAASPP
Proficiency
No. of Survey
Respondents
Selected for
Interview
No. of Survey
Respondents
who Participated
in Interview
District 1 22 4 4 4
District 2 12 1 1 1

Based on the 56 elementary schools meeting the demographic data necessary to
participate in the quantitative survey instrument, 34 elementary principals elected to respond.
Five of the 34 survey respondents were assigned to schools with 40% or greater ELA and Math
proficiency on the CAASPP assessment. All five were asked to participate in the qualitative
interview based on the aforementioned criteria. As a result, the researcher conducted five
interviews with the selected participants.
Methodology
This study aimed to examine the practices of effective elementary principals in improving
learning outcomes for Hispanic EL students from low-SES communities. The mixed methods
approach to the research was used because numerical data was collected to identify degrees of
correlation among the variables, and qualitative data was collected to explain processes and
contexts within the research setting (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). The results obtained from
survey and interview data were then triangulated with the literature (Creswell, 2013) in order to
50
connect findings to overarching themes and practices as they pertained to the purpose of the
study.
Coding of Data
The data analysis process used to answer the research questions required the coding and
transcribing of data to search for overarching themes and patterns that emerged from the
research. The data were transcribed and coded by the researcher according to the four main
summarizers outlined by Huberman and Miles (2002), which included categories and themes,
causes and explanations, relationships among people, and theoretical constructs. This method not
only reduced the information in a way that made it easier to categorize the data, but also helped
to create a thinking map of the interactions among the participants, their practices, and their
beliefs. This process is referred to as data reduction: display and conclusion drawing derived
from the coding process (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Findings
The data analysis that follows comes from the study, which aimed to examine what
elementary principals with high populations of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic, EL
populations in urban settings do differently than their counterparts in low performing schools to
achieve higher outcomes of academic success as evidenced by the CAASPP assessment.
Research Question One
Research question one asked, What programs do successful elementary principals
implement to academically support Hispanic English Learner students in urban settings?
Hispanic ELs face a major challenge in academic achievement due to the fact that they are non-
native English speakers receiving instruction in English-speaking schools. Echevarria et al.
(2006) examined the effectiveness of implementing EL-based instructional strategies to teach
51
standards-based content. Their findings pointed to the effectiveness of embedded language
objectives, instructional strategies, and supports in delivering standards-based content to EL
students. Slavin and Cheung (2003) suggested that bilingual instruction should be delivered with
necessary adaptation for EL transitions to English immersion and eventual reading, language,
and content mastery in English only for increased learning outcomes. Kamps et al. (2007) found
that students in balanced literacy and ESL instruction had more success in grades one through
three prior to entering upper elementary or secondary grades than those who did not receive the
same instruction. Giambo (2010) found that students who are in remedial or intervention classes
are more likely to have negative attitudes about school, lower self-esteem, and difficulty
graduating or gaining college entry acceptance as a result of their non-native English-speaking
backgrounds, as is the case with Hispanic EL students in the American public education system.
Table 8 shows the responses of 34 elementary principals regarding the implementation of
English only, dual language immersion, bilingual Instruction, EL instructional strategies, and/or
remedial EL classes at their school sites. Principals were asked to indicate their level of
agreement using the Likert scale in which 1 indicated strongly agree, 2 indicated agree, 3
indicated indifferent, 4 indicated disagree, and 5 indicated strongly disagree. Their ratings
indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree that these programs are utilized at their
schools.
The 34 principals responded to survey questions regarding instructional programs used to
support Hispanic EL students. The highest reported practice by 82.4% of 34 principals was the
implementation of EL instructional strategies. The lowest reported practice by 8.8% of 34
principals was the implementation of dual language immersion programs at their school sites.
52
The variables in Table 8 were examined as to their degree of presence at the school sites and
efficacy in improving achievement outcomes.
Table 8
Principal Ratings of Instructional Programs used to Academically Support Hispanic EL Low-
SES Students
Element
Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree
(2)
Indifferent
(3) Disagree (4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
Total
Strongly
Agreed +
Agreed
English Only
Instruction
55.9% 8.8% 14.7% 8.8% 11.8% 64.7%
Dual Language
Immersion
5.9% 2.9% 0% 5.9% 85.3% 8.8%
Bilingual
Instruction
5.9% 8.8% 5.9% 11.8% 67.6% 14.7%
EL Instructional
Strategies
55.9% 26.5% 8.8% 8.8% 0% 82.4%
Remedial Classes 5.9% 14.7% 5.9% 23.5% 50% 20.6%

English only instruction. Of the 34 principals who were surveyed, 64.7% responded that
English only instruction is happening at their school sites. This implies that no language
acquisition supports are provided to students during regular daily instruction. During the
interview, Principal 2 addressed this topic by stating:
At our school, this is a priority. Increasing language proficiency, both on the CELDT
and the CAASPP. How can we not make it a priority? I can understand that exposure to
language in a full immersion model may be helpful for some students. Maybe for spoken
English. But academically? No support at all? We would be failing to serve our students
without some kind of English language support, especially when parents don’t speak
English.
53
None of the principals interviewed who were at schools achieving 40% or greater ELA and Math
proficiency on the CAASPP assessment indicated that their schools provided English only
instruction all day without the presence of EL programs, supports, or accommodations.
Dual language immersion. The implementation of dual language immersion programs
was reported the least by 8.8% of the 34 principals surveyed. Principal 3 explained why dual
language immersion was not desirable for their school site:
We definitely don’t use it at this school. I think maybe one school in the district has a full
on dual language immersion [DLI] program. My perception, and I know some other
principals who have expressed the same thing, is that it does more harm than good. While
it does reinforce their native language because they are receiving instruction in Spanish, it
doesn’t help with them English acquisition. In fact, we have seen DLI students fall
further and further behind on becoming reclassified, and on their ELA proficiency. Those
instructional minutes are not being used strategically to get kids moving. To get them
literate, fluent and proficient.
None of the other principals who participated in the interview and had schools with 40% or
greater proficiency in ELA and Math on the CAASPP assessment indicated that dual language
immersion programs are utilized at their school sites.
EL instructional strategies. The use of instructional strategies that cater specifically to
the Hispanic EL population was the most frequently reported practice, endorsed by 82.4% of the
34 principals surveyed. Two of the five principals who were interviewed also explained that this
strategy was not just evident at their sites, but also a non-negotiable expectation by the
administration. Principal 2 stated:
54
Instruction that is delivered to students in a way that accommodates their specific needs is
absolutely critical. Language acquisition needs to be addressed cross curricular, not just
in English Language Arts. The district has had a big emphasis on GLAD strategies which
is very specific to English Learners. You won’t see it at every school though. That’s up to
the principals. At our school, it is mandatory for every teacher, every classroom. I’m not
shy about monitoring and walking into classrooms. We are in our third year of GLAD
implementation and I can tell you, it has paid off.
Principal 5 also addressed this topic in the interview with the researcher, stating:
Our district has offered a series of trainings for English Learner instruction over the
years. Like SDAIE (Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English) , SIOP
(Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol), and GLAD . New ones, old ones, they come
and go. They are necessary for effective instruction with our student population. They
need to be learning language all day long. We have a very collaborative group of teachers
who have been using the SIOP model over the years and you see it when you walk into
classrooms. Thankfully, it’s not one of the things I need to monitor closely because they
have been doing it for a few years now. It definitely is evident not only in our ELA
scores, but also our reclassification rates.
The researcher found that the use of instructional strategies that cater specifically to ELs
is a valuable component of making the curriculum accessible to non-native English-speaking
students across all subject areas.
Remedial classes. Of the 34 principals who were surveyed, 20.6% responded that they
have remedial ELA classes that are composed of Hispanic EL students at their school sites.
Principal 2 explained the reasoning behind the remedial placement of students:
55
Here, since almost all of our students are English learners and Spanish-speaking, we need
to meet them where they are in their learning. So, they have their regular Language Arts
block, which is made accessible through those instructional strategies I was telling you
about- GLAD. Then they have an additional block of ELD [English Language
Development], which is just for our English learner students. The English Only kids are
in small group instruction doing something else at that time. But we need ELD for ELs.
They have that time every single day to focus only on English Language Development.
Four out of five principals interviewed agreed that remedial ELA classes including ELD or other
intervention classes were utilized at their school sites to support academic achievement for their
student population.
Inclusive support programs. As stated in the literature, low-income students have a
disadvantage in comparison to their higher income peers for many reasons (Yelgün & Karaman,
2015). Yelgün and Karaman (2015) found that early gang activity, drug use, sexual promiscuity,
or other negative peer interactions that are characteristic of at risk neighborhoods impede student
performance. Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) agreed with Yelgün and Karaman in discussing
how parental attitudes, education levels, and income have consistently provided accurate
predictions of student performance. The findings of Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) indicate that
teachers, administrators, or other school personnel must work to counter these negative factors
by working as positive role models and mentors for their students. Noguera (2012) suggested
that schools: use mentoring programs to counter street culture in high-risk neighborhoods; use
progressive discipline in conjunction with these mentoring programs; and utilize a range of
consequences rather than immediate exclusion through detention, suspension, and expulsion.
Stanton-Salazar (2011) discussed the importance of ethnic and socioeconomically representative
56
members of the school staff providing empowering and supportive environments for at-risk
students to provide inclusive relationships and positive role models to support student success.
The researcher investigated the degree to which these variables are present at the school sites
involved in the study by surveying and interviewing the 34 principal participants.
Table 9 shows the responses of 34 elementary principals regarding the implementation of
positive behavioral support (PBIS) programs, mentorship, positive school role models, the
countering of at-risk activity, the reinforcement of education, inclusive cultures, and low
suspension/expulsion rates at their school sites. Principals were asked to indicate their level of
agreement using the Likert scale in which 1 indicated strongly agree, 2 indicated agree, 3
indicated indifferent, 4 indicated disagree, and 5 indicated strongly disagree. Their ratings
indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree that these programs are utilized at their
schools.
Table 9
Principal Ratings of Other Programs Used to Academically Support Hispanic EL Low-SES
Students
Element
Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Disagree
(4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
Total
Strongly
Agreed +
Agreed
PBIS 64.7% 20.6% 14.7% 0% 0% 85.3%
Adult Mentorship 23.5% 14.7% 23.5% 23.5% 14.7% 38.2%
Role Models 58.8% 32.4% 2.9% 5.9% 0% 91.2%
At Risk Education 17.6% 44.1% 20.6% 14.7% 2.9% 61.7%
Education
Reinforcement
55.9% 17.6% 20.6% 2.9% 2.9% 73.5%
Inclusive Climate 79.4% 17.6% 0% 2.9% 0% 97%
Low Suspension/
Expulsion Rate
58.8% 26.5% 5.9% 5.9% 2.9% 85.3%

The 34 principals responded to the survey questions regarding inclusive support
programs used to support Hispanic EL and low-SES students. The practice reported most by
57
97% of principals was the creation of an inclusive school climate. The practice reported least by
38.2% of principals was the implementation of adult mentoring programs at their school sites.
The variables in Table 9 were examined as to their degree of presence at the school sites and
their efficacy in improving achievement outcomes.
Positive behavior support (PBIS) programs. Of the 34 principals who were surveyed,
85.3% agreed or strongly agreed that a PBIS program was implemented at their school sites. All
five of the principals interviewed also indicated that a PBIS was in place at their schools.
Principal 4 addressed the model at their school site by indicating:
The district has had a PBIS initiative in place for a long time. I know that different
schools have made it their own, in their own ways. We use the 3 B’s here. Be Safe, Be
Responsible, Be Respectful. Since it’s elementary, we don’t need that much structure like
some of the secondary schools. Theirs are much more intense. But here, the 3 B’s are
effective. We also do student of the month and morning affirmations. We don’t have a
huge behavior problem.
The implementation of a PBIS is a commonly used practice among 85% of the principals
surveyed and all five of the principals at high achieving schools who were interviewed.
Adult mentorship. Adult mentorship was the least reported practice by 38.2% of the 34
principals surveyed. Principal 4 stated, “Mentoring programs are probably more utilized at the
secondary levels rather than the elementary levels. I could see how that would be needed there.”
The researcher found that none of the other principals interviewed stated that they had a
mentoring program in place at their school sites. This is the least implemented practice at the
elementary schools surveyed and interviewed. The finding is evidenced by the lowest response
rate of 38.3% compared to all other programs.
58
Role models. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 91.2% reported that positive role models at
the school sites (teachers, administrators, or other adult staff) were utilized to support their
student populations. During the interview process, Principal 5 explained that, “Most of the
teachers here come from this community. I think it helps the kids see people like themselves in
positions of authority.” Principal 1 also said:
Some of the teachers here are very new, and they come from outside the community. But
they are here to help, because they care about these kids. They care about this
community. So it’s positive for the student to interact with them.
The other three principals agreed regarding the importance of positive role models for the
students during the interview process, but did not state that they were particularly emphasized at
their sites.
Inclusive climate. An inclusive school climate was the most commonly reported
practice, with 97% of the 34 surveyed principals claiming it was implemented on their campus.
Principal 2 explained that:
Inclusion means understanding the kids. Where they come from, who they are, how they
see the world. Not only accepting it, but celebrating it. We make it a point to do that. We
celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Dia de Los Muertos. It unites the students, the staff, the
parents, the community.
Principal 4 stated “Inclusion is necessary to keep the relationship between the school and the
students strong. Everyone should feel like this school belongs to them.” Principal 1 mentioned,
“You have to build a school community by remembering that anyone who feels left out, is at risk
either now or later.” The response rate of 97% in the surveys and the statements of principals
59
during the interview indicated to the researcher that inclusion is a significant factor in keeping
the student population connected to their school and the learning process.
Low suspension/expulsion rates. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 85.3% responded that
their schools experienced low suspension and expulsion rates. All five of the principals who
participated in the interviews agreed that they did not experience significant behavior issues that
would lead to suspension or expulsion. Principal 4 stated, “In elementary, we don’t really need to
suspend or expel kids. If you have high rates of that in elementary, something is wrong there.”
Principal 5 also stated, “I don’t think any of our primary schools have high expulsion rates.
Secondary maybe.” These statements and the responses of the 34 survey participants indicated to
the researcher that moderate to high suspension and expulsion rates are not a primary area of
concern at the elementary level.
Discussion. The researcher found that the 34 surveyed principals and five interviewed
principals all agreed on the practice of utilizing instructional programs to support academic
achievement for Hispanic ELs. During the interview process, three out of five principals felt non-
native English-speaking students need language acquisition support in order to be successful in
academic content mastery as well as spoken English language proficiency. Although full
immersion in English may be beneficial to students in gaining spoken language fluency, the
researcher found that it is not sufficient for academic English proficiency according, to two out
of the five principals interviewed. The data also indicated that bilingual and dual language
immersion classes were said to hinder to the growth of student proficiency levels due to less
instructional minutes being used for English instruction. The researcher found that English only
instruction with the implementation of EL instructional strategies that target the needs of
students in their spoken language and academic content proficiency is the most favored and
60
effective approach based on at least 82% of the survey data collected. It was also found that
classes that meet students at their current proficiency levels both in spoken language and
academic English acquisition are the next favored and effective approach according to four out
of five principals interviewed. This was found to be especially true at schools where the majority
of the students are ELs requiring extra ELD blocks or other language intervention focused
instructional minute allocations.
The researcher found that at least 85% of the principals surveyed supported other
programs used to support academic achievement for Hispanic EL and low-SES students
including PBIS, inclusion, low suspension and expulsion rates, and positive role models.
Students from low-SES communities are considered to be at risk of dropping out of school prior
to graduation (Valenzuela et al., 2013). Eighty-five percent or more of the 34 principals surveyed
agreed that positive supports such as these are necessary and present at their elementary school
sites. During the interview process, the researcher found that these supports are less critical at the
elementary level and more critical at the secondary level where students are at higher risk.
Research Question Two
Research question two asked, What leadership strategies do elementary principals use to
improve learning outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students? In reference to the literature,
strong leadership is necessary to carry out a common goal, particularly one that is perceived as
challenging and requires a change in beliefs and behavior (Marzano et al., 2005). Northouse
(2015) explained that a manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations and functioning of
an organization, whereas a leader creates vision and significance for the work ahead. Effective
principals must be both managers and leaders in today’s public education system. Bolman and
Deal (2003) identified four frames of organizations that an effective leader must take into
61
consideration: the political, structural, human resources and symbolic frames. Bolman and Deal
explained that effective leaders must operate on the cusp of all four frames at any given time.
Riehl (2000) explained that leaders must act as aggressive advocates of the student
population, criticizing collective and individual negative belief systems based on race or SES.
Riehl warned of the danger of students’ internalized beliefs causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of
failure projected on them by biased staff and peers. Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2014) encourage
leaders to foster discussions among school staff regarding structural, cultural, and pedagogical
changes that are necessary to create an inclusive school setting. Irizarry’s (2015) work
demonstrates how cultural differences among educational leaders, teachers, and students are an
important factor in delivering quality instruction to non-native English-speaking students. Owens
and Lynch (2012) agree that students’ abilities should be measured accurately according to merit
rather than preconceived notions of ability based on race or SES. Principal leaders must work to
address and counter these stereotypes at their schools. The countering of these stereotypes must
be applied in conjunction with the practices listed in research question one, which include
instructional and non-instructional program supports, in order to give Hispanic EL students from
low-SES backgrounds fair access to education.
Table 10 displays the responses of 34 elementary principals in response to the leadership
strategies and/or practices used at their school sites. Principals were asked to indicate their level
of agreement using the Likert scale in which 1 indicated strongly agree, 2 indicated agree, 3
indicated indifferent, 4 indicated disagree, and 5 indicated strongly disagree. Their ratings
indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree that these strategies and/or practices are
utilized at their schools.
62
Table 10
Principal Ratings of Leadership Strategies Utilized
Element
Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Disagree
(4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
Total
Strongly
Agreed +
Agreed
Positive Teacher-
Admin relationship
64.7% 20.6% 8.8% 5.9% 0% 85.3%
Leader Only 38.2% 35.3% 17.6% 8.8% 0% 73.5%
Manager Only 2.9% 11.8% 26.5% 38.2% 20.6% 14.7%
Leader + Manager 41.2% 20.6% 29.4% 8.8% 0% 61.8%
Collaborative
Decision Making
70.6% 20.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 91.2%
Staff recognition 55.9% 35.3% 2.9% 5.9% 0% 91.2%
Inspirational Appeal 61.8% 32.4% 5.9% 0% 0% 94.2%
Ethical Appeal 58.8% 26.5% 11.8% 0% 2.9% 85.3%
Counter Neg. Beliefs 64.7% 23.5% 5.9% 2.9% 2.9% 88.2%
Self Reflections-
Beliefs
50% 41.2% 5.9% 2.9% 0% 91.2%
Counter Neg. Beliefs-
Hispanic
50% 32.4% 8.8% 8.8% 0% 82.4%
Inclusion- Hispanic
Culture
55.9% 29.4% 11.8% 2.9% 0% 85.3%
Social Injustice
Education
11.8% 32.4% 38.2% 14.7% 2.9% 44.2%
Low-SES Risk
Education
41.2% 44.1% 8.8% 5.9% 0% 85.3%
Sense of Urgency 29.4% 50% 14.7% 5.9% 0% 79.4%
Staff Empowerment 44.1% 41.2% 8.8% 5.9% 0% 85.3%
Shared Vision /
Mission
47.1% 26.5% 20.6% 5.9% 0% 73.6%
Needs Awareness 32.4% 44.1% 20.6% 2.9% 0% 76.5%
Teaching aligned with
Needs
26.5% 41.2% 23.5% 5.9% 2.9% 67.7%
Goals Clearly
Communicated
64.7% 26.5% 5.9% 2.9% 0% 91.2%

The 34 principals responded to survey questions regarding leadership strategies and
practices used at their school sites. The practice reported most by 94.2% of principals was
motivating staff through inspirational appeal. The least frequently reported practice by 14.7% of
principals was viewing themselves as managers rather than leaders in their positions. The
63
variables in Table 10 were examined as to their degree of presence at the school sites and their
efficacy in improving achievement outcomes.
Leadership and management. The principals who participated in the survey responded
regarding their experience as elementary principals who viewed themselves either as managers
rather than leaders of their school site, leaders rather than managers of their school site, or both
managers and leaders of their school site. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 14.7% viewed
themselves as managers rather than leaders, 73.5% viewed themselves as leaders rather than
managers, and 61.8% viewed themselves as both managers and leaders of their school site.
Principal 1 responded:
I think of it as long term and short-term needs of the school. You have to meet the
immediate day-to-day needs. You know, put out the fires. If you aren’t leading the school
in the long term, you have other kinds of fires you will be dealing with when it comes to
instruction and achievement.
Based on the data collected, it was evident to the researcher that principals prefer to view
themselves as long-term leaders of the school sites they represent rather than managers. During
the interview process, the researcher found that both short-term management and long term
leadership were necessary to have an effective school site.
Belief systems. The 34 principal survey respondents were asked about various factors
pertaining to how leadership is utilized to examine and address different belief systems which
exist on a social and school site scale. Based on the data gathered in the study, 91.2% of 34
principals reported that they prompt and allocate designated time for teachers to reflect on their
own belief systems about the demographic of students they serve. Of the 34 principals surveyed,
88.2% responded that they take time to facilitate discussions that counter negative belief systems
64
that exist about the race or SES of students at their sites. Of the principals surveyed, 82.4%
responded that they take the time to focus these conversations specifically on negative belief
systems that exist about Hispanic students. Of the principals surveyed, 85.3% responded that
they make it a point to create celebratory and inclusive events that empower Hispanic students to
take pride in their culture in the effort to unite the staff and students in a positive mindset for
achievement rather than a debilitating, deficit mindset based on stereotypes. Principal 2 stated:
Inclusion means understanding the kids. Where they come from, who they are, how they
see the world. Not only accepting it, but celebrating it. We make it a point to do that. We
celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Dia de Los Muertos. It unites the students, the staff, the
parents, the community.
Principal 4 responded:
If the teachers don’t think the kids can do well, the students definitely won’t think they
can. We don’t have just Hispanic students here. We also have our African American
population, which is significant. It doesn’t matter what their race is. The teachers have to
believe in them in order for any work to be done.
Based on the data collected, 88.2% of 34 principals surveyed and at least two out of five
principals interviewed support positive belief systems and the countering of negative belief
systems in order to empower their student populations to advance their learning. During the
interview process, it was evident to the researcher that negative belief systems must be countered
regardless of race or socioeconomic background, and efforts must be made to celebrate students’
backgrounds to promote a positive school wide mindset.
Staff empowerment. The 34 elementary principals were surveyed about various factors
pertaining to how leadership is utilized to create positive relationships as well as empower and
65
motivate teachers to work towards increased achievement for their student population. Based on
the data gathered, 85.3% of 34 principals reported that there is a positive relationship overall
between teachers and administrators at their school. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 85.3% also
reported that they take time to empower the staff about their ability to make a difference in the
lives and futures of students. Of the principals surveyed, 91.2% reported that they take the time
to recognize teachers in front of their peers for positive gains that have been made for their
students at the school site. Principal 5 stated:
We have teacher of the month where the staff nominate each other for their achievements
with the kids. It’s nice because it doesn’t come from me, it comes from the collective
staff. I think it has greater meaning that way.
At least 80% of the 34 principals expressed support for the practices of staff empowerment,
recognition, and positive relationships between teachers and administrators at the school site.
During the interview process, it was evident to the researcher that empowerment and support
from peers in addition to administrators was valuable in making the recognition of teacher and
student achievement richer.
Goals. The 34 principals participating in the survey responded to various questions
pertaining to the goals of the school site. Based on the data gathered, 91.2% of the 34 principals
reported that goals for achievement were clearly communicated to the staff at the school. Of the
34 principals surveyed, 73.6% reported that there was evidence of a vision and mission that was
shared and understood by all teachers. Of the principals surveyed, 76.5% reported that the needs
of the school site were communicated to and understood by the staff. Of the principals surveyed,
67.7% reported that teachers were willing to modify their professional practices to best meet the
needs of their student population. During the interview process, Principal 3 stated:
66
Goals are the first thing we do every year. SMART Goals. We look at the prior year’s
CAASPP data, each teacher works with their grade level and they develop goals for the
grade level. Then we monitor and revise the goals two more times before the end of the
year. So it is an ongoing process. Data-driven instruction, data conferences.
Principal 5 also touched on the topic of a shared mission and vision:
When I got to this school, the mission and vision was unclear. We had to start from
scratch. So, I had everyone work together to develop it and then staff voted on what they
thought was best. It had to come from them. I was new here at that time (4 years ago),
they weren’t. They knew better than I did what the school needed. And because they
developed it, they owned it.
Based on the survey data collected, at least 67% of the 34 principals supported the practice of
leadership strategies that clearly communicate goals for achievement, facilitate the development
of a shared vision and mission for the school, and willingness to modify instructional practices to
meet the needs of their student population. During the interview process, the data made evident
that the practice of frequent goal setting strategies that are a continuous, data-driven process is a
critical component of instructional leadership. The researcher also found that a shared objective
such as the mission and/or vision of the school site is more powerful and effective when it is
cultivated by the staff as a whole rather than assigned by an administrator.
Discussion. The researcher found that the 34 principals surveyed and five principals
interviewed demonstrated the use of various leadership practices to create positive gains in
achievement for their student populations. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 73.5% viewed
themselves as long-term instructional leaders, whereas 61.8% responded that they viewed
themselves as both short-term managers of daily operations and long-term instructional leaders
67
to increase achievement outcomes. The researcher found additional leadership practices reported
by 88.2% of surveyed principals and at least two out of five principals interviewed. Such
practices include the necessity for elementary principals to be aware of the negative belief
systems that exist in regard to the population of students they serve. The interview and survey
data confirmed that principals must work aggressively to advocate for the student population,
make staff aware of their own beliefs, and take steps to challenge deficit-based belief systems
while empowering positive and inclusive ones.
A significant finding of the research was that at least 85.3% of principals surveyed
practiced the empowerment of staff, particularly when working with a disadvantaged population.
The practice of inspiring teachers and reminding them of their power to make a difference in the
lives of students was evident from the survey and interview data. In addition, the value of
collective recognition of staff members making positive contributions to student outcomes was a
noted finding of the study.
The data showed that school site goals were a significant theme as they pertained to the
leadership of principals at the school. Ensuring the goals for achievement were clearly
communicated and understood by staff members was critical according to 91.2% of principals
surveyed and at least two out of five principals interviewed. Specific methods of goal setting
were mentioned throughout the survey and interview process, in addition to the monitoring and
revision of the goal setting process over the duration of the school year to inform instruction.
Last, the researcher found that developing a shared mission and vision that is meaningful to the
staff, knowing the unique needs of the students they serve, and teacher willingness to modify
professional practices in a manner that best meets the needs of their students were practices that
68
were reported by at least 67% of principals surveyed and at least two out of five principals
interviewed, in the effort to increase learning outcomes.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, How do elementary principals engage parents and the
community to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students? In reference to
the literature, parent and family involvement are essential components of a student’s learning
experience (Yelgün & Karaman, 2015). Community partnerships between the school site,
students, and families are beneficial to the improvement of learning outcomes for students
(Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009; Yelgün & Karaman, 2015). Literature suggests that parents with
poor attitudes and beliefs about the school system are less likely to foster values of academic
achievement in their children (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009; Yelgün & Karaman, 2015). Lopez et
al.’s (2001) study found that successful schools made relational bonds with families, held
themselves accountable for initiating parent contact regularly, and provided parent education
supports. Ingram et al. (2007) discovered that high degrees of parenting, communication,
volunteering, home learning, decision making, and communal collaboration correlated to higher
achievement for disadvantaged, EL, or migrant subgroups. Lopez et al. (2001) and Ingram et al.
both agree that collaboration among school staff, parents, and the community is a necessary
factor in creating an optimal learning support system for underprivileged and diverse students.
Jones (2008) found that communication barriers, cultural misunderstandings, the perception of
discrimination, lack of bilingual or culturally representative staff within the school setting, and
opportunities for Hispanic parent involvement were all factors that contributed to overall
achievement.
69
Table 11 shows the responses of 34 surveyed elementary principals in response to the
parent and community engagement practices used at their school sites. Principals were asked to
indicate their level of agreement using the Likert scale in which 1 indicated strongly agree, 2
indicated agree, 3 indicated indifferent, 4 indicated disagree, and 5 indicated strongly disagree.
Their ratings indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree that these strategies and/or
practices are utilized at their schools.
The 34 principals responded to survey questions regarding practices that pertain to
parent, family, and community engagement at their school sites. The practice reported most by
94.1% of principals was maintaining positive staff-parent relationships at their school sites. The
least reported practice by 17.7% of principals was conducting frequent home visits. The
variables in Table 11 were examined as to their degree of presence at the school sites and how
they contribute to higher learning outcomes.
Table 11
Parent and Community Engagement Practices
Element
Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Disagree
(4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
Total
Strongly
Agreed +
Agreed
Fundraisers 17.6% 20.6% 32.4% 14.7% 14.7% 38.2%
Parent Education
Programs
73.5% 11.8% 14.7% 0% 0% 85.3%
Cultural Celebrations 23.5% 35.3% 35.3% 2.9% 2.9% 58.8%
Positive Staff - Parent
Relationships
55.9% 38.2% 2.9% 2.9% 0% 94.1%
Staff Initiated Contact 61.8% 26.5% 5.9% 5.9% 0% 88.3%
Spanish-Speaking
Staff
58.8% 14.7% 17.6% 5.9% 2.9% 73.5%
Home Visits Initiated
by School
5.9% 11.8% 26.5% 26.5% 29.4% 17.7%
Parents Feel Welcome 50% 41.2% 8.8% 0% 0% 91.2%
Perception of Fairness
in Services
67.6% 20.6% 8.8% 2.9% 0% 88.2%
No Discriminatory
Attitudes
61.8% 20.6% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 82.4%
70

Parent presence. The 34 principals who participated in the survey responded to the
degree to which parental and community involvement was apparent at their school site. Of the 34
principals surveyed, 38.2% responded that fundraisers involving parents and the community
were conducted in order to raise funding for the school site and also build relationships. Of the
principals surveyed, 85.3% responded that parent education nights were regularly practiced at the
school sites to inform parents of programs and resources that support their families and the
learning of their students. Of the principals surveyed, 58.8% responded that Hispanic cultural
celebrations involving parents and the community were practiced to strengthen ties between the
school community and families. During the interview process, Principal 5 stated:
We do a lot of parent information nights here at school. We try to do it in the evenings
when people are off work. For this community, where you have a lot of immigrants,
many of them didn’t go to school here. They don’t know the education system in this
country. They don’t know their rights in the education system or the legal system. We
have topics related to education of course, like technology, curriculum, English Learner
proficiency, things like that….but we also have had nights in the past where we were
talking about immigration laws. It’s important because it is relevant to themselves and
their children. They appreciate it. We have had a good turnout, I would say.
Principal 1 discussed the topic of fundraising and parent involvement:
People tend to have these great ideas about fundraisers. What they don’t realize is that it
takes people to run them, to advertise them, to organize them. Our parents here go to
work. Some of them have two, three jobs. We sometimes have trouble getting parent
volunteers or participants. They have been tried in the past here, but the funding they
raised wasn’t always as significant as one would hope.
71
Based on the survey data collected, at least 85% of the 34 principals expressed support for
parental involvement at the school site. During the interview process, at least one out of five
principals stated that bringing parents to the school site to communicate services and resources
that benefit them was an effective way to increase parent presence on campus. The interview
data collected showed that fundraisers were not necessarily an effective way of engaging parents,
being that they had not been well organized in the past and they lacked sufficient participants.
Positive relationships. The 34 principals who responded to the survey indicated the
degree to which positive relationships between the school site and parents were established. Of
the 34 principals surveyed, 94.2% responded that positive parent and school site relationships
were evident at their sites. Of the principals surveyed, 88.3% responded that school staff
members initiate regular contact with parents. Of the principals surveyed, 17.7% responded that
the school staff regularly conducts home visits for parents who are not able to get school. Of the
principals surveyed, 91.2% responded that parents feel welcome on campus any time. During the
interview process Principal 2 said, “Parents know it is their right to come to school at any time.”
Principal 3 stated:
Parents are mostly appreciative of what we do here for their children and for them. It’s
nice because in other communities, say a highly affluent community, the parents are not
so appreciative, but more on the demanding side. Since parents are mostly appreciative
and positive, … well, you will always have the few who aren’t, but for those who are,
which are most, I think it motivates our staff to maintain contact with them. The
relationship there is positive so they don’t hesitate to reach out on either side.
Principal 3 also discussed the topic of home visits:
72
Honestly, home visits we only do if something is wrong. Like, if we suspect a student is
living in a multi-family home that is overcrowded. Or, if we suspect a student is in a bad
living situation, or has attendance issues, etc. Otherwise, who really wants the school
showing up at their house just for the heck of it.
Principal 4 also stated, “Home visits are only really done for SARB (School Attendance Review
Board) or other situations that create a need for it.” When asked if parents feel welcome at
school, Principal 3 stated: “I would say they do feel welcome here.” Principal 1 indicated:
Our front office staff speak Spanish, so they are warmly greeted when they arrive. We do
have teachers who don’t speak Spanish, but there are plenty of staff here who do. So we
provide coverage when necessary and we make sure parents are informed about anything
they need.
Based on the data collected, at least 88% of 34 surveyed principals reported that positive parent
relationships were evident at their school sites, staff initiated contact with families regularly, and
parents felt welcome. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 17.7% also agreed that home visits were not
conducted regularly. During the interview process, it became apparent to the researcher that
home visits were normally conducted when there was an issue that needed to be addressed that
could potentially be harmful to the student. Otherwise, they did not want to disturb families at
home if there wasn’t a need to do so for the safety and well-being of all involved. In addition, it
was evident that parents felt welcome at the school sites because they were warmly greeted by
staff members who spoke Spanish and were able to communicate openly with teachers and other
faculty when necessary.
Perception of fairness and equity. The 34 principals who participated in the survey
indicated the degree to which they perceived the school to be providing fair and equitable
73
services to their students and families. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 88.2% responded that
parents felt their students were receiving an equitable education to students of other
demographics at the school site. Of the principals surveyed, 82.4% responded that they did not
experience or observe discriminatory attitudes by school site staff towards the parents and
families. Of the principals surveyed, 73.5% responded that they had sufficient Spanish-speaking
staff at their school sites to communicate effectively with parents when necessary. During the
interview process, Principal 4 discussed the topic of equitable services:
Have you heard the expression, “We are not here to provide the Cadillac, we are here to
provide the Toyota?” That’s because we can’t give everyone the very best of everything.
It just isn’t possible with budgets and all the red tape. What we can do, and what we are
obligated to do, is provide what is fair, and what is needed for students to learn.
Principal 5 stated:
Absolutely. That’s what we do. We assess student needs and then we provide
interventions and supports that help them no matter what their issues are. Whether those
issues are learning related, health related, or mental health related, we are providing
services. Everyone needs something, and we are doing our best constantly to meet them.
Principal 1 discussed the topic of discriminatory attitudes towards students and families:
There are always one or two staff members who really thing these kids aren’t capable.
That it isn’t their teaching practices, but the kids and families who have the problems.
And while it’s true that they bring challenges with them, we need to understand them for
who they are and where they come from if we want to help them. I think most people at
this school, in this district, know these are disadvantaged people. They (teachers) signed
up for these challenges and some are passionate about it. Since the majority of our
74
students are disadvantaged, I don’t think there’s discrimination. There is more a sense of
a common understanding among the staff when they see and meet families.
Principal 1 also discussed the topic of Spanish-speaking staff members:
Our front office staff speak Spanish, so they are warmly greeted when they arrive. We do
have teachers who don’t speak Spanish, but there are plenty of staff here who do. So we
provide coverage when necessary and we make sure parents are informed about anything
they need.
Principal 4 stated:
Of course, we have to have Spanish-speaking staff. We don’t have as many as I would
like from one year to the next, it varies. We wouldn’t survive without Spanish speakers
though. This is our demographic.
Based on the survey data collected, 88.2% of 34 principals agreed that parents felt their students
were receiving an education that was meeting their individual and collective needs. Of the 34
principals surveyed, 82.4% agreed that they did not experience discriminatory attitudes by the
school staff towards students and families. Of the principals surveyed, 73.5% responded that they
felt they had sufficient Spanish-speaking staff at their schools to communicate adequately with
families. The interview data indicated that principals strive to provide the fairest and best
possible services they can for students with the resources that are provided to them. The data also
showed the researcher that three out of five principals interviewed felt most staff members
understood the community of families they are serving rather than judging them negatively and
acting in discriminatory ways. Two of the five interviewed principals also agreed that Spanish-
speaking staff were vital to the survival of the school site and the success of the students in the
effort to communicate with parents.
75
Discussion. The researcher found that the 34 principals surveyed and five principals
interviewed practiced parent and community engagement in order to increase learning outcomes
for the students they serve. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 94.2% responded that positive
relationships between the school site and parents were evident at their schools; 85% of principals
surveyed and all of the principals interviewed supported parental involvement at the school site.
At least one out of five principals interviewed stated that the use of parent information nights
was just one practice used to increase parental involvement at the school, which ultimately
creates a sense of connectedness among the students, families, and school site. The research also
showed that 88.3% of principals responded that staff initiated and maintained regular contact
with parents. At least three out of five principals explained during the interview process that
parents felt welcome at their school, and that the overall interactions between parents and school
staff were warm and positive. The study showed that principals valued parental involvement due
to the resulting support of school wide initiatives, as well as student academic and behavioral
outcomes.
A significant finding of the research was that, according to 88.2% of principals surveyed,
parents of Hispanic ELs felt their students were receiving a fair and equitable education
compared to non-Hispanic native English-speaking students. The data confirmed that
discriminatory attitudes were not perceived to be present between school staff and families at the
sites of the principals surveyed and interviewed. At least three out of the five principals
interviewed responded that the families they served were understood by school staff, and 73.5%
of principals responded that they had sufficient Spanish-speaking staff to facilitate the valued
positive relationships that enhance the learning experience for students. According to the study,
76
principals consider parental and community engagement to be a critical component of student
success in the learning process and creating a sense of belonging at the school site.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, How are elementary school principals evaluating the
effectiveness of programs and instruction that is designed to increase achievement for Hispanic
English Learner students? According to the literature, outcomes-based performance measures
are useful in planning, monitoring, and assessing the effectiveness of organizational performance
(NEA, 2013). Heinrich (2002) emphasized that institutional and personnel evaluations should
include a strategic plan that specifies organizational goals and how they will be achieved.
Heinrich suggests annual performance plans that specify quantifiable, measurable goals and
targets. The NEA (2013) also recommends an outcomes-based approach that includes multiple
indicators of success such as individual and collective attitudes, retention rates, school safety,
discipline, and attendance as markers of student engagement over the sole analysis of assessment
scores to gauge achievement. Gajda and Jewiss (2004) found that program effectiveness is best
measured by first analyzing the quantity and quality of the programs being delivered, and then by
analyzing the outcomes they produce. Gajda and Jewiss suggested using both quantitative
numerical data as well as qualitative interview data to inform practice.
Table 12 shows the responses of 34 elementary principals in regard to the ways that
programs and practices are evaluated for effectiveness at their school sites. Principals were asked
to indicate their level of agreement using the Likert scale in which 1 indicated strongly agree, 2
indicated agree, 3 indicated indifferent, 4 indicated disagree, and 5 indicated strongly disagree.
The respondent ratings indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree that these strategies
and/or practices are utilized at their schools.
77
Table 12
Methods of Evaluating Programs and Practices
Element
Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Disagree
(4)
Strongly
Disagree
(5)
Total
Strongly
Agreed +
Agreed
Data review 3-5 times per
year
64.7% 17.6% 11.8% 5.9% 0% 82.3%
Teacher comfort with data
analysis
47.1% 32.4% 14.7% 5.9% 0% 79.5%
Goal setting is data-driven 55.9% 26.5% 14.7% 2.9% 0% 82.4%
Data informs professional
development,
collaboration time and
resource allocation
52.9% 32.4% 14.7% 0% 0% 85.3%
Non- instructional factors
considered
47.1% 44.1% 8.8% 0% 0% 91.2%
Surveys used to gather
quantitative data on non
instructional factors
44.1% 26.5% 20.6% 8.8% 0% 70.6%
Interviews used to gather
qualitative data on non
instructional factors
17.6% 26.5% 35.3% 20.6% 0% 44.1%

The 34 principals responded to survey questions regarding methods used to evaluate
program effectiveness at their school sites. The method reported most by 91.2% of principals
was the consideration of non-instructional factors in gauging student achievement. The method
reported least by 44.1% of principals was conducting interviews to obtain qualitative data on
non-instructional factors that gauge student achievement. The variables in Table 12 were
examined as to their degree of presence at the school sites and how they contribute to higher
learning outcomes.
Data analysis. The 34 principals who participated in the survey responded to the
practices used at their school sites in data review, analysis and goal setting. Of the 34 principals
surveyed, 82.3% responded that data are reviewed three to five times throughout the school year
to set goals, monitor progress, and inform future practice. Of the principals surveyed, 79.5%
78
responded that teachers feel comfortable viewing and analyzing data to inform their instruction.
Of the principals surveyed, 82.4% responded that they use data to set and communicate school
wide goals for improved achievement outcomes. Of the principals surveyed, 85.3% responded
that they use data to determine topics and frequency of professional development for teachers,
time allotted for department and cross-departmental collaboration, as well as strategic allocation
of resources. During the interview process, Principal 2 spoke about the topic of data review and
goal setting:
The first instructional thing we do at the start of the year is look at data. That is number
one. Obviously, after all the procedures and daily orders of business are addressed. They
need to know where we are going instructionally. Then we look at it after [district]
benchmarks, and before the CAASPP, and then the end of the year.
Principal 3 also responded:
I don’t think any organization would survive or improve without data. I mean, you need
something tangible there to defend why you do the things you do. Something people
can’t argue with you about. I do school wide data presentations three to four times
throughout the year. Then I do data conferences once each trimester with every
department and grade level. Then I give them collaboration time and ask them what they
need for their classrooms.
Principal 5 discussed the topic of teachers feeling comfortable viewing and analyzing data:
Data is absolutely necessary. In the past, there was a lot of anxiety when it came to
looking at data. It took some time for people to get over it. I think the continuous and
constant PD’s we offer in running reports and creating instructional groups through some
of our program softwares have made people more exposed to it. So they are less nervous.
79
Principal 3 also stated:
When you hold people accountable for presenting their data … in a non-confrontational
way ... they will have to get help to figure it out if they aren’t comfortable. The data
conferences I hold keep them accountable because they know when they come into those
meetings, they will be speaking about where they are instructionally with their kids, who
the kids are who need help, how they are accommodating them, and how they want me to
support them in doing that.
Based on the survey data collected, 82.3% of 34 principals agreed that data is reviewed three to
five times throughout the school year. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 79.5% responded that
teachers felt comfortable viewing and analyzing data to inform their instruction. Of the principals
surveyed, 82.4% agreed that data was used to create school wide goal for improved learning
outcomes. Of the principals surveyed, 85.3% agreed that the data is used as a tool to allocate
collaboration time, resources, and professional development to best meet the needs of the staff in
the effort to best serve their students. The interview data collected made evident to the researcher
that principals felt very strongly about the use of data to inform practice. Three of the five
principals interviewed agreed that data is an integral part of their practices as instructional
leaders, and that there is a clear expectation of teachers using data regularly to progress monitor
the learning of their students. The interview data also made evident that increased exposure to
data through principal led meetings, discussions, instructional tools, and professional
development helped teachers ease their anxiety in the data analysis process over time.
Non-instructional factors. The 34 principals who participated in the survey responded to
the degree to which the consideration of non-instructional factors are used to measure student
engagement, and ultimately student achievement in the evaluation process. Based on the data
80
gathered, 91.2% of 34 principals responded that they consider non-instructional factors such as
attendance, discipline rates, beliefs and attitudes, retention rates, and school safety as
contributors to student achievement in the evaluation process. Of the 34 principals surveyed,
70.6% responded that they use survey data to gather quantitative information on factors such as
individual and collective attitudes or beliefs, feelings of safety at school, and levels of
engagement. Of the principals surveyed, 44.1% responded that they use interview data to gather
qualitative information on factors such as individual and collective attitudes or beliefs, feelings
of safety at school, and levels of engagement. During the interview process, Principal 1
discussed the consideration of non-instructional factors and survey utilization:
Assessment scores are our bottom line. Period. I do think other things are important when
it comes to the overall school experience for students … but that’s how we are held
accountable as schools and as leaders ... our assessment data. We do use the California
Healthy Kids Survey to collect data on some of the things you were asking about. Non-
instructional factors.
Principal 2 stated:
The accountability system is changing, with the new dashboard from the CDE (California
Department of Education). I think that will help address those critical components like
attendance, discipline, retention and so forth. It’s not just about assessment scores. We do
use some surveys here that are part of our PBIS program. Interviews … not really.
There’s no time to interview every student.
Principal 5 responded:
We are held accountable as principals for just about everything. Instructional or
otherwise. So pretty much everything is important, and everything needs to be addressed
81
transparently with the staff. In this district, chronic absenteeism is a problem, so is
discipline. So we pull attendance reports, we have constant discussions at the site level
about how to deal with kids in the classroom before resorting to suspension. If they aren’t
here, they aren’t learning and we need to provide some incentives to keep them.
Based on the survey data collected, 91.2% of 34 principals agreed that non-instructional factors
such as attendance, discipline rates, beliefs and attitudes, retention rates, and school safety are
valuable contributors to student achievement outcomes. Of the 34 principals surveyed, 70.6%
also agreed that survey data is used to gather quantitative data on individual and collective
attitudes or beliefs, feelings of safety at school, and levels of engagement. Of the 34 principals
surveyed, 55.9% did not express widespread support for the use of interviews to gather
qualitative data on individual and collective attitudes or beliefs, feelings of safety at school, and
levels of engagement. Based on the interview data collected by the researcher, three out of five
principals valued non-instructional factors in the consideration of overall school and program
effectiveness. The researcher found that two out of five principals did use survey data to some
degree in obtaining quantitative data on non-instructional factors. However, one out of five
principals interviewed did not support the use of interviews with students for qualitative data
collection due to logistical and time constraints.
Discussion. The 34 principals surveyed and five principals interviewed practiced various
evaluation methods to measure program effectiveness at their school sites. All surveyed and
interviewed principals agreed that data review, analysis, and goal setting were conducted at least
one time per year, if not continuously throughout the course of the school year. Of the 34
principals surveyed, 85.3% responded that data is used to inform instruction, professional
development, and the allocation of collaboration time and resources. The data confirmed that
82
principals felt strongly about data-driven practices and at least three out of five principals
interviewed stated that data is an essential component of their practice as instructional leaders.
The research also confirmed that creating a culture that is conducive to data-driven instruction
and goal setting is practiced, according to the principals participating in the study.
A significant finding of the study was that 91.2% of 34 principals responded that
attendance, discipline rates, beliefs and attitudes, retention rates, and school safety are measured
in addition to academics when evaluating school site effectiveness. At least three out of five
principals interviewed explained that these are important factors to consider outside of the
traditional accountability measures, which are assessment and standards proficiency based. The
evaluation of both instructional and non-instructional factors provides a more cohesive report of
how the school site is meeting the needs of students in all areas, not just academics.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from 34 surveyed elementary principals in two
Southern California school districts with at least 50% Hispanic EL and 50% low-SES student
demographics. The qualitative interviews were conducted with five elementary principals from
high achieving schools with the same student demographics and at least 40% proficiency in ELA
and Math as evidenced by the CAASPP assessment.
As found in the results, the strongest barriers to student achievement for Hispanic ELs
from low-SES communities include the necessity for effective instructional programs that meet
students’ language acquisition needs in order to achieve California standards proficiency and
access to the curriculum. This finding aligned closely to the work of Echevarria et al. (2006),
which showed that EL students who received instruction with English language acquisition
83
supports made higher assessment gains than a group receiving instruction without English
language acquisition support.
The data also reflected the need for strong leadership practices that counter negative
belief systems toward disadvantaged groups that exist within the larger social construct and the
attitudes and beliefs of teachers and students, which create damaging self-fulfilling prophecies
for students throughout their learning experience. The findings aligned closely with the ideas of
Stanton-Salazar (2001) and Gándara and Contreras (2009), in which race and poverty constructs
were found to put Hispanic families at risk of becoming a permanent underclass in American
society. The study and the literature confirm that urgent and strategic action should be taken at
schools with low achievement outcomes to ensure that disadvantaged students are afforded the
equitable education to which they are entitled.
Parent and community involvement was found in the research to be a critical factor to
bridging the communication gap between the school site and the home. The principals in the
study responded that it was necessary to initiate and maintain positive relationships in order to
support students in improving their learning outcomes. This was a similar finding to those
yielded in the works of Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) and Yelgün and Karaman (2015), who
emphasized that schools who create positive relationships with families are more likely to
produce students with higher learning outcomes.
The research found that the evaluation of school programs and practices is imperative to
the growth and sustainability of student achievement outcomes. Principals in the study responded
that goal setting and continuous data-driven decision making was critical to providing high
quality instruction that strategically target instruction. This aligned with the work of the NEA
(2013) which suggests frequent analysis of instructional and non-instructional data be practiced
84
in order to keep an inclusive school environment that meets the emotional, social, and academic
needs of the population they serve.
Chapter 5 presents the discussion of research, conclusions of the study, and further
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be presented.

85
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
The Hispanic population in the United States is growing rapidly, but they continue to
make up a growing number of disadvantaged groups. Although the Hispanic population is
considered a minority in the United States, a disproportionate percentage are living in
impoverished circumstances and continue to struggle toward upward socioeconomic mobility
(DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015).
The achievement gap in the American public school system has been concerning for
students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial minorities, or non-native English
speakers. Several subfactors of the low-SES group contribute to the resulting achievement lows,
including a lack of parental involvement, family obligations due to lack of childcare, more sick
day absences without medical insurance, and further attendance issues due to unreliable
transportation (Yelgün & Karaman, 2015). Although African American and Hispanic
populations both struggle with low-SES-related obstacles to success in education, Hispanic
populations have the added burden of language acquisition to impede their academic growth.
This problem has resulted in the Hispanic population being the lowest performing of all racial
subgroups in the United States (Giambo, 2010). If action is not taken to address the language
acquisition and socioeconomic factors that affect student learning, the achievement and wealth
gap will continue to widen, putting Hispanics at a continued and unjust disadvantage (Gándara &
Contreras, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine what elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic EL populations in urban settings do differently
than principals of low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic success.
86
Higher outcomes are evidenced by at least 40% of students meeting or exceeding proficiency in
ELA and Math on the CAASPP. The study’s primary purpose was to understand the leadership
practices and programs that principals of highly effective urban elementary schools have used to
make gains for these students. The study’s secondary purpose was to examine how principals
engage parents in the student learning process, and how the effectiveness of programs that
contribute to learning outcomes for this demographic is evaluated. By understanding these
practices, further advances can be made in low-performing schools that cater to the same
population of students and needs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What programs do successful elementary principals in urban settings implement to
academically support Hispanic English Learner students?
2. What leadership strategies do elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes
for Hispanic English Learner students?
3. How do elementary principals engage parents and the community to improve learning
outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students?
4. How are elementary school principals evaluating the effectiveness of programs and
instruction that is designed to increase achievement for Hispanic English Learner
students?
Methodology
The study was designed with a mixed-methods approach and was conducted with 57
elementary schools that have at least 50% Hispanic ELs and at least 50% low-SES enrollment in
two southern California school districts. The study involved quantitative data obtained through
87
surveys to examine elementary principals at schools with the identified demographics. The study
also involved qualitative data obtained through open-ended interviews with principals at school
sites demonstrating at least 40% proficiency or greater in ELA and Math, as measured by the
CAASPP.
The quantitative data acquired through surveys allowed the researcher to identify
correlations between effective principals and the leadership strategies, instructional programs,
degrees of parental involvement, and outcomes-based evaluation methods they utilized. The
qualitative data acquired through interviews allowed the researcher to understand the context and
strategies of effective principals with regard to these variables within the school setting.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the quantitative and qualitative data that were
collected and analyzed. This section combines the results of the quantitative surveys and
qualitative interview data, linking the findings back to the literature.
Research question 1. This research question asked, What programs do successful
elementary principals in urban settings implement to academically support Hispanic English
Learner students? Two significant themes emerged from the findings related to this research
question. One of the themes that emerged from the study was the practice of utilizing
instructional programs that address the need for language acquisition. The practice provides
access to the core curriculum and standards proficiency for Hispanic EL students as reported by
82.4% of surveyed principals and three out of five of those interviewed. The findings are
supported by Echevarria et al. (2006), Giambo (2010), Kamps et al. (2007), and Slavin and
Cheung (2003), who found that instructional strategies must be used to address language
acquisition for non-native English speakers in order to give them a fair chance at accessing the
88
core curriculum and standards proficiency. In addition, the state assessments do not cater to EL
students in their question-response design, making it all the more critical for English language
proficiency to be implemented in the classroom along with core curriculum instruction.
The second theme that emerged from the study was the practice of implementing a PBIS
program, mentoring, or other inclusive strategy to keep students engaged, safe, and connected to
the school site as reported by 85% of surveyed principals. The findings are supported by
Noguera (2012) and Stanton-Salazar (2011), who agreed that students from low-SES
backgrounds are at a higher risk of dropping out. These students must be understood with regard
to the challenges of living in poverty as it relates to academic achievement. They would benefit
strongly from positive role models, mentors, and incentives that keep them engaged, safe, and
connected to the school site.
Research question 2. This research question asked, What leadership strategies do
elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic English Learner students?
Three significant themes emerged from the findings related to this research question. The first
theme was the use of leadership practices to counter negative belief systems about student ability
based on race or SES. This was said to be a critical component to the improvement of learning
outcomes, as reported by 88.2% of principals surveyed and at least two out of five principals
interviewed. The literature widely supports the findings as evidenced by Marzano et al. (2005),
who explained that strong transformational leadership is necessary to carry out a common goal,
particularly one that is perceived as challenging and requires a change in beliefs and behavior.
Riehl (2000) explained the importance of inclusive administrative practice as a moral
obligation to the community, encouraging staff to reflect on their own belief systems and how
their participation in the school system contributes to larger social constructs of oppression. The
89
findings of this study are further supported by Yelgün and Karaman (2015), who agreed that
negative beliefs about student achievement must be countered, or else they are projected onto
students who internalize these beliefs and create damaging self-fulfilling prophecies of
underachievement. Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2014) suggested that leadership should
emphasize the existing overarching social injustices that pertain to the ethnic group within
society, and reexamine structural allocation of resources and programs that improve or impede
the success of the group. Owens and Lynch (2012) agreed that leadership must emphasize that
students’ abilities should be measured accurately according to merit rather than preconceived
notions of ability based on race or SES.
The second theme that emerged from the findings of the study was staff empowerment as
a necessity of leadership practice. This practice reinforces the power teachers hold to improve
performance for disadvantaged students when they meet their academic, social, and emotional
needs, as reported by 85.3% of principals surveyed. The findings are confirmed by Bolman and
Deal (2003), who explained that staff must be motivated, inspired, and empowered to continue to
produce meaningful work through leadership. Further, Bolman and Deal added that leaders
should operate on the cusp of the symbolic and human resources frames of organizational
leadership in order to apply the variable of empowerment effectively. Riehl’s (2000) work also
supports this finding in encouraging a culture of staff empowerment through leadership by
reminding teachers of the importance of their work and that they are capable of producing high
quality results.
The third theme that emerged from the findings was leadership practices that clearly
communicate goals for achievement, facilitate the development of a shared vision and mission
for the school, and encompass a willingness to modify instructional practices to meet the needs
90
of their student population. Northouse (2015) supported this finding in discussing the difference
between a manager and leader, explaining that a leader communicates and creates vision and
significance for the work ahead. The work of Bolman and Deal (2003) also supports the finding
by identifying the symbolic frame within the four frames of organizations. The authors explained
that effective leaders provide a shared mission and vision for the organization to work toward
both individually and collectively. Marzano et al. (2005) reported that goal and vision setting are
essential to a transformational leadership style, which produces results beyond the expectations
of achievement. Marzano et al. also explained that the communication of high expectations,
urgency, and significance to the proposed goals, while creating idealized expectations of results,
are necessary to effective leadership.
Research question 3. This research question asked, How do elementary principals
engage parents and the community to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic English Learner
students? Three major themes emerged from the findings related to this research question. The
first theme that emerged from the findings was parent presence on campus. This factor was
deemed critical to creating a bridge between the school site, families, and the community, as
reported by 85% of the surveyed principals and all of the interviewed principals. Yelgün and
Karaman (2015) reported that a lack of parental involvement at the school site and with regard to
their students’ achievement is a high predictor of underachievement, particularly for
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Good et al. (2010) also confirmed the finding by
identifying communication gaps between teachers and students, teachers and parents, parents and
children, and schools within the district as major barriers to achievement for Hispanic ELs.
The second theme that emerged in the findings was positive relationships between school
staff and parents as reported by 94.2% of principals surveyed. The finding is confirmed by
91
Ingram et al. (2007), who identified the ways that positive relationships between the school site
and families contributed to higher achievement outcomes. Ingram et al. included parent
education events, teacher training on how to communicate best with parents, and collaborative
parent and staff workshop sessions focused on effective communication as essential components
of the parent and school site connection. Lopez et al. (2001) and Ingram et al. both agree that
collaboration among school staff, parents, and the community is a necessary factor in creating an
optimal learning support system for underprivileged and diverse students. Lopez et al.’s study on
effective parental involvement in migrant-impacted schools showed that successful schools held
themselves accountable for initiating parent contact regularly, which also confirms the finding of
the research.
The third theme that emerged from the findings of this research was the perception of
fairness in the education and services provided to Hispanic, EL, and/or socioeconomically
disadvantaged families as reported by 88.2% of the principals surveyed. This finding was
different from what the literature showed. Jones (2008) reported that Hispanic parents often felt
that their students did not receive equitable education and services compared to their White,
native English-speaking peers. Parents in Jones’s study reported feeling ignored or mistreated,
with significant communication barriers with school staff, even when they made requests to
speak directly with teachers in regard to their children. The findings of this study indicated that
parents actually did feel their students were receiving equitable education and services at school,
most likely due to the fact that the demographic majority of the sampled districts in this study
were Hispanic.
Research question 4. This research question asked, How are elementary school
principals evaluating the effectiveness of programs and instruction that is designed to increase
92
achievement for Hispanic English Learner students? Two major themes emerged from the
findings related to this research question. The first theme that emerged from the research was the
use of data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and practices at the school site as
reported by 82.4% of surveyed principals and at least three out of five interviewed principals.
Heinrich (2002) confirmed the finding in reporting that outcomes-based performance measures
are necessary for planning, monitoring, and assessing the effectiveness of organizational
performance. The author emphasized the necessity of adopting a strategic plan that specifies
organizational goals and how they will be achieved, suggesting annual performance plans that
specify quantifiable, measurable goals and targets. This also confirms the finding that data is
used to inform instruction, professional development and the allocation of collaboration time and
resources, according to 85.3% of principals surveyed.
The second theme that emerged from the findings of the research was the consideration
of both instructional and non-instructional factors in the evaluation of program effectiveness in
improving performance outcomes for students, as reported by 91.2% of principals surveyed and
at least three out of five principals interviewed. The finding is confirmed by the NEA (2013),
which recommends an outcomes-based method of evaluation while using multiple indicators of
success when evaluating school effectiveness in promoting achievement. The work of Gajda and
Jewiss (2004) also confirmed the finding by expanding on the suggestions of Heinrich (2002)
and the NEA in outlining the ways program effectiveness should be evaluated. Gajda and Jewiss
indicated that program effectiveness should be measured first by investigating the quantity and
quality of the programs being delivered and second by the results the programs produced.
93
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to the research regarding best leadership practices to improve
academic performance outcomes for Hispanic ELs from low-SES communities. Paired with the
reviewed research and literature, the findings of this study provide implications for future
practice that foster higher learning outcomes for this racial and socioeconomic subgroup.
Instructional practices. In order to increase academic achievement outcomes for
Hispanic EL students from impoverished backgrounds, equitable access to the curriculum must
be created first by leadership, then by teachers. As explained by Echevarria et al. (2006),
language barriers create an obstacle for EL students to achieve mastery of core curriculum
standards. Therefore, English language acquisition strategies must be an intensive approach to
the instructional model across the school site and within each classroom. EL instructional
methods and course groupings must be utilized strategically to target non-native English-
speaking students and support their ability to understand both spoken English and academic
content (Echevarria et al., 2006; Giambo, 2010; Kamps et al., 2007; Slavin & Cheung, 2003).
Inclusive environment. Students from low-SES communities are considered to be at risk
of dropping out of school prior to graduation (Valenzuela et al., 2013). The findings of this study
show that the implementation of PBIS, inclusion programs, low suspension and expulsion rates,
and positive role models are appropriate supports that improve the overall learning experience
for disadvantaged students by meeting their emotional needs in addition to their academic needs.
The research found this to be particularly true as students matriculate to higher grade levels and
stages of identity development.
Leadership. Leadership is a foundational component of the success of an organization
and its stakeholders. The findings of this study demonstrate the need for strong instructional
94
leadership as well as personnel leadership in transforming the outcomes and beliefs of school
staff and students. Marzano’s (2005) work on transformational leadership is the ideal style of
leadership necessary to serve disadvantaged groups. Marzano explained that transformational
leadership produces change beyond expectations. It requires inspirational motivation and
influence to communicate high expectations, urgency, and significance to the goals, while also
creating expectations regarding behavior and results. This was found to be particularly true for
the demographic of this study in relation to overcoming negative ability belief systems and
damaging self-fulfilling prophecies of achievement.
Parent and school relationships. Parental involvement at the school site was not only
found to increase a sense of belonging and community between the school and families, but also
support student learning and behavioral outcomes. Yelgün and Karaman (2015) reported that a
lack of parental involvement at the school site is a high predictor of underachievement,
particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Parent presence on campus through
parent information sessions and school events was found to be a strategy that brings parents to
the school site as a way to initiate and maintain ongoing relationships. Positive relationships
between the school staff and parents were also found to be necessary in keeping parents
informed and involved in their students’ learning.
Goal setting and progress monitoring. Data-driven decision making and goal setting is
a critical component of the success of an organization and its stakeholders. The findings of this
study and the literature show that data must be reviewed and analyzed frequently in order to
strategically target instruction and services that truly meet the needs of the students. The findings
of the study and the literature confirm the importance of analyzing instructional and non-
95
instructional variables to ensure that the students are being served as whole individuals rather
than just producers of academic proficiency levels through mandated assessments.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study surveyed 34 elementary principals and interviewed five elementary principals
from two southern California school districts with at least 50% Hispanic EL and 50% low-SES
student demographics. Findings from the study reveal additional areas the need to be further
explored. The following are recommendations for future research:
 Further explore course models that best meet the needs of EL students in academic
and spoken language proficiency.
 Expand research on the revision of mandated standards proficiency assessments to
accommodate EL students.
 Further investigate ways that highly qualified, representative members of the
demographic can be put in teaching or leadership positions to provide a more
inclusive environment with relatable role models for students.
 Conduct a study on intrinsic motivations and incentives that drive Hispanic EL and
low socioeconomic achievement.
 Conduct a study on how negative ability stereotypes and inherent biases of staff are
countered through leadership most effectively.
Concluding Remarks
This study demonstrated that many steps are taken in the public-school system to provide
equitable education opportunities for Hispanic EL, and low-SES students. It also demonstrated
the challenges that continue to impede their progress despite the efforts of government, local
education authorities, and district leadership. The risk of impoverished Hispanic EL students
96
becoming a permanent underclass remains a threat as long as they continue to underperform
academically and drop out of school (Gándara, 2010).
The lessons learned from 34 surveyed principals and five interviewed principals who
work with many members of the impoverished Hispanic EL demographic has shown that the
needs of this group are both individual and collective. Language barriers and low-SES conditions
such as a lack of reliable transportation or health insurance, which affect attendance, are common
collective challenges for the subgroup. It easier for leadership to address these challenges
because it is more apparent with higher numbers. However, individual challenges such as
emotional and mental conditions of students or learning disabilities are also present. Individual
needs are more difficult for leadership to target because they are so individualized and less
apparent in number. In the case of individual students with particular needs, it becomes
necessary for leadership to provide professional support to school staff in order to best address
them. However, time and resources must be allocated strategically, as the study showed through
data analysis practices and a culture of data-driven decision making.
The barriers faced by Hispanic EL students also pertain to the ingrained belief systems of
both school staff and the students themselves. More work needs to be done in order to facilitate a
paradigm shift regarding stereotypes and biases that begin at the public-school level and continue
upward in society. If students are supported emotionally, mentally, and academically to believe
that they are capable, success is attainable. However, school staff who operate in line with their
biases and stereotypes are doing a disservice to students by failing to meet their needs because
they believe these students are inherently incapable. They are also contributing to the damaging
paradigm of inability that exists regarding disadvantaged groups in American society. The key to
educational opportunity and socioeconomic prosperity is not equality; equality is collective and
97
gives every student the same supports to attain academic success. The key to educational
opportunity and socioeconomic prosperity is equity, which gives every student exactly what
he/she needs, both individually and collectively, in order to succeed.
98
References
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial
and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
California Department of Education. (2015). Reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/ideareathztn.asp
California Department of Education. (2016a). Proposition 227: Five-year report on the effects of
Proposition 227 implementation. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/prop227intro.asp
California Department of Education. (2016b). Title III: Language instruction for English learner
and immigrant students. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3/index.asp
Connor, D., & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: Disability studies asks “How much
diversity can you take?” In S. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Diversity and multiculturalism: A
reader (pp. 441-357). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.
Davis-Kean, P. E., & Sexton, H. R. (2009). Race differences in parental influences on child
achievement: Multiple pathways to success. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(3), 285-318.
https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0023
DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2015). Income and poverty in the United States: 2014:
Current population report. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-
252.pdf
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-
211. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.195-211
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Inmate ethnicity. Retrieved from
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_ethnicity.jsp
Flores, S. M., & Chapa, J. (2009). Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolar
context of reception. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 90-109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708326996
99
Gajda, R., & Jewiss, J. (2004). Thinking about how to evaluate your program? These strategies
will get you started. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(8). Retrieved
from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=8
Gándara, P. (2010). The Latino education crisis. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 24-30.
Gándara, P. C., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed
social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giambo, D. A. (2010). High stakes testing, high school graduation, and limited English
proficient students: A case study. American Secondary Education, 38(2), 44-56.
Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9(4), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2010.491048
Gorski, P. C. (2008) Peddling poverty for profit: Elements of oppression in Ruby Payne's
framework. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(1), 130-148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701761854
Hajisoteriou, C., & Angelides, P. (2014). Facing the “challenge:” School leadership in
intercultural schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4
suppl.), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502194
Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations: Bureau of Justice Statistics
special report. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf
Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:
implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration
Review, 62(6), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253
Huang, H. (2015). Can students themselves narrow the socioeconomic-status-based achievement
gap through their own persistence and learning time? Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 23(108). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1977
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary.
Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534909
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-achieving
schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and Urban Society, 39(4),
479-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507302120
100
Irizarry, J. G. (2015). What Latino students want from school. Educational Leadership, 72(6),
66-71.
Johnson, H. B. (2014). The American dream and the power of wealth: Choosing schools and
inheriting inequality in the land of opportunity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, E. P., Jr. (2008). Understanding Hispanic parents' perceptions of the education their
children receive, using Critical Race Theory (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3334626)
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., ... Walton,
C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language
learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035561
LendingTree LLC. (2012). DegreeTree study reveals correlation between unemployment,
education and income. Marketing Weekly News, 233.
Lopez, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement:
Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 253-288. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002253
Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Osterman, M. J. K., Curtin, S. C., & Mathews, T. J. (2015).
Births: Final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Report, 64(1). Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
McDonnell, P. (1997, November 15). Prop. 187 found unconstitutional. The Los Angeles Times.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Education Association. (2013). Multiple indicators of school effectiveness (NEA Policy
Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEAPolicyBriefMultipleMeasures.pdf
101
Noguera, P. A. (2012). Saving black and Latino boys. Education Week, 693-703. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/03/kappan_noguera.html?tkn=RROFtDeesX
80HWq7cNUOHUKiwS%2Fn9DMeNzTL&print=1
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Owens, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2012). Black and Hispanic immigrants’ resilience against negative-
ability stereotypes at selective colleges and universities in the United States. Sociology of
Education. 85(4), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711435856
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Payne, R. (2003). Working with Students from Poverty: Discipline. Highlands, TX: AHA.
Reyes, A., & Garcia, A. (2014). Turnaround policy and practice: A case study of turning around
a failing school with English-Language-Learners. Urban Review: Issues And Ideas In
Public Education, 46(3), 349-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0261-6
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001055
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English Language Learners:
A best-evidence synthesis [Research report]. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED483006
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of US-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
U.S Census Bureau. (2015). Quick facts: United States. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Table 219.75:
Percentage of high school dropouts among persons 16 through 24 years old (status
dropout rate), by income level, and percentage distribution of status dropouts, by labor
force status and years of school completed: 1970 through 2013. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_219.75.asp
102
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2010). Free appropriate public education
for students with disabilities: Requirements under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-
FAPE504.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2017).
Evaluation reports: Elementary and Secondary Education: Title I. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Public law print of PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College- and career-ready standards. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/k-12reforms/standards
Valenzuela, A., Garcia, E., Romo, H., & Perez, B. (2013). Institutional and structural barriers to
Latino/a achievement. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 6(3).
Retrieved from http://amaejournal.utsa.edu/index.php/amae/article/view/114
Warren, C. J. E. (1954). Brown v. Board of Education. United States Reports, 347, 483.
Yelgün, A., & Karaman, I. (2015). What are the factors reducing the academic achievement in a
primary school located in a neighborhood with a low socioeconomic status? Education
and Science, 40(179), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2015.2331

103
Appendix A:
Leadership Survey
Please use the scale below to respond to the survey questions.

1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3= indifferent, 4= disagree, 5= strongly disagree

Part 1: Programs
1.) Our school site practices English Only instruction with English Learners.
2.) There is a dual language immersion program at our school to accommodate English
Learner students.
3.) There is a bilingual program at our school to accommodate English Learner students.
4.) Teachers with English Learners in their class use SIOP or another English Learner based
instructional strategy to deliver lessons.
5.) English Learner students are also typically found in remedial classes at our school.
6.) There is a school wide Positive Behavioral Support program in place that teaches students
behavioral expectations
7.) Mentorship programs are utilized at my school involving adult mentors with students in
need
8.) There are culturally representative members of the community serving as teachers or
administrators at my school.
9.) These teachers or administrators serve as role models and empower students to be
successful in school and life.
10.) Students are educated about the risk of gang activity, drugs, the criminal justice system and
other at risk activity commonly found in low SES neighborhoods.
11.) Students are educated about how a diploma and college education are pathways to
104
improved lives and upward socioeconomic mobility.
12.) As principal, I do everything I can to ensure an inclusive school culture through other
methods of behavioral intervention rather than traditional suspension and expulsion
procedures.
13.) The suspension and expulsion rates at my school are very low.
Part 2: Leadership
14.) There is a positive relationship between teachers and administrators at my school site.
15.) I consider myself to be a leader and not a manager
16.) I consider myself to be a manager and not a leader
17.) I consider myself to be both a leader and a manager
18.) I am aware of the various scholarly theories of leadership and try to utilize them in my
practice.
19.) As principal, I make sure to include the voices and concerns of all staff members in the
decision making process.
20.) My practice includes recognizing and/or celebrating staff members who are making positive
gains for students and the community.
21.) I use inspirational tactics to motivate staff to make positive gains for students and the
community.
22.) I remind staff members that serving students and this community is not only a professional
responsibility, but also an ethical one.
23.) My practice includes the countering of negative belief systems regarding the ability of
students to succeed.
24.) My practice includes the encouragement of teachers to reflect on their belief systems and
105
how that translates to student belief systems.
25.) My practice includes the countering of stereotype threats pertaining to the ability of students
from certain cultural groups.
26.) My practice includes positive empowerment and/or celebration of the Hispanic culture at
our school.
27.) My practice includes having group discussions with the staff about social injustices relating
to the Hispanic population.
28.) My practice includes having group discussions with the staff about barriers to achievement
relating to the low SES population.
29.) These discussions bring about an awareness and/or sense of urgency to help students and
their families succeed in school to overcome the social injustices.
30.) The staff at my school feel they can make a positive impact on the lives of students and their
families.
31.) The teachers at my school know what the vision and/or mission of the school site is.
32.) The teachers at my school know what needs to be improved in order to best serve the needs
of our students, especially the lower performing students.
33.) The teachers at my school are willing to modify their professional practices to best meet the
needs of our students, especially the lower performing students.
34.) The teachers at my school know that I expect their professional practice to be in line with
the common goal of the school.
Part 3: Parent and Community Involvement
35.) Our school and/or staff hold fundraisers to help low SES students and families with supply
materials or other basic needs
106
36.) Parent education programs or events are held at our school to inform parents of school
programs, organizations, services or other resources applicable to their child or themselves.
37.) Hispanic culturally celebratory events, programs, and/or clubs are in place at our school
throughout the year.
38.) Hispanic parents and the community have a positive relationship with the school site and
staff.
39.) School staff reach out to Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents frequently to involve them in
school events or their child’s learning.
40.) There is not a communication gap between the school site and Hispanic parents because of
language barriers.
41.) Home visits are conducted for Hispanic working families who are unable to make it to
school events in an effort to build relational bonds.
42.) Hispanic parents have reported feeling welcome at the school site and are treated well when
interacting with staff.
43.) Hispanic parents feel their children are receiving an equal education and services to that of
non-Hispanic children.
44.) As principal, I have not witnessed discriminatory attitudes or services between my staff and
our Hispanic students.
Part 4: Evaluation Methods
45.) Data based learning outcomes are reviewed by school staff in a group setting between 3-5
times per school year.

46.) Teachers feel comfortable with reading and understanding data.

47.) School wide goals are created collaboratively based on the analysis of school wide data.

107
48.) The allocation of time, resources, and professional development are all driven based on high
quality data.

49.) Factors such as attitudes, attendance, retention, school safety, school climate and discipline
rates are measured and communicated to the staff for collaborative decision making.

50.) Surveys are sent out students, staff and / or parents on factors such as attitudes, attendance,
retention, school safety, school climate and discipline rates in order to increase understanding
and make positive changes.

51.) Interviews are conducted with students, staff and / or parents on factors such as attitudes,
attendance, retention, school safety, school climate and discipline rates in order to increase the
understanding and make positive changes.

** If your school has a CAASPP proficiency of 40% or greater in ELA and Math, would you be
willing to participate in a phone or face to face interview based on your availability?

_____Yes ______No

108
Appendix B:
Request to Participate Letter
Dear Elementary Principals,
Based on your school’s demographic population, you are invited to participate in this
survey. The purpose of the study is to examine what elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged Hispanic, English Learner populations in urban settings to
differently than low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic success. This
study is being conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita, in pursuit of the Educational
Doctorate degree issued by the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California.
We understand that your time is extremely valuable and limited. This survey is 51 items
and will take approximately ten minutes. Based on your responses, you may be selected for a
short follow up interview either by phone or in person based on your availability. Your
participation is voluntary, and all responses as well as your identity will remain confidential.
Your name, school or district will not be disclosed in the study or to your colleagues. There are
no risks to participating, and your relationships will not be affected whether or not you choose to
participate. Your time and willingness to take the survey is greatly appreciated and will provide
an important contribution to the knowledge base in the field of education.
Please click the link below to take the survey: https://goo.gl/forms/NWcprGn31dRVIxMx1
For additional details found on the IRB document:
https://docs.google.com/a/usc.edu/document/d/1KjLQW8BZJA7hZNdi6WhyfLpjMDjllIfIOJTec
M_BNGg/edit?usp=sharing
109
Appendix C:
Interview Questions
Elementary Principal Leadership and Hispanic English Learners from low socioeconomic-
status communities

1.) How would you describe yourself and your leadership style?

2.) How do you motivate staff to work towards a common goal or mission?

3.) How have you handled resistant or negative teachers?

4.) What academic programs are you utilizing at your school site to increase learning outcomes
for Hispanic, EL and low SES students?

5.) What behavioral programs are you utilizing at your school site to increase learning outcomes
for Hispanic, EL and low SES students?

6.) What after clubs, sports or other extra-curricular activities are available for Hispanic, EL, low
SES students to increase their success?

7.) What additional resources or interventions do you have in place to meet the needs of
Hispanic, EL, and low SES students that have increased their learning outcomes?

8.) What is the collective mindset among staff at your school site about Hispanic, EL and/or low
SES students and their families? Explain how that translates to beliefs about their learning.

9.) How is the relationship between the school and parents of Hispanic, EL and/or low SES
students?

10.) How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your school’s programs, achievement, and school
culture?

110
Appendix D:
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR LOW
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS HISPANIC ENGLISH LEARNERS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Sahar Moshayedi under the
supervision of Dr. Rudy Castruita at the University of Southern California in partial fulfillment of
the Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to examine what urban elementary principals with high populations
of socioeconomically disadvantaged, Hispanic, English Learner populations do differently than
low performing schools to achieve higher outcomes of academic success. Variables such as
programs, leadership strategies, parental involvement and evaluation methods will be the focus.
This study will use a mixed methods approach to understand the variables leading to higher
achievement outcomes.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 51 item survey. The survey will take
approximately ten minutes to complete. You may also be asked to participate in a 10 item, 30
minute interview with follow up questions. The interview may be conducted by phone or in
person based on your availability. Your responses will be audio recorded with your permission.
Your responses will not be known by anyone but the researcher. You may choose not to answer
any questions or suspend your participation at any time.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The identity of survey and interview participants will remain strictly confidential and
pseudonyms will be used. All data will be kept in a secure location and destroyed after three
years. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of subjects.

111
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Sahar Moshayedi
Principal Investigator
Doctoral Candidate
Email Address: smoshaye@usc.edu

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand how elementary principals with high populations of Hispanic English learners (Els) and low socioeconomic-status (SES) students were able to increase achievement outcomes in high performing schools. This study aimed to determine: (a) what programs successful elementary principals implement to academically support Hispanic EL students in urban settings, (b) what leadership strategies elementary principals use to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic EL students, (c) how elementary principals involve parents and the community to improve learning outcomes for Hispanic EL students, and (d) how successful elementary school principals evaluate the effectiveness of programs that are designed to increase achievement for Hispanic EL students. This study, which implemented a mixed-methods approach, identified 2 Southern California school districts as having high Hispanic ELs and low socioeconomic student demographics. Between the 2 school districts, 34 elementary principals responded to a survey, 5 of whom also participated in a structured interview. Both quantitative survey responses and qualitative interview responses were analyzed and reviewed. Through transcription and coding, the data were reduced to reveal themes, patterns, relationships, causes, explanations, and conclusions in relation to the research goals. The study’s findings indicate that elementary principals with high populations of Hispanic ELs from low-SES communities who experience high achievement outcomes utilize transformational leadership to counter negative belief systems that empower both staff and students. The study also found that instructional strategies that target English language acquisition both in tandem and in addition to core subject matter were essential to improving learning outcomes. Further, positive relationships between parents and the school site were found to be critical components of student success. Frequent practice of data-driven decision making and using data to inform instructional practices were found to be foundational ways of best meeting students’ needs. Overall, this study provides hope for elementary principals with high poverty Hispanic EL populations and how they can lead their school sites to increased achievement outcomes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

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

PDF

Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges

PDF

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

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

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A needs assessment and evaluation of an elementary afterschool STEM program in a small urban school district

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Moshayedi, Sahar Naz (author)

Core Title Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/08/2018

Defense Date 02/08/2018

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

Tag academic,achievement,Administration,administrator,America,assess,assessment,based,behavior,Belief,California,causes,communities,Community,correlation,curriculum,data,demographic,district,districts,effective,effectiveness,elementary,English,ethnic,Ethnicity,evaluate,evaluation,explanations,faculty,Feelings,foreign,goals,grade,grades,Groups,high,higher,Hispanic,immigrant,impoverished,improve,Income,increase,instruction,intervention,interventions,Language,languages,leadership,learners,Learning and Instruction,low,methods,middle,migrant,Mixed,native,needs,North America,OAI-PMH Harvest,outcomes,Parents,Population,populations,Poverty,practice,practices,Primary,Principal,principals,program,programs,qualitative,quantitative,Race,relation,Relationship,Research,Results,School,Schools,Secondary,socioeconomic,Spanish,speaking,staff,strategies,student,Students,study,systems,target,targeting,teacher,Teachers,teaching,TEST,testing,Urban,Welfare

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair)

Creator Email saharnazmo@gmail.com,smoshaye@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-471774

Unique identifier UC11267352

Identifier etd-MoshayediS-6016.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-471774 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MoshayediS-6016.pdf

Dmrecord 471774

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moshayedi, Sahar Naz

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