University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

(USC Thesis Other)

Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FULFILLING THE PROMISE

FULFILLING THE PROMISE TO THE SILENT MAJORITY: INTERNAL SYSTEMS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFECTIVE SITE-LEVEL EVALUATIONS OF LATINO
PERSISTENTLY EMERGENT BILINGUAL LEARNERS FOR RECLASSIFICATION AS
FLUENT ENGLISH PROFICIENT IN CALIFORNIA SECONDARY SCHOOLS

by

John Michael Alvarez
_____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 13, 2017

Copyright © 2017 John Michael Alvarez
FULFILLING THE PROMISE ii
DEDICATION
A la Rana, y a todos los barrios latinos en California que han resistido: les dedico mi
trabajo.
A la Dra. Eugenia Mora-Flores, que se negó a ser presionada a las limitaciones de la
sociedad americana para que pudiera iluminar el camino a las generaciones futuras de maestros,
para que ayuden a los más desfavorecidos a seguir sus pasos en el descubrimiento de su valor
innato: le dedico mi trabajo.
A Ríos, que no se benefició de lo que propongo en mi trabajo mientras estaba en la
escuela, pero que algún día verá a su propio hijo reconocer la dignidad de su propia herencia: le
dedico mi trabajo.
To my mother, who found a better world before I could complete my attempt at making
this world better: I dedicate my work.
Enfin, et surtout, pour ma minette, mon ange, et ma raison de vivre, maintenant et pour
toujours, dans mon cœur à Paris dans l'éternité du temps de plus en plus, je te dédie ma vie, mon
âme éternelle, et cette œuvre qui représente ma tentative d’intemporalité.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sixteen years ago, I discovered (quite by accident) the words of Paulo Freire and John
Ogbu. This initiated my often-circuitous journey leading to the discovery of my own value in
producing what Derrida (1991) defined as “trace” (p. 26). I acknowledge the contributions of the
aforementioned scholars to the discipline of education, even as I acknowledge the immense
contribution they have provided me in shaping my own gift to the field of education that I offer
in the form of this dissertation.
Four years ago, I focused my journey by engaging in a rigorous course of scholarship as
part of the inaugural cohort of the Organizational Change and Leadership program at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I acknowledge each of the
professors who facilitated my discoveries: Dr. Kim Ferrario, who reminded me of what I had so
long ago forgotten; Dr. Jenifer Crawford, who reminded me of the power of a paradigm shift in
seven words; Dr. Rema Reynolds, who demonstrated to me the obdurance of the instantiation of
Whiteness; Dr. Leanne Dunsmore, who pushed me beyond my self-imposed expectations of
success; Dr. Lynn Goldfarb, who let me fly and fail so I could learn to soar ever-higher; Randle
Mell, who connected my past lifetime with my present; Dr. Artineh Samkian, who trued my
perspective through sharing her loss of a dear, dear treasure; Dr. Esther Kim, who demonstrated
for me how to bring life “to life” on the page; Dr. Larry Hausner, for reminding me of the
importance of the bottom line in the American education system; and Dr. Holly Shim-Pelayo,
who guided me through “les petit orages de printemps.”
Deepest gratitude and praise cannot recompense Dr. Melora Sundt for her contribution to
my scholarship. Patient, kind, and caring, she opened her heart as she opened mine by
recognizing my potential and guiding me through my own obstacles so perhaps one day I could
FULFILLING THE PROMISE iv
remove the obstacles preventing far too many people from recognizing their own unique
potentials.
Delving deeply into my own scholarship even as she invited me to join her in her own
discoveries, I acknowledge the contribution that Dr. Alicia Dowd made to me by granting me a
symbolic medal of courage that gave me the strength to persevere at each moment of doubt
throughout the production of my dissertation.
From her explanation of herself by describing to me « Le pain était en effet moelleux à
l'intérieur et croustillant à l'extérieur», to her mock show of horror as I shared my initial horrible
findings (followed by her gifted guidance in helping me discover how to let the data speak), Dr.
Julie Slayton demanded of me nothing but the very best in my qualitative research, and to her I
issue what can only be an insufficient repayment which I will forever be satisfying by “paying it
forward” each and every day for as long as I breathe.
To the members of my committee: Dr. Rhoda Coleman and Dr. Helena Seli, as well as
my dissertation director, Dr. Eugenia Mora Flores, who have endured my offers of copy sans
sense even as they encouraged me to sharpen my own, I offer my sincerest gratitude for your
collective and individual contributions to my scholarship by guiding me at every turn to pursue
my burning questions even as you offered me even more.
For Dr. Rhoda Coleman, who presented to me a steadfast example that my dreams could
one day be realized, I thank you for walking with me on every step of the journey that the data
took me from the first moment of my study to the last keyboard stroke that finished my
dissertation.
For Dr. Helena Seli, who facilitated my discoveries that I did not know what I thought I
knew, and that I did know what I thought I did not, I extend to you my appreciation in helping
FULFILLING THE PROMISE v
me develop a true depth of understanding of Bandura’s (1988) triadic reciprocal causation
through discovery drawn from my experiences as I slowly but surely developed self-efficacy as a
qualitative researcher.
To Dr. Eugenia Mora Flores, un ángel en mi hombro, who from afar has led me to write
the dissertation that had to be written to give voice to those who have been suborned into silence,
my thanks—no matter how expansive—will be insufficient. Nevertheless, I offer all I have to
give in the form of my sincerest appreciation for going so far beyond what could have ever been
expected of you by the most draconian forms of external accountabilities. I only hope that I have
the opportunity (at least once in my life) to contribute a mere portion of what you have given to
me to another writer seeking Guba’s (1981) “truth value” in her or his own inquiry. You always
promised me that when I finished my inquiry, that my work would just be starting, and I await
that moment so that I can validate your investment in me. ¡Hasta la victoria, siempre!

FULFILLING THE PROMISE vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................xv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xvi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .........................................................................1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice .......................................................................................3
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................4
Organizational Performance Status ..............................................................................................6
Related Literature .........................................................................................................................8
Systems of Activity ....................................................................................................................14
Importance of Addressing the Problem ......................................................................................20
Description of Stakeholder Group ..............................................................................................22
Organizational Performance Goals ............................................................................................23
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................27
Purpose of the Project and Questions .........................................................................................28
Methodological Framework .......................................................................................................28
Organization of the Project ........................................................................................................29
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND LITERATURE ...................................................................31
Social and Cultural Influences ...................................................................................................32
Diverse Educational Characteristics of Minority Populations ...................................................32
The Power of Hidden Structures of Inequity..............................................................................35
Misalignment of Institutional and Student Demographics .........................................................36
Racial congruency in teacher populations. .............................................................................37
Recruitment and retention of Latino teachers. ........................................................................39
Latino leadership and Latino student achievement. ...............................................................41
Consequences of equitable demographic alignment. ..............................................................42
Teacher Knowledge Influences ..................................................................................................44
Knowledge types. ...................................................................................................................45
Secondary English teacher knowledge influences. .................................................................50
Declarative knowledge influences. .........................................................................................51
Procedural knowledge influences. ..........................................................................................55
Metacognitive knowledge influences. ....................................................................................56
Teacher Motivation Influences ...................................................................................................57
Consideration of motivation in PCSD’s professional development. ......................................58
Defining motivation. ...............................................................................................................59
Social cognitive theory. ..........................................................................................................60
Self-efficacy theory. ...............................................................................................................61
Teacher self-efficacy. .............................................................................................................64
Expectancy value theory. ........................................................................................................67
Teacher value orientation. ......................................................................................................69
Attainment value. ...............................................................................................................69
Intrinsic value.....................................................................................................................71
FULFILLING THE PROMISE vii
Utility value. ......................................................................................................................73
Cost. ...................................................................................................................................74
Teacher Organizational Influences .............................................................................................76
Work processes. ......................................................................................................................78
Professional learning. .............................................................................................................80
Material resources. ..................................................................................................................83
Misarticulated policies. ...........................................................................................................86
Administrator evaluation of teacher benchmarking practices of EBs. ..............................89
Organizational goal orientation. .............................................................................................90
Site-level performance goals for reclassification of Latino PEBLs. ......................................91
Summary ....................................................................................................................................93
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................95
Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................................97
Research Question ......................................................................................................................98
Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................................98
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................104
Sample Selection, Data Collection, and Instrumentation .........................................................104
Sample selection. ..................................................................................................................107
Data collection and instrumentation. ....................................................................................108
Evaluation of biannual benchmarks. ................................................................................109
Observation of the completion of benchmarks. ...............................................................110
Interviews. ........................................................................................................................112
Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................114
Evaluation of biannual benchmarks. .....................................................................................117
Observation of the completion of benchmarks. ....................................................................118
Interviews. ............................................................................................................................118
Credibility and Trustworthiness ...............................................................................................121
Credibility. ............................................................................................................................122
Trustworthiness. ....................................................................................................................124
Increasing credibility in research design. .............................................................................125
Increasing credibility in data collection. ...............................................................................127
Increasing credibility in data analysis. ..................................................................................130
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................134
Limitations and Delimitations ..................................................................................................136
Background ..............................................................................................................................141
Summary of Methodology .......................................................................................................144
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ....................................................................................................145
Structure of the Chapter ...........................................................................................................145
Tier One: Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Data ........................................................................147
Sample Population ....................................................................................................................147
Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Forms ..................................................................................148
Data discrepancies. ...............................................................................................................150
In absentia. ............................................................................................................................153
Poor attendance ................................................................................................................154
Absence due to intervention.............................................................................................155
Due to disability ....................................................................................................................156
FULFILLING THE PROMISE viii
Undiagnosed generalized disorders. ................................................................................158
Undiagnosed generalized attention deficit disorders. ......................................................159
Undiagnosed dysgraphia related disorders. .....................................................................162
Poor writer. ...........................................................................................................................165
Generalized reflections. ...................................................................................................166
Specified reflections.........................................................................................................168
Motivational issues in writing. .........................................................................................170
Able, but lazy. .......................................................................................................................172
Not motivated to complete classwork or homework assignments. ..................................173
Student dispositions that resulted in a lack of effort or will. ...........................................177
Core Findings: Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Forms ..........................................................180
Knowledge. ...........................................................................................................................181
Lack of knowledge of critical concepts and principles. ...................................................182
Lack of knowledge of the difference in relevelling and reclassifying. ............................185
Culturally unresponsive evaluations. ...............................................................................186
Misunderstanding of the purpose of the benchmark evaluation. .....................................187
Motivation. ............................................................................................................................187
Organizational. ......................................................................................................................188
Tier Two: Observation of Benchmark Evaluations .....................................................................189
Sample Population ....................................................................................................................190
Oceanside High School ............................................................................................................190
Observation of Biannual Benchmark Evaluations ...................................................................194
No time. ................................................................................................................................195
Not the best. ..........................................................................................................................196
Bureaucratic necessity. .........................................................................................................197
Annoyance with the interface. ..............................................................................................198
What does this one mean? ....................................................................................................199
Core Findings: Observation of Biannual Benchmark Evaluations ..........................................199
Knowledge. ...........................................................................................................................200
Motivation. ............................................................................................................................201
Organizational. ......................................................................................................................203
Tier Three: Interviews with Secondary English Teachers ...........................................................204
Sample Population: Bayside High School ...............................................................................205
Bayside High School ................................................................................................................206
Sample Population: City High School .....................................................................................208
City High School ......................................................................................................................208
Interviews with Teachers .........................................................................................................211
The illusion of differentiation. ..............................................................................................213
Proficiency. ...........................................................................................................................215
The collaborative culture of inequity. ...................................................................................216
The deferral of responsibility. ...............................................................................................217
Lack of involvement in decision making. .............................................................................217
Core Findings: Interviews with Secondary English Teachers..................................................220
Knowledge. ...........................................................................................................................221
Motivation. ............................................................................................................................221
Organizational. ......................................................................................................................222
FULFILLING THE PROMISE ix
Synthesis of Findings ...................................................................................................................222
Knowledge Influences ..............................................................................................................223
Declarative. ...........................................................................................................................223
Differences between asset-based and deficit-based paradigms. ......................................223
Principles of language development. ...............................................................................224
Influences of cultural factors on language development. ................................................225
Principles of accommodation in formative and summative assessments. .......................226
Fundamental principles of motivation in additive language development. .....................226
California ELD standards. ...............................................................................................227
Language proficiency descriptors. ...................................................................................227
Evaluation criteria in the biannual benchmarking instrument. ........................................228
Process leading to RFEP of EBs. .....................................................................................229
Procedural. ............................................................................................................................229
Command of more than one language. ............................................................................229
Employing asset-based paradigms in their evaluations of Latino PEBLs. ......................230
Creating and administrating effective standards-based evaluations. ...............................230
Applying accommodations in evaluation.........................................................................231
Applying culturally responsive evaluations. ....................................................................231
Metacognitive. ......................................................................................................................231
Motivation Influences ..............................................................................................................232
Self-efficacy. .........................................................................................................................232
Creating effective forms of evaluation. ...........................................................................233
Effective administration and analysis of results from differentiated evaluations. ...........233
Aligned practices of meta-cognition with effective practices..........................................234
Attainment value. ..................................................................................................................234
Alignment of moderation of reactions to the development of new practices. .................235
Perception of value in developing effective evaluations for Latino PEBLs. ...................235
Intrinsic value. ......................................................................................................................236
Utility value. .........................................................................................................................236
Cost. .................................................................................................................................236
Organizational Influences ........................................................................................................237
Inconsistent practices of benchmarking procedures of Latino PEBLs. ................................237
Inconsistent evaluations of the academic performance of Latino PEBLs. ...........................238
Inconsistent evaluations of the language development of Latino PEBLs. ...........................238
Lack of formal evaluations of the ability of teachers to accurately evaluate EBs. ...............238
Lack of directed collaborative and reflective practices by teachers. ....................................239
Culture of implicit bias. ........................................................................................................239
Lack of appropriate evaluation materials for PEBLs. ..........................................................240
Lack of site-level performance goals for the RFEP of Latino PEBLs. ................................241
Summary ......................................................................................................................................241
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................244
Purpose of the Project and Questions .......................................................................................245
Discovery of Performance Problems ........................................................................................245
Solutions to Institutional Inequities ..........................................................................................250
Community of Inquiry (CoI). ...............................................................................................252
Embedded expert. .................................................................................................................255
FULFILLING THE PROMISE x
Inquiry as Stance. ..................................................................................................................256
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..................................................257
Knowledge recommendations. .............................................................................................258
Declarative knowledge.....................................................................................................259
Asset-based and deficit-based paradigms. ...................................................................261
Knowledge of principles of language development.....................................................261
Culturally responsive methods of evaluation. ..............................................................264
Accommodation in formative and summative assessment. .........................................265
Common phrases in students’ home languages. ..........................................................266
Principles of motivation. ..............................................................................................267
Knowledge of ELD standards. .....................................................................................268
Knowledge of levels of language development. ..........................................................269
Evaluation criteria. .......................................................................................................270
The RFEP process. .......................................................................................................271
Procedural knowledge. .....................................................................................................272
Developing teacher’s language skills...........................................................................274
Application of asset-based paradigms. ........................................................................275
Establishing effective forms of summative evaluation. ...............................................276
Alignment of formative evaluations with standards. ...................................................277
Application of accommodations in evaluation. ...........................................................278
Application of culturally relevant evaluations. ............................................................278
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. ...............................................................................279
Motivation recommendations. ..............................................................................................280
Motivation solutions. ............................................................................................................281
Developing self-efficacy in creating effective evaluations of language development. ...283
Effective administration of differentiated evaluations. ....................................................284
Effectively evaluating results from evaluations. ..............................................................284
Self-efficacy in metacognition of effective practices. .....................................................285
Productive moderation of affective states to stimulus. ....................................................286
Attainment value. .............................................................................................................287
Organizational recommendations. ........................................................................................288
Organizational solutions. ......................................................................................................289
Inconsistent processes of evaluation. ...............................................................................291
Unsatisfactory training in the evaluation of academic development of EBs. ..................292
Unsatisfactory training in the evaluation of language development. ...............................292
Accurate valued feedback from administrators to teachers. ............................................293
Discriminatory evaluation practices. ...............................................................................295
Misalignment of resources. ..............................................................................................296
Lack of site-level performance goals for EBs and Latino PEBLs. ..................................297
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................................................298
Organizational purpose, need and expectations. ...................................................................299
Level 4: Results and leading indicators. ...............................................................................301
External outcomes. ...........................................................................................................302
Alignment of teacher evaluations and content standards. ............................................303
Reduction in the percentage of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. .............................................304
Internal outcomes. ............................................................................................................305
FULFILLING THE PROMISE xi
Teacher knowledge of language development principles. ...........................................306
Teacher knowledge of cultural factors. ........................................................................307
Teacher knowledge of common phrases. .....................................................................308
Level 3: Behavior. ................................................................................................................309
Critical behaviors. ............................................................................................................312
Asset-based paradigms.................................................................................................313
Alignment of evaluations of with standards. ...............................................................314
Culturally responsive evaluation practices. .................................................................315
Application of accommodations in evaluations. ..........................................................315
Required drivers. ...................................................................................................................316
Reinforcing. .....................................................................................................................319
Encouraging. ....................................................................................................................320
Rewarding. .......................................................................................................................320
Monitoring. ......................................................................................................................321
Level 2: Learning. .................................................................................................................321
Learning goals. .................................................................................................................322
The program. ....................................................................................................................324
Components of learning. ..................................................................................................325
Level 1: Reaction. .................................................................................................................327
Evaluation tools. ...................................................................................................................328
Immediately following the program implementation. .....................................................328
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. .................................................329
Data Analysis and Reporting ....................................................................................................330
Implementation Plan Summary ................................................................................................334
Recommendations for Future Study .........................................................................................335
State of California. ................................................................................................................336
Potential research question 1. ..........................................................................................336
Potential research question 2. ..........................................................................................341
Potential research question 3. ..........................................................................................342
Maplewood. ..........................................................................................................................344
Potential research question 4. ..........................................................................................344
Pacific Coast School District. ...............................................................................................349
Potential research question 5. ..........................................................................................349
Potential research question 6. ..........................................................................................349
Potential research question 7. ..........................................................................................349
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................355
FULFILLING THE PROMISE xii
References ....................................................................................................................................367
Appendix A: Interview Questions ..............................................................................................400
Appendix B: QTEL Teacher Instructional Knowledge Test ......................................................402
Appendix C: QTEL Aligned Classroom Observation Instrument ..............................................409
Appendix D: Resource for Equitable Classroom Practices ........................................................421
Appendix E: Adapted Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) ................................422
Appendix F: Check of Declarative Knowledge ..........................................................................423
Appendix G: Check of Procedural Knowledge ..........................................................................424
Appendix H: Check of Procedural Knowledge-Extended Online CoI .......................................425
Appendix I: Intensive Intervention Participant Engagement Questionnaire ..............................426
Appendix J: Participation in Online Discussions........................................................................427
Appendix K: Intensive Intervention Engagement Observation Protocol ...................................428
Appendix L: Community of Inquiry Participant Engagement Questionnaire ............................429
Appendix M: Community of Inquiry Engagement Observation Protocol ..................................430
Appendix N: Expert Teacher Observation and Data Analysis Protocol .....................................431
Appendix O: Blended Evaluation Instrument: Participant Survey .............................................435
Appendix P: Delayed Post-Intensive Evaluation Instrument......................................................437
Appendix Q: Teacher Value of Effective Strategies for the Evaluation of EBs .........................440
Appendix R: Self-efficacy Scale: Evaluation of Emergent Bilingual Learners .........................442

FULFILLING THE PROMISE xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals .........23
Table 2. Teacher Knowledge Influences and Methods of Assessment .........................................49
Table 3. Teacher Motivation Influences and Methods of Assessment ..........................................63
Table 4. Organizational Influences and Methods of Assessment ..................................................77
Table 5. Diversity of Methods to Improve Credibility/Validity in Qualitative Research ...........123
Table 6. Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at Oceanside High School .................190
Table 8. Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at Bayside High School .....................205
Table 9. Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at City High School ...........................208
Table 10. Summary of Declarative Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ..................260
Table 11. Summary of Procedural Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................273
Table 12. Summary of Metacognitive Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ..............280
Table 13. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .......................................282
Table 14. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations.................................290
Table 15. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................302
Table 16. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................312
Table 17. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .........................................................318
Table 18. Components of Learning for the Program ..................................................................326
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ....................................................328
Table 20. Delayed Evaluation Elements .....................................................................................329
Table 21. Summary of Components in RFEP .............................................................................339

FULFILLING THE PROMISE xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Percentage of PEBLs in PCSD Secondary Schools .........................................................7
Figure 2. Percentage of Latino PEBLs in PCSD Secondary Schools .............................................8
Figure 3. Engeström’s (1987) Third Generation Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) ..16
Figure 4. Activity System: Teacher Evaluation of Latino PEBLs for RFEP................................18
Figure 5. Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................99
Figure 6. Proficiency Level Descriptors and Levels of English Development...........................147
Figure 7. Latino Secondary Student Assessments in PCSD .......................................................152
Figure 8. Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework ....................................................................253
Figure 9. Evaluation Dashboard: Participant Satisfaction ..........................................................331
Figure 10. Evaluation Dashboard: Post Intervention Blended Evaluation .................................331
Figure 11. Evaluation Dashboard: Delayed Blended Evaluation-Community of Inquiry ..........332

FULFILLING THE PROMISE xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
API: Academic Performance Index
BICS: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
CAASSP: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
CALP: Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
CCSD: Certificate of Completion of Staff Development
CCSS: Common Core State Standards
CCTC: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
CDE: California Department of Education
CELDT: California English Language Development Test
CLAD: Crosscultural Language and Academic Development Certificate
CoI: Community of Inquiry
DS: Diversity Scorecard
EBs: Emergent Bilingual Learners
ELPAC: English Language Proficiency Assessments for California
FARM: Free or Reduced Price Meals
HQT: High-Quality Teacher
LCAP: Local Control Accountability Plan
LEA: Local Education Agency
LTEL: Long Term English Learners
PCSD: Pacific Coast School District
PEBL: Persistently Emergent Bilingual Learners
PLC: Professional Learning Community
RFEP: Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient
RTI: Response to Intervention

FULFILLING THE PROMISE xvi
ABSTRACT
The promise of “equal, fair, and meaningful access to education services” (Equal
Opportunity, 2015) made by the State of California remains unfulfilled for the silent majority of
835,358 Latino students labelled as Long-Term English Learners, or LTELs, which I have
applied the asset-paradigm in designating these students as Latino Persistently Emergent
Bilingual Learners (PEBLs). From the application of a deficit-paradigm label to the diminished
support it provides to these students, California has fallen short in realizing its mandate
guaranteeing equal educational opportunity as established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Seeking to understand how one stakeholder group contributed to the reproduction of
inequality for this silent majority of Latino learners, in my three-tiered qualitative study, I
investigated the work processes and dispositions of secondary English teachers at a suburban Los
Angeles school district. Using a gap analysis of the organizational performance of the district,
my comprehensive data collection and detailed analysis demonstrated that the secondary English
teachers entrusted with the actualization of the promises of equality did not have the required
knowledge and motivation to evaluate Latino PEBLs with accuracy, leading these teachers to
reinforce structural inequalities at the expense of the language development and academic
development of these students. Moreover, the organizational influences that could have
otherwise facilitated more effective teacher performance were misaligned with the needs of
Latino PEBLs, producing a considerable performance problem for the district. My results point
to the application of a comprehensive performance improvement plan I have established that
harnesses technology in the form of the Community of Inquiry (CoI), within which an embedded
expert works with teachers in developing more culturally responsive dispositions that align with
the existing assets of Latino PEBLs.
Running head: FULFILLING THE PROMISE
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Educational organizations in the State of California serve a majority population of
students (54.2%) in contrast to a considerable minority of White students (23.6%); however, the
structural obstacles that Latino
1
students face continue to minoritize and marginalize them.
Pointedly, the academic outcomes of Latino students in California do not match peer groups.
For example, in the 2016-17 administration of the California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP), only 50% of Latinos met the English Language Arts achievement
expectations, in comparison to 71% of White students, and 81% of Asian students (CAASPP,
2017). According to statistics compiled by the California Department of Education (CDE), four
times as many Latino students drop out of school in comparison to White students. Despite
federal and state mandates (Castañeda v. Pickard, Keyes v. School District #1, Lau v. Nichols,
Title 20 § 1703f, & CA-EDC § 300) to provide equal educational opportunity for all learners in
its 11,491 schools, the State of California has not delivered on its promise of “equal, fair, and

1
Although I keenly recognize the “politics of language” that consistently has served to marginalize minority groups,
in this study I have applied the use of the term Latino instead of Latino and Latina (or for that matter, the more
contemporary popular descriptor Latina/o, Latinx, or even Latin@). In tracking the etymology of the term Latino, it
is worth noting that the foundations of Spanish (Old Spanish) carried with it a “hypercharacterization of gender”
(Penny, 2002, p. 125), and as Harris (1991) in his exacting “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish” asserted,
attempts at “conflating biological sex (male versus female), grammatical gender (masculine versus feminine), and
form class (-o versus -a)…would be otiose, and thus must be rejected” (p. 60). At the time, I also recognize
Chávez’s (2013) description of the heteronormativity that may prevent deeper understanding of intersectionalities.
Yet my imposition of a term like Latinx, while certainly transgressive against existing power structures, is not
supported by Spanish grammar. As a second-generation descendant of Spanish immigrants, my imposition of
change to the Spanish language represents the height of patronization; moreover, it is irrelevant to the grammatical
requirements of the language. Simply, I have applied the term Latino to describe the group of people who share a
Latin American origin. Where indicated, I have used the term Latina to describe a particular female member of that
group. I recognize the “fuzziness of the Latino ethnic boundary” (Rodríguez, 2008, p. 5); however, I have
maintained the grammatically correct use of the term Latino throughout my study. A more thorough contemporary
discussion of this issue can be found in de Onis (2017).

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 2
meaningful access to education services” (Equal Opportunity, 2015) to its population of
3,378,344 Latino students.
Fully one-third (1,099,750) of California’s Latino students have been categorized by the
State of California as English learners,
2
and of this total, fully 59% have been categorized as
Long-Term English Learners, or LTELs.
3
These are students who “have been in United States
schools 7+ years, are orally fluent in English but reading and writing below grade level” (Olsen
& Jaramillo, 1999, p. 234). Research has established that effective educational programs for EBs
can develop academic fluency in English for 90% of the population within six years (Hakuta,
Butler, & Witt, 2000); however, because of ineffective educational programs presently in place
in many California public schools, a majority of Latino EBs are not realizing this benchmark. Of
critical concern in this issue of equitable educational opportunity and social inclusion is that the

2
Drawing from the pivotal contributions of García, Kleifgen, and Falchi (2008) as well as García (2009 & 2011), I
have applied the term Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) in this study, instead of the more frequently used English language
learners (ELLs) or Limited English Proficient (LEP) in recognition that: “bilingualism is recognized as a potential
resource, both cognitively and socially” (García, 2011, p. 322). Valdés, Menken, & Castro (2015) established the
importance of the preferential designation of EBs in recognition of the assets of bilingualism and multilingualism
that this population of learners utilizes as they develop understanding of content, language, and literacy, and it is my
position that the a deficit-related paradigm (Dittmar, 1976) associated with the ELL or ELP labels reinforces a
monoglossic ideology, which “perpetuates educational inequities and squanders valuable linguistic resources”
(García, 2009, p. 324).

3
With its English Language Development Standards, the State of California established Proficiency Level
Descriptors, which “provides an overview of the stages of English language development through which ELs are
expected to progress” (Ong & McLean, 2014, p. 3). These descriptors indicate three levels of English development
(Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging), with Entry and Exit stages at each level. Rather than adapt to the levels as
described by the State of California, I have utilized the more robust designation of Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) as
held by Valdés, Menken, & Castro (2015), who recognized the learner’s existing language capabilities in more than
one language. I have thus embraced an asset-based approach, instead of deficit-based approach that the State of
California has chosen to utilize in their standards. My coinage of the asset-paradigm term Persistently Emerging
Bilingual Learners (PEBLs) refers to those learners who are adding to their existing mother tongue capabilities, yet
who have not been reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP).

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 3
overwhelming majority of Persistently Emergent Bilingual Learners (PEBLs) in the State of
California are Latino (Olsen, 2014).
In recognition of the unique needs of each of its Local Educational Agencies (LEA), with
Education Code § 313, the State of California has provided each LEA with a degree of latitude in
categorizing students as EBs. Although § 313 requires each LEA to utilize two standardized
assessments for this categorization (the CAASSPP and the California English Language
Development test, or CELDT, replaced by the English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California, or ELPAC in 2018), each LEA can utilize its own method in satisfying two of the
criteria for the categorization of EBs: parental consultation and teacher evaluation of language
development and academic performance. With their evaluations, teachers command
considerable responsibility in determining the academic trajectories of students; however, this
responsibility has not been matched by preparing teachers to make accurate evaluations, leading
researchers to assert that evaluations of EBs represent a “profound” (Umansky, et al., 2015)
barrier preventing access to academic achievement. In recognition of the responsibility of
teachers in shaping the destiny of Latino EBs, my study sought to discover how secondary
English teachers (deemed to be responsible for the evaluation of EBs in a suburban Los Angeles
school district) evaluated their Latino PEBLs for reclassification as fluent English proficient
(RFEP).
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The problem of the diminished academic performance of Latino PEBLs in California
schools is significant because the high population of these learners means that fully 12% of the
students in the State of California will enter the future workplace unprepared for the increasing
demands of the global marketplace. This could potentially produce an economic loss of an
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 4
estimated $27.8 billion, thereby creating monumental strains on critical social support structures
(Belfield & Levin, 2007). Moreover, the inequitable educational programs for Latino PEBLs in
the State of California have carved (and without intervention, are very likely to continue to
carve) lasting racial divisions within the larger society, significantly mitigating America’s
promise to treat all citizens isonomically as guaranteed by the “self-evident” truth of equality
issued by the Declaration of Independence and validated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et sequentes.
Organizational Context and Mission
Tasked by the State of California to meet the educational needs of its local community,
the “Pacific Coast School District” (PCSD)
4
is an organization comprised of 17 elementary
schools, eight middle schools, five high schools, and three adult schools. PCSD provides a range
of educational services to 23,079 diverse students in Los Angeles County, California (California
Department of Education, 2015). Situated in a suburban Los Angeles city of 147,478 called
“Maplewood”
5
(US Census Bureau, 2015), PCSD states that its mission is “to ensure that each
and every student is educated and prepared to succeed in life” (Mission, 2015). Additionally, the
district maintains that it is “dedicated to maximizing individual potential and developing lifelong
learners who will be contributing members in a global society” (Mission, 2015). The Chief
Academic Officer for PCSD explained that the district exists “because education helps children
become exceptional adults” (personal communication, June 2, 2015). The State of California has
categorized PCSD as a high performing district, with a graduation rate of 95.5%, in comparison
with the state average of 80.2% (California Department of Education, 2015).

4
A pseudonym used in place of the actual district.
5
A pseudonym used in place of the actual city.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 5
The student population served by PCSD is linguistically diverse, with 45 languages
spoken among its learners (California Department of Education, 2015). In 2015, males
represented 51.1% (12,234) of the students in the district in comparison to females, who
represented 48.9% (11,713). Asian students comprised the ethnic majority of the enrollment in
the district as they embodied 29.6% (7,123) of the total population; students characterized as
Hispanic
6
or Latino amounted to 27.4% (6,686). White students who are not Hispanic totaled
25.6% (5,831). Students who reported as Two or More Races amounted to 6.1% (1,608),
Filipino students encompassed 5% (1,210), and African American students totaled 4.3% (1,052).
Students who did not report an ethnicity were at 1.4%, Pacific Islanders represented .06% (141),
and Native Americans, .03% (72). The socio-economic status of the students in the district
skewed decidedly higher than the state average. A mere 27.4 % of the students (6,644) in PCSD
was entitled to free or reduced-price meals (FARM), in comparison to 58.6% (6,235,520) in the
State of California. In 2016-17, 88% of the students in PCSD who were eligible for FARM were
Latino.
In realizing its mission, in 2015 PCSD employed 1,065 teachers and 56 certificated
administrators (California Department of Education, 2015), as well as a staff of 800 classified

6
The State of California, researchers, and even subjects in this study have applied the term “Hispanic” to describe
populations of ethnicities that utilize the Spanish language to communicate. My study does not suppose that this is a
culturally appropriate descriptor of the population of Spanish speakers presently in the United States. Calderón
(1992) demonstrated the “production of othering” (Spivak, 1999, p. 215) that the term “Hispanic” creates, and
explained that the term “Latino” provides greater opportunity for “panethnic unity” (p. 43). My study uses the term
Latino to reflect the population of people who are from or have a cultural background that draws from nations in
Latin America. My study includes the term “Hispanic” to reflect the statistical categorization selected by the State of
California, in addition to any use of the term by researchers I have cited or by subjects I interviewed or observed.
Gracia (2000) eloquently explained the considerable challenges in the use of both terms, explaining that both are
terms that owe their origins to the politics of colonization (Hispanic by the Spanish, and Latino by the French), and
while Gracia’s views may promote philosophical debate, in this study I have adhered to Calderón’s view because of
its capability in engendering “unity around issues that threaten the interest of the entire Latino community and to
form coalitions with other oppressed groups around structural issues they ha[ve] in common” (p. 43)
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 6
and at-will support personnel (PCSD Information Officer, personal communication, June 1,
2015).
Organizational Performance Status
In satisfaction of California Education Code § 313, PCSD utilizes four specific measures
to evaluate the language development progress of its population of EBs: (a) student score on the
annual administration of California English Language Development Test (CELDT) test
7
; (b)
parental consultation (conditional upon student satisfaction in all other criteria for RFEP); (c)
student score on the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP);
and (d) English teacher evaluation of student language development and curriculum mastery. As
of 2016, the State of California utilized five score ranges for the annual CELDT test (Basic,
Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced). PCSD used these score
ranges to indicate a student’s level of language development. Provided a student could
demonstrate satisfactory measures in four of the areas of language development, and provided
that the parents agreed, PCSD removed EBs from English language support programs and
categorized these students as RFEP. Students with this classification were no longer provided
with targeted English language support programs by the district; however, the State of California
required the district to monitor the progress of these students for two years following RFEP
designation.
At the outset of the study, one of the PCSD’s benchmark performance goals for its
population of EBs was that 20% would be RFEP by 2016, with a 2% increase by 2017 (PCSD,
2016). Moreover, the district had a stated goal of 47% of its EBs advancing one or more of the

7
As of 2018, the State of California will begin administration of a new English language proficiency instrument, the
English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC). The ELPAC will replace the CELDT, and
PCSD will use this instrument in its evaluation of EBs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 7
five language levels (beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, advanced) in
2016, with a 2% increase by 2017 (PCSD, 2016). In 2016, 510 students, or 14% of PCSD’s
population of 3,609 EBs were reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP), well below the
district’s performance goal.
As of 2016, the aggregate performance in PCSD of all EBs from pre-school to 12
th
grade
did not meet the performance goals of the district. Significantly, the performance of EBs at the
secondary level was considerably lower than the overall district benchmarks. The overwhelming
majority of secondary-level EBs were PEBLs (72%), which means that these students were not
able to meet expectations for language development for over five years of attendance in the
district (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percentage of PEBLs in PCSD secondary schools.
The language development of Latino EBs represented an even greater performance
problem for the district, with 91% of all Latino EBs at the secondary level in 2016 classified as
PEBLs. Latino EBs represented only 40% of the total population of students in PCSD’s
secondary schools; however, 91% of the population of PEBLs were Latino (see Figure 2). In
comparison to all peer groups, Latino EBs in the district were not advancing at the same rate
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 8
regarding their language development and academic achievement, and this represented a
considerable performance problem for the district.

Figure 2. Percentage of Latino PEBLs in PCSD secondary schools.
Related Literature
Various ineffective English language development evaluation methods used to initially
place and subsequently reclassify secondary level EBs have represented a significant
institutionalized obstacle for Latino PEBLs, standing in the way of greater language
development, academic performance, and educational outcomes for these learners within schools
in the State of California. These evaluations can significantly limit educational and language
development for this group of EBs in contrast to their peers.
More perniciously, the results of these evaluations may perpetuate the reproduction of
social inequality. Latino PEBLs are subjected to a battery of tests each year that all too
frequently bind them in programs that do not serve their unique academic and language
development needs. This can serve to exacerbate existing social stratification of these learners in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 9
a process that Bourdieu (1990) so insightfully described as the “objectification of the objectified”
(p. 30)
8
.
The State of California is required by federal mandate to identify Latino EBs and serve
their unique educational needs; yet at present, ineffective evaluation processes of English
language ability as well as academic performance can serve to deny these students of equitable
learning opportunities in classrooms. In turn, this may inhibit the academic trajectories of Latino
EBs, casting them in support classes not aligned with their unique language development and
academic needs. Testing accommodations, which could enhance the ability to measure language
development of EBs and thereby facilitate instruction, are consistently underutilized (Abedi,
Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004). The inability for schools to accurately assess language development
may result in inappropriate placement in remedial classes and eventually may manifest in poorer
graduation rates (Kim, 2011).
In addition to challenges in ascertaining language development, existing academic
assessment instruments used for EBs do not effectively measure academic language
development, determined to be critical in the development of PEBLs (Bailey, Burkett, &
Freeman, 2010; Francis, et al., 2006). Most vexingly, many EBs are incorrectly designated as
learning disabled through the administration of existing forms of assessment (Artiles & Trent,
1994; Artiles, Trent & Palmer, 2004; MacSwan & Rolstead, 2006). At the same time, the special

8
I endorse Bordieu’s (1990) critique of de Saussure’s (1974) description of language (langue) as “a system of
objective relations which makes possible both the production and the decoding of discourse” (p. 30). The formal
and informal evaluations used by agents of the State of California to evaluate and segregate EBs act precisely as
Bourdieu’s “objective and objectifying observer who, like a stage manager playing at will with the possibilities
offered by the objectifying instruments in order to bring the object closer or move it further away, to enlarge or
reduce it, imposes on the object his own norms of construction, as if in a dream of power” (p. 30). The dream of
equality in American schools that California’s Latino PEBLs seek through supposed equitable educational
opportunity is unmistakably defined and judged by this “observer” (de Saussure, p. 30), producing what Ogbu
(1998) saw as saw as eventual (even if predictable) social responses of opposition or lack of involvement in systems
perceived by the marginalized to be inequitable.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 10
needs of many learning-disabled students who also are classified as EBs are not identified
through the current forms of assessment (Abedi, 2006; Klingner & Harry, 2006). Complicating
the entire assessment process in meeting the academic and language development needs of EBs
even further, existing English language evaluation tools differ from district to district, and in
some cases from school to school (Olsen, 2010). This lack of consistency complicates
articulation between schools and districts (Menken & Kleyn, 2010), all too often resulting in
diminished educational opportunity for Latino EBs.
Existing assessments presently used in California schools to determine English language
development do not consistently demonstrate validity (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). At the
secondary level, the assessment results of PEBLs are not as closely related to language
development as they are with measuring extrinsic aspects of language development. Instead of
English language ability, these tests typically measure whether a student “interprets hypotheses;
supports opinion and conjectures” and is capable of “inference and critical analysis” (Wolf,
Farnsworth, and Herman, 2008, p. 92). Certainly, these capabilities are admittedly critical in the
evaluation of cognitive development and academic acumen; however, they are not necessarily
reflective of the degree of fluency in the target language. Secondary level PEBLs face far
greater challenges in demonstrating qualifying scores to exit English Language Learning (ELL)
programs, largely because “the exit criteria are far more extensive and challenging than the
initial placement criterion, requiring a student to reach a threshold performance in ELA and in
some instances additional content areas” (Bailey & Carrol, 2015, p. 266). The inability for EBs
to demonstrate language gains as measured by existing assessment forms is a strong contributor
to placement in remedial classes, resulting in higher dropout rates (Kim, 2011). Even when
extrinsic factors (including academic abilities, social background, and even behavioral issues)
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 11
were considered in statistical evaluation of EBs, “the longer a student is designated as LEP or
ELL, the more likely he or she is to drop out” (p. 48). The lack of validity in English language
assessment tools presently used by schools in the State of California to evaluate the English
language ability of EBs may correlate to the poor academic achievement of EBs, particularly for
secondary-level Latino PEBLs.
Even though existing initial placement and subsequent language development evaluations
lack validity that could otherwise be provided through practical accommodations in testing, this
mechanism is very rarely employed for EBs. Abedi (2006) demonstrated that accommodations
for EBs were in fact so successful in facilitating student understanding of test content, that it
drew into question “the fairness of assessments that are used for these students” (p. 2299). To
establish equity for all students, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
guarantees accommodations in testing for bilingual learners. Established in 1965, ESEA
demands that educational institutions provide EBs with “appropriate accommodations including,
to the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data
on what LEP students know and can do in the academic content areas until they have achieved
English language proficiency” (ESEA, 1965, § 1111[a][3][ix][III]). The challenge for secondary
level PEBLs is that their redesignation status relies upon demonstration of academic language
fluency as measured by standardized assessments; however, as a student develops basic
communication skills in English, accommodations are typically abandoned (Abedi, Leon, &
Mirocha, 2003). In turn, this results in a negative spiral of lower test scores, continued
placement in remedial programs, and a reinforcement of negative academic trajectories, even
when considering social and behavioural variables (Kim, 2011).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 12
Although PEBLs may demonstrate fluency in communication skills, they may
simultaneously lag behind peers in their ability to demonstrate academic language proficiency
(Menken & Kleyn, 2010, drawing on Cummins, 2000; Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2012). Even
though the importance of academic language proficiency for secondary level PEBLs has been
asserted (Bailey, Burkett, & Freeman, 2010; Francis, et al., 2006), only two states (Oregon and
Utah) have a demonstrated use of formal evaluations designed to ascertain academic language
proficiency of EBs (Wolf, et al., 2008). Secondary level PEBLs are particularly hampered by the
testing inadequacies associated with academic language development because these students do
not receive feedback on their progress in the “multiple forms of academic language proficiency
necessary for success in secondary and higher education” (Kinsella, 1997, p. 49). Lacking
effective evaluative instruments to measure the academic language development of Latino
PEBLs, the State of California does not grant these students an essential contribution to their
trajectories of language and academic development.
California’s inability to evaluate the needs of EBs is a significant problem because
assessment insufficiencies have segregated Latino PEBLs into imprecise instructional programs
that all too often do not meet the specific needs of these learners. Latino PEBLs in California are
far more likely to demonstrate lower levels of academic achievement in comparison to peer
groups. This has traditionally led to a decreased likelihood of these students entering post-
secondary academic institutions and it has significantly lessened the ability for Latino PEBLs
capitalize on career pathways that could lead to greater economic opportunities, in turn
facilitating the ability of these students to negotiate greater measures of social equality within a
democratic society that is undeniably shaped by capitalistic economic principles.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 13
Perhaps the most pernicious consequence of the ineffective assessment for EBs is the
distinctly more frequent identification of these learners as learning disabled (Artiles & Trent,
1994; Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; MacSwan & Rolstead, 2006). Equally problematic is the
inability for the assessments to accurately measure students with learning disabilities who are
also EBs (Abedi, 2006; Klingner, & Harry, 2006). MacSwan and Rolstead (2006), in their
rigorous analysis of the initial placement of EBs as learning disabled, found “doubts regarding
the construct validity of the test instruments, leading us to question the tests’ theoretical
foundations” (p. 2320). Research may demonstrate the invalidity of presently utilized
assessment forms designed to evaluate language development and academic performance of
EBs; however, the result of the continued application of inexact formal assessments of EBs by
the State of California as well as current formative and summative assessment forms used within
California schools has served to place these learners in academic tracks that have significantly
compromised their academic success at the secondary level. More importantly, this inequitable
application of assessments represents a considerable obstacle for the inclusion of these students
to post-secondary institutions.
The form of assessments used to evaluate EBs are at the very least ineffective; yet
magnifying these inadequacies is the complete absence of any articulated evaluative programs
within California schools. For that matter, cohesive application of assessment remains non-
existent in the United States, as “policies and procedures on accommodations varied widely,
partly due to their different assessment systems” (Wolf, et al., 2008, p. 3). California’s
assessment policies have considerable variance from district to district, from school to school,
and from classroom to classroom (Olsen, 2010). This often invites “a range of manipulations in
the name of improving test scores” (Koyama & Mencken, 2013, p. 91). The lack of consistent
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 14
and vetted assessment instruments for EBs also provides “incentives to mislead the students”
(Koyama & Mencken, 2013, p. 91) leading schools to insufficiently inform students and their
parents of the meaning of test scores and of their impact on the educational performance of
students.
Presently, California does not provide secondary level Latino PEBLs with accurate
information of their initial English language status, or for that matter of the development of their
language and academic abilities. The ineffectiveness of these critical aspects of the educational
process often has manifest into inappropriate placement in remedial education, significantly
hampering the development of academic language proficiency, so crucial to educational
effectiveness at the secondary and post-secondary levels. At the same time, assessments that rely
on language ability to demonstrate cognitive and behavioural consistencies may incorrectly place
PEBLs in special education programs, or may deprive many of these students with specific
learning disabilities of placement in vital support programs. Taken collectively, the existing
assessment policies, forms, and practices used to by LEAs in California to evaluate the
development of Latino PEBLs represent a considerable obstacle for these learners. The
unfortunate impact is that many of the Latino PEBLs in California do not maximize their
educational potential, denying society of a valuable contribution to critical dimensions of
necessary social progress.
Systems of Activity
In PCSD’s secondary schools, site-level contribution to the reclassification of EBs from
limited to fluent English proficient (RFEP) involves two distinct processes: (a) evaluation by
English teachers of the academic competency of EBs, and (b) teacher recommendation of student
English language fluency as measured by bi-annual benchmark assessments established by the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 15
district. Each of these is performed solely by secondary English teachers. These processes of
evaluation will be investigated more thoroughly in upcoming chapters. Yet these specific
teacher activities exist within a larger general activity system that considerably influences each
teacher’s practices. These influences may not be overt; however, even if covert in nature, they
may exact an even greater impact upon teachers. These influences are dynamic, and difficult to
objectify with precision; however, application of Engeström’s (1987) Third Generation Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) illuminates the “structural tensions within and between
activity systems” (Engeström, 2008, p. 205), shaping the fluid “process of becoming” (p. 49) in
which teachers in PCSD are continually engaged as they evaluate Latino PEBLs.
In effect, the principles of the Engeström’s Third Generation CHAT model serve to
clarify the often-discrete socio-cultural interactions omnipresent in the educational enterprise,
“making cycles of expansive transition collectively mastered journeys through zones of proximal
development” (p. 257). Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) foundation of learning as “a complex,
mediated act” (p. 40), Engeström’s Third Generation CHAT model considers the rich tapestry of
interacting activity systems in the social environment, providing deeper degrees of insight of the
influences on teacher’s practices that go beyond personal knowledge and motivational
influences, not to mention those of the organization in which the teachers evaluate learners.
Effective application of this intricate activity system requires considerable knowledge of
foundational scholars in the field of activity theory (Leont'ev, 1978 & 1981; Il'enkov, 1977 &
1982), as well as a keen understanding of diverse philosophical foundations of Marx (1909,
1971, 1973, & 1976) Hegel (1966), and Habermas (1984), each of which influences Engeström’s
Third Generation CHAT model. Yet the degree of clarity that this theoretical approach offers is
indispensable in ultimately ascertaining both the tacit and explicit influences that shape teacher
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 16
evaluation, grading, and recommendation of Latino PEBLs for RFEP. Reflecting on
Engeström’s (2008) “triangles of activities” (p. 59), the Third Generation CHAT model
integrates Hegel’s (1966) triadic structure of the cultural mediation of activity in which humans
engage, while also capitalizing on the theories of communicative action by Habermas (1984)
under the umbrella of Marx’s (1976) conceptualization of human social production (See Figure
3).

Figure 3. Engeström’s (1987) Third Generation Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT).
The Third Generation CHAT model is distinguished from previous iterations of the CHAT
models in that it considers two interacting activity systems, instead of one. As Engeström (2008)
detailed, this is the minimal configuration, and in fact multiple interacting systems may interact.
Regarding the production of the evaluation of Latino PEBLs for RFEP, I conceive that
two specific activity systems are most strongly connected with these processes of evaluation: a
teacher activity system, and a student activity system. To gain full insight into the activity
systems that result in teacher evaluations, it would be necessary to investigate both systems. To
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 17
be certain, the student activity system would shed considerable understanding on the production
of language and academic performance that Latino PEBLs produce and that teachers of EBs
evaluate. In fact, without student production of language, these evaluations by teachers would be
non-existent. Yet the temporal restrictions of the present inquiry, as well as the logistical
challenges in researching student populations within classrooms places a comprehensive study of
both teacher and student activity systems beyond my reach at the present. Instead, I have chosen
to focus my inquiry on the teacher activity system, with the acknowledgement that at the very
least, student activity systems play a significant part.
It is important to recognize that I am not holding a third-generation CHAT model view
of the activity system of teacher production of evaluations as removed from other activity
systems; therefore, I have depicted the Third Generation CHAT model (Figure 3), as well as my
more detailed depiction of the teacher activity system (Figure 4) within the larger interactive
system that creates secondary English teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs for RFEP. My
model of the activity system of secondary English teachers as they complete their evaluations of
Latino PEBLs contains four triangles, which represent different systems of activities in which
dynamic interchanges of processes interrelate. Each of these sub-triangles contributes to a larger
triangle, representing the totality of cultural production, which in the case of this study is the
entire RFEP process. Importantly, as Engeström (2008) revealed, the “essential task is always to
grasp the systemic whole, not just separate connections” (p. 94). To that end, Marx’s (1973)
“mutual interaction” guides my model, with the understanding that secondary English teacher’s
production of RFEP of Latino PEBLs is part of the larger totality of socio-cultural processes that
reflect Lewontin’s (1982) perspective that individuals “do not adapt to environments; they
construct them” (p. 163). Activity processes dynamically interact along the pathways of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 18
triangles, shaped by the concomitant influences of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements, as reflected by arrows within each of the activity pathways (See Figure 4).

Figure 4. Activity System: Teacher Evaluation of Latino PEBLs for RFEP.
Incorporating Marx’s (1973) approach to the totality of cultural production, the four sub-
triangles of my model consider production, consumption, exchange, and distribution. Located at
the top of the activity system, the production sub-triangle focuses on the multiple formal and
informal assessments that teachers use to determine the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. This particular sub-triangle also includes the various
manifestations of technology that teachers utilize in the socio-cultural production of the diverse
formative and summative evaluations of language development and academic performance, as
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 19
well as the production of teacher’s instruction from which they base their judgments of Latino
PEBL’s language and academic capabilities. Directly below the production sub-triangle and at
the center of the larger triangle is the consumption sub-triangle. At this activity locus, teachers,
members of the community, and the processes of student evaluation interact based on the degree
of consumption of the production to which each stakeholder inheres.
Marx (1973) stated that production and consumption “increase together with the
independence and indifference of the consumers and producers to one another” (p. 160), and for
secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs, these aspects of production and consumption
significantly shape teacher evaluations of these learners. Beyond the surface of the consideration
of the RFEP process, teachers (as well as the immediate and extended community) consume the
determination in the form of the score on the tests, only to shape future production by
stakeholders who continue to contribute to that production. The exchange sub-triangle
investigates the totality of external and internal forms of accountability that influence the
processes of teachers, including legal factors, expected bureaucratic practices at the site and
district level, administrator evaluation of the teacher's ability to accurately evaluate the language
and content-area development of Latino PEBLs, and ultimately, each teacher’s own disposition
in aligning their systems of internal accountability with existing forms of external accountability.
In the lower right side of the figure (see Figure 4), the distribution sub-triangle (described
by Engeström (2008) as the “apprenticeship of power” (p. 107)) reflects the interaction of
diverse stakeholders based on social laws and customs that shape the articulation of the
production and consumption between and among stakeholders. As Marx (1973) explained,
distribution considers the ongoing transaction “between production and consumption in the form
of general, dominant determinants” (p. 89), and dependent upon the diverse characteristics of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 20
stakeholders involved in the immediate and extended process of RFEP of Latino PEBLs, the
distribution activity system will shift according to each stakeholder’s ability to command those
laws and customs.
Multiple factors interrelate as they influence each of the activity pathways. Yet the
whole system (or the larger triangle of the teacher process of RFEP for Latino PEBLs) exists
within the larger sphere of the entire scholastic experience provided to the community of
students, and by extension, to the extended community. This can have a significant cultural
influence on the academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Seemingly simple, teacher processes
that lead to the RFEP of Latino PEBLs exist within a socio-cultural system that is a complex
network of activities shaped by factors that have become institutionalized, very often not to the
benefit of Latino PEBLs.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of a disproportionate percentage of Latino PEBLs in the State of California
(and for the purposes of this study, PCSD) not developing English fluency within six years is
important to solve for three constitutive reasons: (a) the perpetuation of economic inequalities
privileging some groups at the expense of others serves to threaten the financial productivity of
the nation; (b) the betrayal of established legal obligations, including the guarantee of equal
treatment under the law as presented in the fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution serves to threaten the trust of all citizens in its judicial system; and (c) the
perpetuation of social inequalities that carve divisions within a society built on equality threatens
the very bedrock of equality upon which our nation has been constructed.
The primary reason for addressing the performance problem of the diminished academic
performance of Latino PEBLs is economic. Without gaining fluency in English, 12% of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 21
students in the State of California will not have the critical skills to compete in the increasingly
competitive global marketplace (Belfield & Levin, 2007). Belfield and Levin (2007) estimated
that California’s inability to prepare these students for post-secondary education will create a
staggering loss of $27.8 billion through the lack of productivity and the greater strain on existing
social support structures.
The secondary reason is one of legal responsibility, as the Federal Government and the
State of California have mandated that all learners are provided with equal access to education
(Castañeda v. Pickard, Keyes v. School District #1, Lau v. Nichols, & Title 20 § 1703f, & CA-
AB 2193). In not meeting the educational needs of its population of Latino PEBLs, California is
stretching the boundaries of significant legal guidelines, opening the door to potentially lengthy
(and costly) litigation.
The tertiary reason is that the State of California has a social responsibility to advocate on
behalf of its citizenry and to fulfill its promises of equality and diversity extended to all learners
in the California public educational system. Saddled by ineffective methods in the evaluation of
Latino PEBLs, far too many educational systems in the State of California are presently
exacerbating existing obstacles for a marginalized population, in effect promoting inequality and
virtually guaranteeing significant challenges in the advancement of social inclusion for that
population.
Finally, the reproduction of social inequality that the existing practices have perpetuated
at the expense of Latino PEBLs exacerbates social divisions within California and the United
States of America. For economic, legal, and social reasons, the State of California has a
responsibility to establish effective evaluation programs for its population of Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 22
Description of Stakeholder Group
Secondary English teachers in PCSD demonstrate a considerable range of experiences in
working with EBs, from teachers who only teach classes dedicated to the needs of EBs to
teachers who may only have one or two EBs in their classes, and who may not even be aware
that the students are EBs. Similarly, the experiences of teachers who educate Latino PEBLs
differ considerably. Some teachers may be in their first year of teaching and are likely to have
taken classes designed to prepare teachers to meet the needs of EBs. Some teachers may have
even been prepared to meet the needs of PEBLs via teacher training programs. These programs
allow new teachers to complete courses that lead to the Crosscultural Language and Academic
Development (CLAD) certificate required by the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC) for teachers to be certified as highly qualified teachers (HQT). Other
teachers may have had to complete a mandated assessment (the California Teacher of English
Learners, or CTEL) of their ability in teaching EBs, leading to CLAD certification. Still other
teachers who were teaching prior to 2005 may have been compelled by their districts to earn an
SB 1969 Certificate of Completion, or a Certificate of Completion of Staff Development (CCSD)
in addition to nine semester units of advanced coursework approved by the CCTC. The CCTC
expects all teachers of EBs to have fulfilled a second language requirement. Interestingly, the
commission has determined that a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary
institution is sufficient “to have satisfied the second language requirement” (CTCC, 2015).
Diverse methods of certification and preparation notwithstanding, and in contrast to Los Angeles
County’s percentage of 84% secondary English teachers who are HQT, PCSD demonstrates
100% HQT in all of its schools.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 23
Organizational Performance Goals
In its 2015-16 Local Education Agency Plan (LEAP), PCSD asserted that 47% of its
3,609 EBs would advance one or more levels, and that 20% would be classified as
Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) (See Table 1) by June of 2016 (California
Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2015).
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Group Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The Pacific Coast School District strives to ensure that each and every student is educated and prepared to
succeed in life. We are dedicated to maximizing individual potential and developing lifelong learners who will be
contributing members in a global society
Pacific Coast School District Organizational Performance Goal:
All English Learners (ELL) will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards at a minimum
attaining proficiency or better in Reading/Language Arts.
Secondary English Teachers of ELD Students
 By September 1, 2016, all PCSD ELD teachers will provide consistent and regular doses of instruction in
Guided Reading for all English Learner students, K-12, in English Language Arts, EL support and/or
Intervention courses.
 Increase CELDT performance (less than 5 years) from 69.9% to 71.9% for 2016.
 Increase CELDT performance (more than 5 years) from 61.3% to 63.3% for 2016.
 Increase the percentage of students who are redesignated as Fluent English Proficient to 20% of the
population.

Curiously, after a redesign of the district’s website in 2017, the existing LEAP was
removed and replaced with only the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). This plan
described a more restrained goal for EBs in PCSD: “Maintain EL proficiency, including
releveling and re-designation [sic] rates” (LCAP, 2017). PCSD has shown a consistent pattern of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 24
shifting its expectations for EBs.
9
At the very least, this is potentially indicative of an
organizational misalignment of goals. It may even indicate degrees of impropriety in jiggering
documented goals to present the performance of the district in a more flattering light.
Following the adoption of the English Language Development Standards by the State of
California on November 7, 2012, PCSD has used three levels for the initial designation and
subsequent redesignation process for EBs: Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging—each of which
has an early and exit stage (California Department of Education, 2014). Three assessments are
used by PCSD to determine the language development of EBs from one level to another: (a) the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT), administrated yearly by certified
district representatives; (b) the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System, administered
biannually by English teachers at each site; and finally, (c) the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP), administered by designated PCSD representatives
following at least 66 percent of the instructional year for grades 3-8, and following at least 80
percent of the instructional year for grade 11 (California Department of Education, 2015). In
addition, to determine the level of English fluency of its population of EBs, PCSD requires that
teachers of EBs in the district provide biannual evaluations and recommendations for each of the
district’s EBs. At the secondary level, this means that each secondary English teacher must
evaluate the language development and academic performance of EBs twice yearly. Finally, the

9
PCSD consistently shifted its organizational goals for EBs between 2014-2017. For January of 2015, PCSD’s goal
as established in its Annual Measurable Academic Outcomes (AMAO) was that 20% of EBs would be RFEP. This
was revised by the district with its July 2015 LEA Plan, which reflected a goal that 5% of learners would be RFEP.
Even more interestingly, starting in 2016 and carrying on through 2017, PCSD’s LCAP reflected a considerable
change in the goals for the RFEP of EBs to the more manageable “maintain EL proficiency including releveling and
re-designation rates, as measured by CELDT and AMAO’s.” Were the district to meet its performance goals for
RFEP each year, fully 50% of EBs would be consistently labeled as LTELs, and only 10% of learners would
progress to fluency each year. In 2017, only 10% of EBs in PCSD were categorized as RFEP (California
Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2017).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 25
district uses summative grades in all classes taken by EBs as a final criterion in determining
redesignation of EBs from level to level, or for designation as RFEP. Final decisions for RFEP
of EBs are ultimately and unilaterally rendered by representatives of PCSD’s English Language
Development and Language Assessment Center.
The Pacific Coast School District established its goals for EBs through a planning
process that began in August of 2013, and was renewed each subsequent year. The initial plan,
entitled the Local Control and Accountability Plan Collaborative Plan (LCAP), was adopted by
the PCSD School Board on June 30, 2014. According to PCSD’s (2015) website, the LCAP was
created by a consortium of a diverse range of “parents, community members, students, employee
associations, administrators, and district leadership” (p. 3). PCSD utilized California Education
Code sections 52060-52067 to provide a framework of expectations for EBs; the district also
employed existing evaluation metrics contained in its Comprehensive Educational Achievement
Plan of 2012. The district updates the LCAP annually, with a review of the progress in meeting
the stated goals, as well as any necessary changes to those goals, which in turn are submitted to
the PCSD School Board for approval.
Stakeholders are the lifeblood of the highly effective contemporary organization. In an
increasingly diverse and dynamic global marketplace, maximizing organizational productivity
relies upon the ability of the organization to harness the considerable contribution of increasingly
diverse stakeholders. With an alignment of values and empowered interpersonal relationships,
stakeholders can provide organizations with considerable operational advantages (Wheeler &
Sillanpa, 1998). Equally important, in organizations in which partners develop shared trust, the
critical capacity for organizations to adapt is significantly increased (Kanter, 1999). Regarding
educational organizations, ample research demonstrates that a shared understanding of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 26
institutional goals and purpose among stakeholders improves instructional results (Deal &
Peterson, 1990; Leithwood, 1994; Purkey & Smith, 1985).
In its legally binding LEA and LCAP, PCSD overtly states that it involves each of its
stakeholder groups in establishing organizational goals, as well as in district-level decision-
making. The district also proclaims that it has encouraged site-level decision-making in each of
the various facilities in the district to capitalize on the unique contributions of its 1,065 teachers,
56 certificated administrators (California Department of Education, 2015), as well as a staff of
800 classified and at-will support contributors (2016, personal communication, PCSD Public
Information Officer). Following the California Public Schools Accountability Act (1999), PCSD
states that it consistently “consult[s] with teachers, principals, administrators, other school
personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing a local
control and accountability plan (LCAP).” Although planning in PCSD does involve a diverse
range of stakeholders, secondary English teachers (with very rare exception) have not
participated in forming district-level or site-level specific performance goals for the district’s
population of EBs. PCSD has no established goals of any kind for the performance of Latino
PEBLs.
In their service to the extended Maplewood community, PCSD has created various
objectives that it uses to direct the actions of the organization. The degree of involvement of
district-level administrators in forming these goals and whether they were established in
collaboration or autonomously by the various leaders of each focus area of service is unclear
based on documentation provided by PCSD. During my inquiry, I found that the larger
community did not consistently command an equal level of participation in the formation of
those objectives. For example, the district disclosed that parent stakeholders contributed to the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 27
LCAP, but this participation did not include involvement in decision-making, instead taking the
form of attendance at various events such as “Spanish Parent Night” and “Title I Parent Night.”
Similarly, the district disclosed that students participated in forming the LCAP; however, this
participation involved a small handful of elected student government representatives from each
secondary school who participated in one “LCAP Consultation” that lasted under an hour.
Finally, the district disclosed that teachers contributed to the LCAP, as they were said to have
met at an event that was not specified in existing documentation. At no time were all teachers in
the district notified that they could participate in this process.
From a perspective of external accountability, PCSD did include all stakeholder groups in
forming the LCAP; however, observation of the degree of stakeholder participation in these
events would not reflect anything more than a cursory attendance at events. Considering these
events as occasions for the inclusion of all parents, students, and teachers in forming goals and
objectives for the organization would not be a credible representation of the actions taken by
PCSD over the course of my study.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
My study, which focused on the formative and summative evaluations of Latino PEBLs,
investigated the performance of the stakeholder group comprised entirely of secondary English
teachers. The district does not provide demographic statistics of its population of English
teachers, nor does the State of California. However, specific demographics of the total
population of teachers in the district have been published. Most teachers in the district identified
as female, at 78% (832), contrasted with 22% (233) who identified as male. The ethnic
demographics of the certificated employees in the district differed significantly in comparison
with the student population. At the time of my study, White teachers predominated at 67.8%
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 28
(722). Asian teachers formed 16% (170) of the total population (California Department of
Education, 2015). The population of White and Asian students measured 25.6% (5,831) for the
former, and 29.6% (7,123) for the latter. At the time of my study, Hispanic or Latino teachers in
PCSD numbered 8.7% in contrast to a student population of 27.4% (6,686).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to utilize a gap analysis to investigate the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that interrelated in shaping English teacher’s biannual
benchmark evaluations and recommendations of Latino Persistently Emergent Bilingual
Learners (PEBLs) for RFEP.
The study asked:
o How do the dynamic influences of knowledge and motivation react, interact, and
counteract with organizational influences in shaping the language development and
academic evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers?
Methodological Framework
In evaluating the present effectiveness of secondary English teacher evaluation and
recommendation of Latino PEBLs in PCSD for RFEP, I have applied Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis. Gap analysis is a problem-solving approach designed to evaluate the human causes
resulting in performance gaps between performance expectations and the actual performance
within an organization. My study sought to understand potential interfering influences
preventing realization of organizational goals, drawing from foundational and emergent literature
in the fields of the learning and evaluation of EBs (with a focus on Latino PEBLs). Ultimately, I
have evaluated findings gained through a comprehensive three-tiered inquiry of secondary
English teachers in PCSD and have made appropriate and comprehensive recommendations for
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 29
PCSD to facilitate improved realization of organizational goals for the language development
and academic performance for PCSD’s population of Latino PEBLs.
Organization of the Project
My study is comprised of five chapters. In this, the initial chapter, I provide insight into
PCSD’s mission and vision, a description of its stakeholders, as well as a reflection upon related
literature that concerns the evaluations of EBs and the larger social influences that shape these
evaluations. In this chapter, I also provide a critical background of the large population of Latino
PEBLs in the State of California who command conversational levels of English, but who are
unable to demonstrate grade level reading or writing skills for six consecutive years as measured
by criteria selected by the various LEA within the State of California (Olsen & Jaramillo, 1999).
I conclude the chapter with an exploration of critical social forces that have produced practices
of institutional discrimination in PCSD. In Chapter Two, I evaluate critical foundational and
emergent literature that investigates the multiple challenges teachers face in their academic and
language development evaluations of EBs. Subsequently, in Chapter Three, I share my
discoveries of the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences I have identified that
shaped secondary English teacher’s evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. In this chapter, I also include a precise explanation of
sample populations used for the analysis, as well as the methods of data collection that I have
employed. In Chapter Four, I share the findings I discovered during a three-tiered qualitative
data collection process followed by rigorous analysis. Finally, in Chapter Five, I deliver
recommendations for PCSD based on my evaluation of the corpus of data. Additionally, I apply
my critical discoveries gained from existing literature and my comprehensive inquiry of
secondary English teacher’s evaluations of Latino PEBLs in the form of a comprehensive
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 30
solution plan that will increase PCSD’s ability to promote more proficient English language
development and increased academic performance by the district’s population of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 31
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND LITERATURE
Although external accountability systems established by the State of California have
placed precise expectations upon educational institutions engaged in the redesignation process of
Latino PEBLs for Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP), these systems have seldom
been in alignment with existing systems of internal accountability at districts and schools. This
alignment is of critical importance, in that it could potentially increase fidelity in the effective
evaluation of these learners, ultimately providing them with increased potential for enriched
educational outcomes. In the present chapter, I will evaluate with depth and precision the totality
of factors that shape internal systems of accountability in the secondary-level institutions
entrusted to develop English fluency among EBs, with a focus on secondary teacher evaluations
of Latino PEBLs.
In the initial section, I will investigate the broad range of social factors that shape
inequitable educational outcomes for marginalized populations. I will examine how the
interaction of stakeholders at each site can influence educational and language development
evaluations, both critical contributors to positive educational outcomes for Latino PEBLs.
Subsequent to this foundational exploration, I will explore the pivotal role of the teacher and
their systems of internal accountability, with special attention devoted to the influence of
educational philosophies in developing dispositions that shape a teacher’s evaluative practices.
To understand the dynamic interaction of influences upon teacher stakeholders who are involved
in forming, adjusting, and readjusting their own systems of internal accountability, I will
conclude this chapter with a critical gap analysis of secondary English teacher’s internal systems
of accountability drawn from knowledge, motivational, and organizational perspectives.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 32
Social and Cultural Influences
The evaluation and recommendation of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers in
PCSD takes place within a larger socio-cultural sphere that includes the unique attributes of
minority populations as well as larger institutional factors that dynamically contribute to produce
often invisible forms of inequity. Secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs command a
considerable influence on the advancement of these learners through decisions rendered in
formative and summative classroom evaluations of language development and academic
performance. These teachers formalize their influence through PCSD’s biannual language
evaluations and recommendations of EBs for RFEP. Yet these decisions are shaped by forces
that are part of the larger American society, including the educational institutions that represent
that society, as well as more localized sociocultural influences that have contributed to the
actions of educational institutions in California, such as those by PCSD. Diverse populations of
minorities have historically received differential treatment in American schools, and while the
forms of discrimination may not be overt following a legacy of legislation that promotes social
equality, institutionalized discrimination against marginalized populations (including Latino
learners) has continued to exert considerable influence on the practices of educational institutions
in the United States, and this influence has proven to have a negative impact on the academic
trajectories of Latino learners (Salinas, 2005).
Diverse Educational Characteristics of Minority Populations
John Ogbu (1978) established that diverse minority populations differed considerably in
their connections to the societies in which they exist, based on each population’s implicit and
explicit social and cultural connections to those societies. Ogbu’s delineation of these
differences led him to label minority populations as “autonomous, immigrant, and involuntary or
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 33
castelike” (p. 46). Ogbu demonstrated that the distinct characteristics of each group contributed
considerably to the academic trajectories of the members of that group. For some minority
groups, this meant a successful integration of new-found social expectations into their existing
cultures, resulting in a greater potential for academic success. For example, students from the
autonomous group are those who come from cultures within which they may have been “victims
of prejudice and pillory but not of stratification” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 46). As a result of their status
within the society, those from autonomous groups typically have a “cultural frame of reference
which demonstrates and encourages academic success” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 46). In the American
school system, these minorities would not be perceived as minorities, even though their
characteristics would suggest otherwise. For example, Jewish or Mormon students are typically
not considered minorities, and are unlikely to be provided with any different instruction based on
their minority statuses (Ogbu, 1978).
Ogbu (1978) explained that the immigrant minority groups are those who elected to join a
nation because of the opportunities they perceived could be gained through migration from their
former homelands. These groups typically demonstrate a consistent longitudinal improvement in
academic success that very frequently initiates with difficulty in demonstrating high levels of
academic performance; however, “their problems are not characterized by persistent adjustment
difficulties or low academic performance” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 46), due largely to a more secure
sense of cultural identity, and a desire to align with the existing social structures within the social
systems “which Whites control” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 46). Autonomous and immigrant minority
groups are not faced with intractable educational obstacles owing to their existing status within
the dominant society. On the other hand, the involuntary (or the castelike) minority groups have
faced and continue to face persistent systemic roadblocks to academic success.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 34
Involuntary or castelike minority groups are those who have been subsumed through
“slavery, conquest, or colonization” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 46). One particular involuntary or castelike
minority group in the United States, the Latino minority group, has persistently faced various
state, local, and federal educational influences that do not align with the existing values, cultural
expectations, or needs of this population. Instead, the dominant systems of power in the United
States have perennially sought to subjugate the Latino population in order to maintain systematic
dimensions of social control. While in the contemporary era these forms of subjugation may not
be overt, the tradition of a social endorsement of marginalization of Latino populations very
often remains, even if tacitly enforced and reproduced. The result has become an intractable gap
in academic achievement for Latinos in comparison to the majority population of students as
well as in comparison with the autonomous and immigrant minority groups of students.
For Latino students in America, academic achievement very often means sacrificing
existing cultural values in order to align with a society that has historically marginalized it. For
these students, “cultural and language differences become boundary-maintaining mechanisms
between themselves and the dominant group” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 48). In effect, the process of
accommodating the demands of academic achievement and social expectations placed upon them
by the majoritarian White population in the American society represents a considerable challenge
to Latinos in that these expectations are “threatening to their own cultures, languages, and
identities” (Ogbu, 1978, p. 48). For many Latino students in schools throughout the United
States, preserving their existing culture can mean opposing the institution of education that
would otherwise commodify these students based on the explicit and implicit demands of the
White majority population that have become entrenched through the cultural reproduction of
inequality. Through the often-silent perpetuation of cultural dominion by the majoritarian White
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 35
culture in the United States of America, many members of involuntary Latino populations have
become oppositional to the authority they perceive being enforced in classrooms and on the
campuses of the public schools in California, complicating realization of academic success.
The Power of Hidden Structures of Inequity
The potential gains in academic achievement that could be realized by a more authentic
alignment of the demographic characteristics of teachers and students are not necessarily the
result of ethnic identification; rather, it is the assertion of the value of the marginalized as having
importance in the society through participation as agents of power in that society. The process
through which this agency is formed has little to do with overt curriculum, or for that matter
praxeological considerations; instead, they have to do with what Eisner (1985) described as the
Null Curriculum, or “the options students are not afforded, the perspectives they may never
know about, much less be able to use, [and] the concepts and skills that are not part of their
intellectual repertoire” (1985, p. 107). Null curriculum can be described as the perpetuation of
the hidden structures of power that reproduce inequality, further marginalizing the marginalized
by not providing them with models of their ethnic groups in positions of power within schools.
These hierarchical power structures, while not overt, are nevertheless powerful social agents for
the participants in the system because they may invisibly (yet forcefully) model to learners the
assumption of the legitimacy of the majority and the illegitimacy of the minority. Ultimately,
these invisible structures may erode any potential for power among the marginalized. More
perniciously, they may facilitate reproduction of an oppositional response, which, for many
Latino students, may result in them dropping out of school altogether (Romo & Falbo, 1996).
For the marginalized population of Latino PEBLs in California public schools, the reproduction
of this null curriculum of inequality in the various institutions of learning can contribute to a
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 36
greater propensity for a lack of commitment by these students to a system that does not reflect
their own experiences, and consequently may reproduce existing educational and social
inequalities that perpetually position Latinos on the margins of society.
Misalignment of Institutional and Student Demographics
Presently, Latino PEBLs in the State of California are deprived of the equitable
opportunity for increased language development and academic performance through institutional
cultural discontinuities that have been shaped by a disproportionate lack of qualified minority
teachers and administrators. The lack of a more equitable ethnic representation of Latino
educational professionals who can meet the needs of minority student populations has served to
diminish the potential for cultural alignment between the values of the institution and the values
of the Latino student, critical in the academic development of minority populations—especially
among marginalized population of Latino students (Blanco-Vega, Castro-Olivo, & Merrell,
2008). In 2014-15, California’s 3,321,274 students who were characterized as Hispanic or
Latino represented the majority population of all learners in the state (53.3%); however, this
population was instructed by 189,734 (66.8%) White teachers in comparison to 50,174 Hispanic
or Latino teachers (17.7%) (California Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2015).
The inability for school districts in California to provide Latino students in California public
schools with equitable representations of Latino teachers and administrators remains one of the
more intractable obstacles preventing higher academic achievement by marginalized populations
of students.
First demonstrated by Coleman, et al. (1966), the gap in academic achievement between
majority White populations and minority populations continues to persist (Hemphill &
Vanneman, 2011), despite mandates by the Federal Government and the State of California
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 37
averring that all learners are provided with equal access to education (Castañeda v.
Pickard, Keyes v. School District #1, Lau v. Nichols, & Title 20 § 1703f, & CA-AB 2193).
Research has long demonstrated the positive social dimensions provided to marginalized
students in learning communities in which minority educators are significant contributors (Ogbu,
1978; Baker, 1993; Banks, 1993; d’Amato, 1993). Moreover, Piaget’s (1977) and von
Glasserfeld’s (1995) respective demonstrations of the critical importance of social factors in the
learning process (Brown & Campione, 1994; Dilworth & Coleman, 2014) provided strong
evidence in support of the role of minority teachers in facilitating academic achievement in
marginalized student populations. Despite research asserting the favorable social and academic
development of students who are instructed by more diverse teacher populations, the potential
remedy of more equitably aligning teacher populations with minority student populations
remains incompletely integrated into California public schools.
Racial congruency in teacher populations. Providing minority learners with a more
equitable representation of minority teacher populations performs a vital institutional function of
modeling equitable institutional structures for students, demonstrating for them the possibility of
equality within society. Villegas and Irvine (2010) concluded that increased diversity in teacher
populations is a significant factor in “helping address the pernicious racial/ethnic achievement
gap, a major problem with profound implications for the health of this country” (p. 188). This
potential presentation of structural equality would represent an important validation for
marginalized members in a society that promises equality. At the same time, better alignment of
minority teachers with minority learners can promote academic achievement. Egalite, Kisida,
and Winters (2015) found that “race congruent” (p. 48) teachers can have a positive influence on
student achievement, particularly for lower achieving students. Of critical importance, these
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 38
researchers discovered that teacher quality may have a lesser impact on the achievement for
these marginalized groups than does the alignment of ethnicity, with results that are “indicative
of a race/ethnicity matching effect rather than systematic differences in teacher quality by
race/ethnicity” (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015, p. 51). Schools choosing to employ a
culturally responsive representation of teachers that aligns with student populations can provide
traditionally marginalized learners with more equitable structures and opportunities that promote
rather than retard the development of inclusion for the marginalized within the enterprise of
education.
The academic performance of Latino students in American schools can be improved by
providing these students with more equitable representation of Latino educators. Clewell et al.
(2005) discovered that the academic success of Latino students was positively influenced
through an alignment of the percentage of student populations with percentages of Latino
teachers in schools. Conversely, in schools in which a misalignment of teacher and student
ethnicity had persisted, Latino students may face institutional obstacles that inhibit academic
success. Dee (2005) demonstrated in a rigorous statistical analysis of existing data sets that
Latino students were likely to be “perceived more negatively by a teacher who does not share
their racial/ethnic designation” (p. 163). Although objectivity in assessment may be an ideal in
classrooms, the reality is that subjective judgments predominate, particularly in secondary
schools where “a hodgepodge of attitude, effort, conduct, growth, and achievement” (Cross &
Frary, 1999, p. 7) determine grades. The potential for discrimination of teachers against Latinos
in grading may exist, and it may manifest in diminished measures of achievement.
Congruency in the alignment between the ethnicity of Latino students and teachers
represents an important demonstration of fidelity by the agents of power in the society that its
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 39
promises of equality will be realized. The result can be profound for Latino PEBLs, as Fraga et
al. (1986) established that in schools with high Latino student populations, larger populations of
Latino teachers and administrators increased the likelihood of these students graduating high
school and gaining access to post-secondary education.
Recruitment and retention of Latino teachers. Based on compelling research
indicating the potential for improved social and academic results through improved demographic
alignment of school administrators and teachers with student populations, an obvious solution to
the persistence of diminished academic performance by Latino students would be to staff schools
with a greater percentage of Latino educational professionals. Yet the reality is that the present
institutional structures in California schools often make such a practical step difficult, if not
impossible. For many years, the primary obstacle standing in the way of hiring more minority
teachers was the lack of suitably trained minority teachers; however, that trend has shifted to the
extent that Ingersoll and May (2011) were able to establish that “over the past two decades, the
number of minority teachers has almost doubled, outpacing growth in both the number of White
teachers and the number of minority students” (p. i). Despite the measured shift in hiring
statistics, a considerable gap still exists between the percentages of minority teachers and
learners.
Several factors contribute to this disparity. The most significant factor is the rapid
increase in the past twenty years of minority student populations, especially those characterized
by the State of California as Hispanic or Latino. In their longitudinal analysis of California
public school attendance, Carroll, et al. (2005) declared that in 2000, 33% of students were
characterized as Hispanic or Latino, in comparison to 47% characterized as White. According to
the CDE (2015), the population of students characterized as Hispanic or Latino in the year 2015
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 40
totaled 53%. Even though the increase of Latino teachers in California was significant, given the
historical paucity of the population of these teachers in California schools, the growth over the
past decade was insufficient to produce equitable demographic alignment between Latino
educators and Latino students.
The population of Latino teachers who have entered the profession may have increased in
the past twenty years; however, the retention of these teachers has not been commensurate with
that of the White majority population of teachers. One of the most significant factors in the
lesser degree of retention for Latino teachers is that they are most frequently “employed in public
schools serving high-poverty, high minority, and urban communities” (Ingersoll & May, 2011, p.
i). As research demonstrates, these schools face organizational challenges most frequently
related to funding and management issues, and it is these schools that most frequently employ
minority teachers. In fact, the schools that “are more likely to employ minority teachers often
also have less desirable organizational conditions” (Ingersoll & May, 2011, p. 43), and it is very
likely that these conditions are the greatest cause for minority teacher departures, even above
“salaries, the provision of professional development or the availability of classroom resources”
(Ingersoll & May, 2011, p. 43). Salaries may not be the only reason for the departure of these
teachers, yet it is worth noting that in California, “low-salary districts disproportionately serve
much larger proportions of students of color and ELLs than districts offering the most
competitive salaries” (Adamson & Darling-Hamilton, 2012, p. 22). As Adamson & Darling-
Hamilton (2012) detailed, Latino students in California were twice as likely to be taught by non-
credentialed and inexperienced teachers. Essentially, the consequences of this funding disparity
has produced an organizational reality in which Latino students are largely being provided with
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 41
less-qualified teachers who are very likely to leave the profession before they develop their skills
to the fullest potential.
Latino leadership and Latino student achievement. The alignment of Latino teacher
populations with Latino students is only one facet (albeit a critical one) in the formation of more
equitable institutional structures which could potentially enable rather than disable the
educational potential of Latino learners. The impact of a more equitable representation of Latino
administrators has a demonstrated impact in developing school cultures that are more conducive
to academic advancement for Latino students. Ross, Rouse, and Bratton (2010) reaffirmed
previously mentioned findings of the improvement of Latino student performance in schools
with more equitable representation of Latino teachers. Importantly, these researchers also
discovered that Latino administrators are more likely to staff their schools with Latino teachers,
critical to the success of Latino students.
Beyond the capacity for Latino school leaders to significantly shift the demographic
representation of teachers in classrooms, Latino school leaders perform an important symbolic
role for the extended Latino community. Yet perhaps the most practical function of Latino
administrators in public schools is that they can “provide Latino parents with information about
how they are expected to act in U.S. schools” (Ross, Rouse, & Bratton, 2010, p. 216). Latino
parents often have expectations of the function and the roles of schools in their children’s
education which frequently result in the lack of parental participation—not because parents do
not care about their children’s success, but rather because these parents perceive a distinct
separation between the role of the parent and the role of the school (Chavkin & Gonzalez, 1995).
Latino administrators can form “an important bridge between the homeland culture and the
newer host culture” (Ross, Rouse, & Bratton, 2010, p. 216), making it possible for Latino parents
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 42
to engage in more productive patterns of involvement with their children’s schools, acting as an
important contribution in enabling Latino student success.
Effective staffing and the promotion of improved stakeholder interactions represent very
important contributions by the Latino administrator; however, it is potentially more important
that these administrators can model for Latino students that success is possible in the society at
large, and that Latinos can become important agents of power within this larger society. In
effect, “Latino leaders, because of their inherent diversity and humanistic values, are
strategically poised to help create a culturally accessible and compassionate society that values
people and community before material wealth and individual advancement” (Magdaleno, 2006,
p. 13). This stands in stark contrast to “white administrators [who] take a more formalistic or
institutionalized view and a less activist view of their roles than do Hispanics” (Martinez, 1991,
p. 46). It also represents the establishment of a valuable paradigm that can significantly shift
organizational cultures into practices that align with the academic achievement of California’s
majority population of Latino students.
Latino leadership of schools can provide Latino PEBLs with critical contributions to their
academic and language development, not only through facilitating more culturally responsive
instruction by teachers, but also through providing and modeling more equitable structures in the
school environment, assisting Latino PEBLs in developing increased degrees of trust in those
structures. Ultimately, this trust can facilitate improved engagement and academic performance
for Latino PEBLs, even as it facilitates the development of greater measures of equity for all
members of the American society.
Consequences of equitable demographic alignment. For populations that have
experienced favorable results from subordinating to the hegemony, the very presence of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 43
authority enables; it is not so for the marginalized involuntary minority. One potential reason for
the persistence of an oppositional relationship with the agents of authority in schools is the lack
of existing minority educational leaders in the classroom and at the helm of educational
institutions. d’Amato (1993) may not have explored the academic achievement of minority
students; however, he found that “cultural compatibility between teachers' and children's ways of
doing things is essential, but less for cognitive than for political reasons” (p. 204). Baker (1993)
found that minority models were a very important component in promoting multicultural
development. She maintained that the positive role model that minority educators could provide
minority students in the classroom could potentially diminish patterns of opposition on the part
of students who have traditionally been accustomed to seeing predominantly White agents of
authority represented in educational institutions.
Providing Latino PEBLs with a more equitable alignment of the percentage of Latino
teachers and administrators in schools represents a powerful, if difficult method of solving the
problem of educational inequities that have persisted in the State of California regarding this
population of learners. Educational leaders in the State of California must begin to transform the
landscape of public education to one that aligns with the existing society as a whole, rather than
the extension of hegemony by the White majoritarian population of teachers and leaders who,
while they represent a statistical minority among citizens in California, still presently represent
the overwhelming majority of the population of educators in California schools.
To be certain, educational agencies must make a concerted effort to ensure that the social
institutions of the society are in alignment with the demographic characteristics of that society in
order to diminish the reproduction of social inequality. Yet the realization of this objective
represents a considerable logistical challenge. Moreover, as effective as this step would be in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 44
reducing existing inequalities exacted upon Latino PEBLs, the reality is that this process would
require decades of persistent efforts until the results of shifts in hiring patterns were to take hold,
which would still leave generations of Latino learners without the equitable opportunity for
education.
To improve the educational trajectories of Latino PEBLs, it is incumbent upon
educational institutions to facilitate the development of improved, culturally relevant and
responsive dispositions among teachers who presently work in California schools. In realizing
this goal, the first step is to develop an understanding of the totality of existing influences that
shape the dispositions of these teachers. Although the entirety of educational experiences of
Latino students are of critical importance and warrant attention, these are beyond the scope of the
present study. Consequently, in the following sections, I will investigate the existing literature
that explores the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that shape secondary
English teacher’s formative and summative evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Teacher Knowledge Influences
Accurately evaluating the language and academic development of EBs requires
considerable knowledge in multiple domains. Accurate evaluation of Latino PEBLs requires that
teachers access and apply the considerable wealth of knowledge of their evaluations of EBs, as
well as a detailed understanding of the academic attributes of this unique population of learners.
In the State of California, the level of knowledge of educators entrusted with the intricate RFEP
process for all EBs (as required by California Education Code § 313) is presently established by
completion of a California Teacher of English Learners (CTEL) program approved by the State
of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing California (CTC), and validated by
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 45
successful achievement on the standardized California Teacher of English Learners (CTEL)
assessment required for certification. The CTC expects teachers entrusted with the evaluation of
EBs to have a satisfactory degree of factual and conceptual knowledge of the history, practices,
and principles of language development; however, the CTC pays scant attention to procedural
knowledge (Aguinis 2009; Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Metacognitive dimensions of
knowledge, so vital to improved practices (Krathwohl, 2002), remain practically ignored by the
CTC program, or by its assessment.
Taken collectively, these findings suggest that greater command of knowledge in
evaluating the language development and academic performance of EBs by teachers would
considerably improve the ability for these students to maximize their educational opportunities
through improved instruction facilitated by more accurate placement of these students in both
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and so-called mainstreamed
academic classes.
A review of existing literature demonstrates the range of knowledge required to evaluate
language and academic development of EBs as well as Latino PEBLs effectively, and it explains
the importance of greater degrees of understanding by teachers of the specific knowledge
demands of these learners. These findings underscore the importance of school districts such as
the PCSD in their provision of more effective methods of professional learning that can increase
the range and depth of knowledge of secondary English teachers, thereby helping the district
realize its performance goals for improved academic and language development for all EBs,
including Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge types. Applying the foundational principles of Bloom (1956), who sought
to make communication of the principles of learning more practicable, Krathwohl (2002)
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 46
delineated four categories of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Although typologies are imperfect because they tend to describe only the information seen as
crucial by the researcher, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) asserted that typologies can be useful in
“establishing a common language and thereby promoting organizational structure within a field”
(p. 306). Krathwohl’s (2002) revised taxonomy accomplishes this focus, with the author
devoting considerable attention to the application of his principles, instead of a mere assertion of
their theoretical validity. Krathwohl explained that teachers can utilize his taxonomy to organize
planning and instruction based on the unique demands of learners in each category of
knowledge.
Each category exacts different demands on educators, and each requires different
methods of instruction (as well as accurate assessment of the effectiveness of that instruction) to
facilitate the realization of learning goals by students. Although Krathwohl’s taxonomy contains
considerable detail that allows teachers to employ a continuum of instruction in the development
of a student’s skills, the taxonomy’s greatest value is in aligning terminology with specific
categories of knowledge. Adopting Alexander, Schallert, and Reynolds’ (2009) definition of
learning as “a multidimensional process that results in a relatively enduring change in a person or
persons” (p. 186), Krathhwohl’s factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive categories
provide clarity to the discussion of knowledge, which Laurillard (1993) concluded to be a
decidedly mysterious undertaking.
Factual information, or “the basic elements that students must know to be acquainted
with a discipline or solve problems in it” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214), may often take a lesser role
in comparison to the other categories (especially at higher levels of education), as meaningful
learning must progress beyond simply regurgitating facts (Mayer, 2002). Yet this category of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 47
knowledge is critically important, as it forms the foundation of the higher-order levels of
knowledge (Jackson & Davis, 2000). In contrast to the more concrete distinctions of factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge considers relationships between and among ideas. Hiebert
and Lefevre (1986) defined conceptual knowledge as “a connected web of knowledge, a network
in which the linking relationships are as prominent as the discrete pieces of information” (pp. 3-
4). Star (2005 & 2007) found this definition to be incomplete; however, it is worth noting that
neurological science has utilized brain imaging findings to demonstrate that “conceptual
knowledge is distributed across functionally and neuroanatomically distinct modality specific
semantic subsystems, each dedicated to storing and processing a specific type of information”
(Capitani, Laiacona, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2003, p. 214). This emphasizes the relational nature
of conceptual learning on a biological level.
Procedural knowledge, or “how to perform skilled behavior” (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009,
p. 454) has been described by many as simply the application of knowledge in performance
(Anderson, 1993). Yet, as in the case of conceptual knowledge, neurological science has
demonstrated a more complicated activity in the brain responsible for procedural knowledge.
This validates Ferguson’s (2002) premise that deeper learning involves interaction between
conceptual and procedural knowledge, in that “the sensory-motor system not only provides
structure to conceptual content, but also characterizes the semantic content of concepts in terms
of the way that we function with our bodies in the world” (Gallese & Lakoff, 2005, p. 456).
Although each category of knowledge is indispensable to the enterprise of learning,
metacognition, as Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) cogently stated, represents a pivotal
role in the enterprise of knowledge, as it increases the learner’s ability to apply knowledge in
“new situations without the need for explicit prompting” (p. 67). Metacognitive knowledge
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 48
“involves knowledge about cognition in general, as well as awareness of and knowledge about
one's own cognition” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 219), and this category of knowledge presents the ability
for the learner to initiate, mediate, and moderate all other areas of knowledge.
As theorists are careful to explain, knowledge remains difficult to confine with
convenient categorical designations, in recognition of its inherent complexity (Kraiger, Ford, &
Salas, 1993). Taken within the context of the educational enterprise, knowledge frameworks can
act as significant contributors in facilitating the development of knowledge among learners
through greater discernment of how the multiple types of knowledge interact. Moreover, in
consideration of an organizational perspective, knowledge frameworks can assist leaders in
focusing their efforts in addressing the knowledge deficits of stakeholders by providing more
focused learning opportunities to develop the capacity of knowledge of those stakeholders.
While no framework can entirely encompass such a rich enterprise, application of the framework
I have established (Table 2) in my inquiry provides considerable value, both in gaining insight of
the discrete differences in types of knowledge required by secondary English teachers in their
evaluations of Latino PEBLs, and in articulating those differences in order to establish potential
solutions that address each teacher’s capacity to develop knowledge that is crucial to more
effective formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. The table considers the specific declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive influences that I have established as potential contributors to PCSD's
organizational performance problem of the diminished RFEP of Latino PEBLs, as well as my
method for evaluating the degree of knowledge of secondary English teachers in each defined
category.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 49
Table 2
Teacher Knowledge Influences and Methods of Assessment
Assumed declarative knowledge influence: Knowledge influence assessment:
Secondary English teachers:
Interview a maximum variation sample of teachers to
gain understanding of their levels of declarative
knowledge of the…
 Do not have a depth of understanding of
phonological, lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic,
and discourse principles of language development.
 Do not have insight of the diverse cultural factors
that influence language development.
 Do not understand the influence that
accommodations on both formative and summative
assessments can provide Latino PEBLs.
 Do not command knowledge of effective cultural
communication skills, including command of more
than one language.
 Do not understand fundamental principles of
motivation in additive language development.
 Are not versed in the criteria present in the
biannual benchmarking instrument.
 Do not have command of the six levels of language
development as established by the State of California
in its English Language Development Standards.
 Do not understand the process leading to RFEP.

 Fundamental linguistic principles of the evaluation of
language development.

 Influence of cultural factors on language development.

 Principles of differentiation in evaluation and for
diverse learners.

 Factors of cultural communication.

 Process of additive language development and
evaluation of that development.
 Criteria present in the biannual benchmarking
instrument.
 Levels of language development.

 Steps in the process that determine RFEP.

Assumed procedural knowledge influence: Procedural influence assessment:
Secondary English teachers do not know how to:
Observe teachers during their completion of biannual
benchmarks in order to…
 Align student performance with benchmark
expectations in each of the required criteria.
 Do not understand how to evaluate Latino PEBLs
level of language development, or content area
achievement accurately.

 Determine gaps in understanding as demonstrated by
their evaluation processes.
 Determine gaps in understanding as demonstrated by
their evaluation processes.

Assumed metacognitive knowledge influence: Assumed metacognitive knowledge assessment:
Secondary English teachers:

Interview a maximum variation sample of teachers and
investigate artifacts to gain understanding of their levels
of metacognitive knowledge of the…

 Lack of critical command of conceptual knowledge
in the field (as well as a lack of understanding in
rudimentary forms of differentiated formative and
summative assessment evaluation practices) makes it
virtually impossible for teachers to evaluate their
relative degree of effectiveness or lack of
effectiveness in operational capabilities regarding the
evaluation and recommendation of Latino PEBLs.

 Existing summative and formative assessments utilized
by teachers to determine if they are actively engaged in
appropriate forms of differentiation of assessment and
instruction for Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 50
Secondary English teacher knowledge influences. The foundational principles of
knowledge provide considerable support in gaining greater insight into the various knowledge
factors that dynamically interact as they influence secondary English teacher’s evaluations of
Latino PEBLs. Importantly, application of the categorization of the types of knowledge
streamlines assessment of teacher influences of processes germane to the performance challenges
faced by PCSD in its development of PEBLs. In addition to foundational knowledge influences
used to drive inquiry of the knowledge influences (declarative, procedural, and metacognitive)
that shape secondary English teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs, I also consider the unique
circumstantial challenges that secondary English teachers in PCSD face in these evaluations.
Effective evaluation of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs
demands that secondary English teachers apply appropriate differentiation. My review of the
literature that addresses the knowledge of secondary English teachers in their evaluations of
Latino PEBLs discriminates exacting insight—insight that can be utilized to create improved
evaluation processes of secondary English teachers in PCSD.
Utilizing Aguinis and Kraiger’s (2009) definitions of both declarative and procedural
knowledge (owing to their meaningful application to professional learning within an
organization) as well as Pintrich’s (2002) definition of metacognitive knowledge (because of its
multifaceted consideration of an admittedly complex concept), my review of the literature
considers the knowledge of secondary English teachers as they engage in their evaluations of
Latino PEBLs, with my compass set on the improving teacher evaluation processes, thereby
diminishing the existing performance gap between the present knowledge of PCSDs secondary
English teachers and the organizational goals that leaders in the organization and external forms
of accountability demand of those teachers.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 51
Declarative knowledge influences. Accurate evaluation of EBs requires a considerable
store of declarative knowledge on the part of practitioners. Evaluation of Latino PEBLs, while
reliant on many of the same principles of knowledge, demands discretely different forms of
knowledge. In their attempts to address these basic factual and conceptual categories of
knowledge of language development and cultural influences, California Teacher of English
Learners (CTEL) training programs prominently feature these forms of knowledge, and
subsequently evaluate each teacher’s capability in demonstrating a competency in their
understanding of these forms of knowledge as measured by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing California (CTC). Yet many educators have seen years, or even decades pass from
when they earned their certification to teach EBs. Additionally, due to the relatively low
expectation of the CTEL assessment, which evaluates knowledge that is drawn from literature
that is in no way empirical (Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, & Shields, 2009), much of the factual and
conceptual knowledge required by the CTC may not necessarily connect with formative and
summative evaluations that are required to meet the unique needs of Latino PEBLs (Maxwell-
Jolly, Driscoll, & Gándara, 2006).
The CTC evaluates five distinct standards based on principles established by the Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE). Knowledge of these standards is supposed to reflect the
necessary command of declarative knowledge for teachers to address effectively the needs of
EBs, and include: (a) Language Acquisition and Development, (b) Culture, (c) Instruction, (d)
Assessment, and (e) History. As critical as these standards are, Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, and
Shields (2009) explained that knowledge of effective communication skills (including command
of more than one language) as well as knowledge of motivational principles might be of even
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 52
greater importance, particularly in addressing the specific language development and academic
needs of Latino PEBLs.
The existing expectations by the CTC of factual and conceptual knowledge by teachers of
the five standards are insufficient, especially for those teachers who have not been evaluated by
the CTC in the past decade. Groundbreaking discoveries have shifted the discourse from the
differences of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1981) in the past decade to a more dynamic view of
language development developed by Scarcella (2003). Scarcella explained that “the
dichotomous conceptualization of language that (BICS and CALP) presents is not useful for
understanding the complexities of academic English or the multiple variables affecting its
development” (p. 5), and this has a significant implication on the evaluation of EBs at the
secondary level. It is even more critical in evaluating Latino PEBLs. Additionally, the
previously held notions of multiple literacies, so prominent to McKay and Weinstein-Shr (1993),
Street (1984, 1995), Valdés (1999), as well as Zamel and Spack (2012) may hold value from a
theoretical perspective; however, they do not offer potential for intervention, as they do not
present teachers with the opportunity to evaluate the development of academic English,
demonstrated to be so critical to the language development and academic performance of PEBLs
(Scarcella, 2003). Scarcella proposed a more thorough foundation for academic learning that
considers five components (phonological, lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse) of
language development, forming considerable support for the factual and conceptual knowledge
distinctions essential in refining teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Yet none of these
components are presently addressed with satisfactory rigor by the CTC through the CTEL.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 53
Beyond the insufficiency in the knowledge of critical facts and concepts of language
development, the CTC’s demands for knowledge of cultural factors do not provide teachers with
the epistemological capability to develop effective forms of evaluation that take into account the
unique cultural attributes of Latino PEBLs. Keen cultural awareness allows teachers to
capitalize on the existing knowledge stores of students, and can help teachers develop bridges to
new knowledge by students; however, as Echevarria and Short (2005), Merino (2007), and Nieto
(1996) explained, knowledge of the impact of cultural factors is practically ignored by teachers
of EBs, including Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge of instruction, while not procedural knowledge, remains important in that it
increases the storehouse of skills that teachers can select from in their formative and summative
evaluation practices regarding Latino PEBLs. Although teachers at PCSD do receive training in
Guided Reading methodologies that are targeted to address the needs of all EBs, this training
does not include declarative knowledge of the facts and concepts that inform the methodology.
For example, teachers receive training to employ oral interaction in the classroom; however, they
do not receive instruction of the conceptual foundations that support those practices. Most
importantly, the Guided Reading methodologies equip teachers with the ability to evaluate the
reading level of students only up to the 7
th
grade level, leaving secondary English teachers with
no formal method to evaluate with precision the advanced reading levels of Latino PEBLs. More
generally, teachers do not receive a broader-based knowledge of the types of instructional
practices that have proven to be successful with EBs in general, including simulations and role-
playing, cooperative learning, and even Problem-Based Learning (PBL) (Gonzalez, Pagan,
Wendell, & Love, 2011).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 54
The considerable gaps in each secondary English teacher’s declarative knowledge of
language development, culture, and effective instructional practices diminishes the institutional
capability in meeting the unique needs of PCSD’s population of Latino PEBLs. Perhaps more
perniciously, the lack of factual and conceptual knowledge of the principles of differentiation in
formative and summative assessment manifests in inaccurate evaluations of learner’s needs,
ineffective placement, and may result in decreased access to critical A-G courses, required for
access to the various campuses of the University of California. Abedi (2006) explained that
“many instructional decisions that will be made could have grave consequences for ELLs if their
knowledge and skills are not appropriately assessed” (p. 2282); however, few (if any) teachers at
PCSD command an awareness of existing flaws in their assessment forms or practices.
Similarly, few teachers of EBs can discern the impact of accommodations on the results of both
formative and summative assessments.
The consequences of secondary English teacher’s inability to accurately evaluate the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD significantly limits
the teacher’s ability to facilitate the development of these learners, potentially hampering their
educational development (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2001; Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, & Baker,
2000; Abedi, Lord, Kim-Boscardin, & Miyoshi, 2000; Ortiz, 2002). Declarative knowledge of
accommodations in formative and summative evaluations, while central to the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs, remains entirely absent in the
practices of PCSD secondary English teachers, even as it remains absent in any of PCSD’s forms
of professional learning the district has provided to support those teachers.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 55
Procedural knowledge influences. Lacking the command of declarative knowledge, the
ability for PCSD’s secondary English teachers to employ those more static forms of knowledge
in the dynamic realm of procedural knowledge remains diminished. Moreover, as
Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, and Shields (2009) explained, even if teachers have declarative
knowledge of the pertinent factors that shape the cognitive and academic development of EBs,
they are unlikely to integrate this knowledge into effective practices.
The evaluation of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs
by secondary English teachers in PCSD considers: (a) the formative and summative classroom
assessments that result in grades (critical to the reclassification process of EBs in PCSD), (b)
evaluation of language development, and finally, (c) summative assessments by the teacher in
the form of the biannual benchmark evaluation and recommendation for RFEP. It comes as no
surprise that the lack of procedural knowledge of teachers in PCSD has manifest in inaccurate
practices for RFEP and misalignment in teacher evaluations of the academic capabilities of
Latino PEBLs in comparison with proven standardized assessments. Téllez and Waxman (2006)
implored that an inexact application of pedagogical knowledge results in diminished
praxeological effectiveness, a finding shared by Gándara and Rumberger (2003) with a more
specific reference to EBs. Teachers of Latino PEBLs at PCSD, like many California educators
of this population of learners, are seldom (if ever) provided with specific professional learning
opportunities designed to address areas of need, nor are these teachers presented with specific
examples of effective practices of formative and summative evaluations for this population of
learners. Absent any consideration of these critical provisions that could improve the
educational trajectories of Latino PEBLs, effective application of critical principles of both the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 56
evaluation of additive language development and the differentiated evaluation of academic
performance remains unapplied by secondary English teachers in PCSD.
Although the CTC pays considerable attention (if not always current, or pertinent) to
declarative knowledge, it completely ignores procedural knowledge considerations. Trusting in
an unfounded belief that their students will simply eventually absorb academic language skills
(Téllez & Waxman, 2006), the majority of educators of Latino PEBLs in the State of
California—including the secondary level English teachers at PCSD—continue to employ
procedural knowledge forms that are not aligned with the needs of EBs in general, and are
particularly misaligned with the needs of Latino PEBLs.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Pintrich (2003) established that learners who “are
self-regulating, in other words, those who set goals or plans, and try to monitor and control their
own cognition, motivation, and behavior in line with these goals are more likely to do well” (p.
677). Yet secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs who do not have the necessary command
of epistemology or pedagogy that would enable them to demonstrate greater declarative and
procedural knowledge cannot engage in such complex (if vital) metacognitive processes,
significantly limiting the ongoing development of the praxeological effectiveness of secondary
English teachers regarding their formative and summative evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Metacognition is a complex process. It is comprised of the strategic application of
practices, the ability to regulate those strategies based on their effectiveness, and the moderation
of self (Flavell, 1979; Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000; Schneider & Pressley, 1997). Seeking
to provide clarity in the conceptualization of metacognition, Schön (1983) articulated four
components of reflective practice: Reflection before Action (RbA), Knowing in action (KiA),
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 57
Reflection in Action (RiA), and Reflection on action (RoA). Schön’s conception assists
practitioners in all fields in focusing their ability to gain knowledge; yet teachers who do not
command knowledge of declarative and procedural elements pertaining to the effective
evaluation of Latino PEBLs cannot be expected to demonstrate effective evaluation practices for
these learners. Goh (1997), Purpura (1997), as well as Victori and Lockhart (1995) have
demonstrated the critical importance of metacognitive ability in facilitating language
development, yet teachers who do not command understanding of foundational concepts of
metacognitive processes in language development cannot be expected to have success in
facilitating the language development and academic development of Latino PEBLs through
accurate and appropriate forms of formative and summative evaluation.
Teacher Motivation Influences
Effective systems of professional learning by teachers in educational institutions has
produced positive gains in student achievement (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995;
Elmore & Burney, 1997; Little, 1993; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007), with
particular gains provided to the development of literacy for marginalized populations (Fisher,
Frey, & Nelson, 2012; Lara-Alecio, Tong, Irby, & Mathes, 2009; Lee & Buxton, 2013; Tong,
Luo, Irby, Lara-Alecio, & Rivera, 2015). Yet professional learning opportunities for educators
very rarely consider the development of teacher’s motivation to engage in the acquisition of new
skills, or to employ their discoveries in improving their practices (Scheib & Karabenick, 2011;
Tittle, 2006). Even though motivation has been identified as a crucial component in professional
development (Boyd, Banilower, Pasley, & Weiss, 2003), teacher education and professional
learning in educational institutions remain chiefly confined to elements of knowledge and skill
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 58
development, overlooking the critical impact that motivation can have on the development of
improved teaching practices.
Existing literature demonstrates the importance of motivation in establishing and
promoting effective practices essential to the effective evaluation of Latino PEBLs. This
literature also emphasizes the significance of professional learning opportunities that include the
consideration of motivational factors. While the wide ranges of motivational theories as well as
types of motivation are certainly important to a robust understanding of the influence of
motivation on learning, they are beyond the scope of the present review. Instead, my review
focuses its efforts on Pintrich’s (2003) distinction of the importance of “use-inspired” (p. 669)
research. To that end, and with the acknowledgment of the influence of social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1991) on contemporary approaches to motivation, my review applies a social
cognitive lens in an investigation of the interrelated connection of self-efficacy and value, both
critical components of learning (Bandura, 1993; Bandura, 2001).
Consideration of motivation in PCSD’s professional development. For over twenty
years of my involvement with the district, PCSD had never provided specific professional
learning opportunities designed to address the academic performance deficit of Latino PEBLs.
Yet the district does have a range of professional learning opportunities, most recently (2010-
present) designed to prepare teachers to align their instructional practices with the expectations
of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). At no time has teacher motivation been an explicit
consideration in any of these forms of professional development.
Existing professional learning programs in PCSD that are designed to assist teachers do
not address teacher’s motivation, and this omission has significantly diminished the successful
integration of improved practices by teachers, including more effective evaluations of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 59
language and academic development of Latino PEBLs. My review of the literature that
considers motivational factors and their collective influence on teacher’s practices provides
critical understanding that can be applied to PCSD’s development of the motivation among its
population of secondary English teachers who are presently not meeting the district’s established
performance goals for the language and academic development of Latino PEBLs.
Defining motivation. Although defining motivation can be very difficult (Kleinginna &
Kleinginna, 1981), Pintrich and Schunk (1996) have provided a concise definition, asserting that:
“motivation is the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 4).
Complicating the application of this definition is the broad range of theoretical approaches to
motivation. Unfortunately, myriad theoretical approaches of motivation do not necessarily lend
themselves to meeting Lewin’s (1952) claim that “there is nothing more practical than a good
theory” (p. 169). Addressing this challenge, Pintrich (2003) applied Stokes’ (1997) matrixed
conceptualization of types of research, maintaining that for the educational sciences, theoretical
approaches must be situated in the use-inspired basic research quadrant, in order “to improve
motivation in educational and other teaching and learning settings” (p. 669). Extending on this
principle, Dörnyei (2001) refined applicability of the definition of motivation to the learning
environment of additive language development, maintaining that motivation is “the continuous
interaction process between the learner and the environment” (p. 29). This definition
underscores the potential importance of the educator in positively influencing this interaction, in
comparison to a focus on solely cognitive factors in the process of learning.
Rueda (2011) acknowledged that learning relies on “the close relationship and dynamic
interplay of motivational and cognitive factors” (p. 38), and while precision in definition or in
describing theoretical approaches to motivation may be elusive, the “three interrelated aspects”
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 60
(Dörnyei, 2000, pp. 519-520) of motivation remain less elusive. These indicators of motivation
include: (a) active choice in the selection of an action or actions, (b) persistence in continuing the
action despite obstacles, and (c) the degree of effort in the performance of the action (Schunk,
Meece, & Pintrich, 2012). Each of these indicators interacts dynamically, and while “individuals
are producers of experiences and shapers of events” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75), they enact these
events within a social and cultural context (Bandura, 1986).
Social cognitive theory. Albert Bandura (1988) described social cognitive theory as
“psychosocial functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal causation. In this causal model,
behaviour, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events all operate as
interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally” (p. 276). This dynamic
interaction engages the learner in a composite form of cognition that exists in a social
environment. Bandura stated that through the activity of modeling (or the exemplification of
behavior to be learned) followed by guided skill perfection, educators can more readily facilitate
the learner’s transfer of learned skills into effective practices within authentic environments.
Bandura (1993) did not discount the importance of knowledge related factors; instead, he
established that “intellectual functioning requires much more than simply understanding the
factual knowledge and reasoning operations for given activities” (p. 117). For Bandura (1991,
2001), motivational factors and self-regulation strongly influenced human agency. He explained
that human agency “involves not only the deliberative ability to make choices and action plans,
but the ability to give shape to appropriate courses of action and to motivate and regulate their
execution” (Bandura, 2001, p. 8). Motivation is inseparable from learning, and the ability to
regulate motivation strongly corresponds with the agent’s ability to maximize learning. At the
core of the individual’s ability to assert agency in the enterprise of learning is self-efficacy, or
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 61
“the foundation of human agency” (Bandura, 2001, p. 10). Self-efficacy is not a static entity;
rather, it is strongly influenced by value, which reciprocally is “enhanced by the self-efficacy
determinant” (Bandura, 1993, p. 130). Learning relies on this dynamic interchange, with self-
efficacy and value strongly shaping outcomes.
Self-efficacy theory. Bandura (1997) asserted that self-efficacy does not focus on the
outcomes that an individual expects; rather, self-efficacy represents the belief by the individual
in her or his ability to accomplish the task. This stands in sharp contrast to self-esteem, which is
“a trait referring to individuals' degree of liking or disliking for themselves” (Brockner, 1988, p.
11). From the perspective of learning, self-efficacy is considerably more important, because
while self-esteem is affective, or comprised of emotion and mood (Forgas & Eich, 2012) and
dependent upon social and cultural factors, self-efficacy considers the relative degree of
confidence in one’s abilities, and is not as dependent social and cultural factors (Pajares &
Schunk, 2001). Educators can encourage the development of self-efficacy among their students,
which can significantly improve social and academic outcomes, thereby influencing the
development of self-esteem. Yet measures taken to improve self-esteem do not always correlate
with improved social and academic performance. In fact, low self-esteem may result in high
academic performance, and high self-esteem may manifest in diminished social and academic
outcomes (Hansford & Hattie, 1982).
Self-efficacy serves to lay the groundwork for the individual regarding her or his ability
to shape productive life paths based on the regulation of actions in accordance to information
received within the social sphere. Bandura (2001) succinctly summarized the importance of self-
efficacy in the enterprise of learning: “Whatever other factors may operate as guides and
motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce effects by one’s
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 62
actions” (p. 10). From the perspective of the professional learning of educators, self-efficacy
forms a critical motivational construct that governs the acquisition and the subsequent
continuous application of improved professional practices. Self-efficacy is undeniably a critical
factor in the ability for teachers to develop more effective evaluation practices. It is also
undeniably critical in the maintenance and continual improvement of those practices.
In applying a motivation framework that draws its foundation from social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1988), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), and expectancy value theory
(Wigfield & Eccles, 1992), I discern what drives secondary English teachers as they develop,
apply, and sharpen evaluation practices designed to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs. My
motivation framework considers the influence of secondary English teacher’s (a) self-efficacy,
(b) attainment value, (c) intrinsic value, (d) utility value, (e) and cost (See Table 3). This
framework provided me with insight into evaluating the existing motivation of secondary
English teachers in PCSD, ultimately providing potential solutions that could make it possible
for PCSD to maximize each teacher’s motivation in developing and applying improved
evaluation practices for the district’s population of Latino PEBLs.
In the same way that the rich, dynamic interaction of knowledge influences contributes to
formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic performance of
Latino PEBLs, a range of motivational influences exacts considerable power on teachers in
developing and applying more effective methods of these evaluations. Teaching places
considerable psychological, social, and physical demands on practitioners, and persistence is a
vital component in overcoming the multiple challenges that interact dynamically in the
educational environment. Increased self-efficacy precipitates persistence, as educators who lack
self-efficacy expend considerable mental energy.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 63
Table 3
Teacher Motivation Influences and Methods of Assessment
Assumed self-efficacy influence: Self-efficacy influence assessment:

 Secondary English teachers do not command self-
efficacy in reliably and accurately applying
formative and summative evaluations of Latino
PEBLs.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English teachers inquiring them of
their perceived self-efficacy in differentiating formative
and summative evaluations of the language development
and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Assumed attainment value influence: Attainment value assessment:

 Secondary English teachers do not value changes
in formative and summative evaluation practices that
will lead to improved evaluations and academic
outcomes for Latino PEBLs.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English discovering their intrinsic
value of engaging in professional learning designed to
improve the evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Assumed intrinsic value influences: Intrinsic value assessment:

 Secondary English teachers are not compelled to
develop and to apply effective differentiated
formative and summative evaluations of the
language development and academic achievement
for Latino PEBLs.

 Secondary English teachers do not command
intrinsic value in ensuring that district imposed
effective instructional practices, grading, and
completion of RFEP recommendation for Latino
PEBLs have been employed.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English discovering their intrinsic
value of engaging in professional learning designed to
improve the evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English discovering their intrinsic
value in: (a) following existing ELD standards for
formative and summative evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBL;
and (b) accurately competing teacher benchmark
evaluations of Latino PEBLs for RFEP.
Assumed utility value influences: Utility value assessment:

 Secondary English teachers do perceive utility
value in learning how to establish and administrate
accurate formative and summative evaluations of the
language development an academic achievement of
Latino PEBLs.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English discovering their utility
value of engaging in professional learning designed to
improve the evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Assumed cost influences: Cost assessment:

 Secondary English teachers are already
overwhelmed with demands to change practices, and
are not likely to be willing to expend the time and
effort to focus on the improvement of evaluation
practices for what they perceive to be a very small
population of their learners.

 Open-ended interview with a maximum variation
sample of secondary English discovering their
expectation of the cost in: (a) participating in professional
learning designed to improve the evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of
Latino PEBLs; and (b) applying into practice discoveries
by participating in professional learning designed to
improve the evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 64
Teacher self-efficacy. Perspectives of self-efficacy are primarily formed by four
sources: (a) enactive mastery experience, (b) vicarious experience, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d)
physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997). Of these, the most significant is the enactive
mastery experience, because as the learner performs an activity successfully, she or he receives
authentic feedback of the degree of success of the activity. Remarkably, the repeated experience
of success does not build self-efficacy; indeed, if the degree of challenge is not sufficient, the
individual does not develop the resiliency to overcome failure. Bandura elucidated that
“difficulties provide opportunities to learn how to turn failure into success by honing one's
capabilities to exercises better control over events” (1997, p. 80), and through the educator’s
ability to provide “guided enactive mastery” (1997, p. 80), the learner does more than learn
content; she or he develops increased self-efficacy that will promote perseverance when
encountering obstacles. Importantly, effective formative and summative evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of learners can facilitate the educator’s ability
to provide learners with appropriate forms of guided enactive mastery. This has a profound
impact on educators, as established by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, Hoy, and Hoy (1998), who
determined that teachers can develop considerably improved self-efficacy as well as improved
instructional practices through strategic application of guided enactive mastery in evaluations.
Similarly, Brouwers and Tomic (2000) showed that guided enactive mastery produced higher
degrees of teacher’s self-efficacy.
Educators perform an important function in the social context of learning by not merely
delivering content; the educator also mediates vicarious experiences for the learner through
modelling successful actions, thereby elevating the learner’s self-efficacy. Through “referential
comparisons with others” (Bandura, 1997, p. 87), the learner gains understanding, both from
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 65
others who share their abilities, and from those who have differential abilities. At the same time,
the educator can facilitate improved self-efficacy in learners through producing the ideal
circumstances that allow the learner to engage in self-modelling (Creer & Miklich, 1970; Schunk
& Hanson, 1985). The concept of modelling does not suggest perfection on the part of the
model, or a reliance on aspirational models. In fact, Bandura (1997) suggested that modelling
coping ability when engaged in a difficult activity allowed the learner to vicariously experience
controllability and predictability in challenging activities, significantly improving the learner’s
degree of self-efficacy.
Providing teachers with effective forms of modelling in professional learning
opportunities considerably improves their development of self-efficacy. Gorrell and Capron
(1990) found that modelling of cognitive practices in literacy instruction developed improved
self-efficacy in teachers, and Posnanski (2002) confirmed similar discoveries in an evaluation of
the influence of modelling instruction for elementary school teachers. Preservice teachers also
registered improved self-efficacy in their integration of technology into classroom instruction
through modelling (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). As Bandura (1997) indicated, “diversified
modelling” (p. 99) also can significantly improve self-efficacy, and Hipp and Bredeson (1995)
validated this view, showing that middle school administrators significantly improved teacher’s
overall sense of self-efficacy by modelling effective management practices.
Verbal persuasion is a significant factor in shaping feedback for the learner, as well as in
the ability to monitor self-regulation and motivation (Bandura, 1997). The credibility of the
appraisal of the persuader also improves through accuracy. Dynamic in nature, the learner and
the educator interact in this iterative process, necessitating discretion in the application of verbal
persuasion. Tschannen-Moran and Johnson (2011) found that highly experienced teachers did
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 66
not adjust self-efficacy based upon verbal persuasion, but that novice and early career teachers
demonstrated significant improvements to their practices. Similar to the alignment of activities
with the learner’s ability levels, “skilled efficacy builders” (Bandura, 1997, p. 106) can apply
critical verbal persuasion by encouraging learners to “measure their successes in terms of self-
improvement rather than in terms of triumphs over others (Bandura, 1997, p. 88). Adroitly
framing the form of feedback as well as carefully staging activities to promote effective feedback
can significantly improve a learner’s development of self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) held that physiological and affective states shape an individual’s
perspective of self-efficacy. These states did not remain distinct from other factors; rather, the
individual develops productive physiological and affective states through a dynamic interaction
of enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and verbal persuasion. The individual
evaluates her or his self-efficacy based on the emotional or the physiological reactions to the
individual’s experiences of success or failure as she or he negotiates her or his relative degree of
self-efficacy. Bandura confided that the way to improve self-efficacy was “to enhance physical
status, reduce stress levels and negative emotional proclivities, and correct misinterpretations of
bodily states” (1997, p. 106). The activation of physiological and affective states is the result of
three events: (a) environmental elicitors, which occur in private; (b) expressive reactions, which
take a public form; and (c) social labelling, which also takes a public form.
In developing improved self-efficacy, the educator must observe the public forms of
psychological and affective states, and intervene appropriately, thus shaping the perception—not
the expression—of emotion. The perception of the learner who is engaged in the learning
enterprise is of critical importance, as “the impact of mood on self-efficacy is at least partially
mediated by selective recall of past successes and failures” (Bandura, 1997, p. 113). This recall
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 67
is shaped by the perception of emotional reactions, and educators can intervene to influence
these reactions positively. Gregoire (2003) asserted that “teaching is not a coldly rational
process” (p. 150), and while acknowledging that producing changes in teacher’s practices
typically considers cognitive approaches, De Corte, Greer, and Verschaffel (1996) as well as
Hargreaves (1998) indicated that affective processes nevertheless contribute strongly to the
development of new, more effective practices of teachers.
The impact of self-efficacy on the development of improved practices of teachers is
strongly connected to affective factors. Compeau, Higgins, and Huff (1999) maintained that
affective factors considerably influenced teacher’s self-efficacy in their integration of technology
into instruction, highlighting the importance of affective variables in changing instructional
practices. Similarly, Gunning, and Mensah, (2011) as well as Mulholland and Wallace (2001)
confirmed the influence of both positive and negative physiological and affective factors in the
teaching practices of elementary school science teachers. Similar to the capability of the
educator to influence the development of self-efficacy through strategic intervention (including
mastery experiences, modelling, and feedback), the educator facilitates enabling perspectives on
the part of the learner through developing a keen awareness of learner’s physiological and
affective states, ultimately leading to improved self-efficacy.
Expectancy value theory. While self-efficacy relies on the individual’s expectation of
success, it does not necessarily provide insight into the reasons behind the courses of action by
the individual in pursuit of those expectations (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Theories that focus on
the reasons the individual chooses to engage in an activity consider the intrinsic motivation, the
level of interest of the individual, and goal orientation. Each of these contribute in driving the
individual to what she or he perceives as a successful action.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 68
In their explanation of this process, Deci and Ryan (1985) offered self-determination
theory to explain the intrinsic motivation of the individual to engage in an action, maintaining
that “the intrinsic need for competence and self-determination” (p. 230) compels the individual
to engage in that action. Csikszentmihalyi & Massimini (1985) focused on the subjective nature
of the experience in compelling the choice of action, holding that the individual sought “auto-
electic” (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 89) activities based on the subjective
experience of an optimal state of consciousness, in which high levels of demands in skill and
challenge aligned. These intrinsic theoretical approaches are important, yet individuals do not
always live their lives governed solely by intrinsic motives; instead, extrinsic factors also play a
part, as Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) explained.
Seeking to detail these multiple intrinsic factors while also integrating extrinsic ones,
Wigfield and Eccles (1992) affirmed a richer understanding of the modern expectancy-value
theoretical model, because it encompassed the motivation of the individual based on
“achievement performance, persistence, and choice most directly to individuals’ expectancy-
related and task-value beliefs” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 118). From the perspective of the
educational environment (particularly the professional training of educators), the expectancy-
value approach emerges as particularly compelling, in that this approach encompasses a greater
totality of influences than solely extrinsic or intrinsic approaches. Moreover, expectancy-value
theory augments the important principles established by self-efficacy theory, adding considerable
support in explaining those forces that underlie the individual’s confidence in her or his abilities.
Considering self-efficacy theory’s clear alignment with an expectancy for success, my
review of the literature directed to understand motivation as it influences teacher development
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 69
focuses on the constituents of achievement values as they relate to educators: attainment value,
intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Teacher value orientation. Within educational organizations, teachers are likely to
commit to increased improvement of their practices if doing so aligns with their subjective
perceptions of their respective identities. Eccles (1983), expanding on Atkinson’s (1957)
perspectives of an individual’s expectations for success in developing a new behavior as being
mediated by the individual’s value of the task, asserted that within the educational environment,
the value of any task is comprised of: (a) attainment value, (b) the intrinsic or interest value, (c)
the utility value, and (d) the cost.
Attainment value. Pintrich (2003) carefully considered an individual’s perspective of her
or his value in instituting newer, more effective practices. Drawing on Eccles [Parson], et al.
(1983), Pintrich explained that attainment value is defined as “how important it is to do well on
the task for the individual as well as how central the task is perceived to be to the individual’s
personal identity” (2003, p. 675). For teachers, this can both disconfirm and confirm the
motivation for the development and integration of improved instructional practices based on the
teacher’s perspective of how it will shape her or his identity.
Watt, et al. (2012) as well as Watt and Richardson (2007) utilized the Factors Influencing
Teaching Choice (FIT-Choice) scale to reveal that the socially constructed identity of the teacher
(perceived by the teacher as a vital contributor to the society) significantly influenced individuals
who enter the teaching profession. For these individuals, attaining the perceived social status
conferred to teachers strongly contributed to their career choice. Hong (2010) also demonstrated
that attainment value was a significant motivator for preservice teachers to select or to drop out
of teacher preparation programs. Eccles (2009) similarly established that individuals would seek
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 70
the teaching profession “if helping other people is a central part of an individual personal or
collective identity” (p. 83). Attainment value may shape a teacher’s selection of the vocation,
yet it does not necessarily produce a commitment to professional learning, nor does attainment
value necessarily produce a commitment to the integration of newer, potentially more effective
practices. This would depend on whether the shift in those practices would align with
expectations of a new identity by the teacher, or of the maintenance of the existing identity.
For teachers who did not perceive that the new practices offered by professional learning
would favorably shape identities, commitment to a program that would result in a change to
practices would be unlikely. Conversely, for those teachers who perceived an improved identity
because of the opportunities for professional learning, a commitment to these programs would be
likely. Kelchtermans (2009) found that social and cultural factors shaped each teacher’s identity,
and that the attainment of this identity strongly related to a teacher’s self-efficacy. In this view,
attainment and self-efficacy would dynamically interact, continually shaping the professional
practices of teachers. Additionally, Canrinus, et al. (2012) affirmed that attainment value
significantly shaped teacher’s commitment to their practices. These findings suggest both
favorable and unfavorable potentialities, as teachers who are in a supportive social environment
and compelled by a culture infused by a growth mind-set are likely to embrace change;
conversely, those teachers whose social and cultural influences support isolation and a fixed
mind-set are unlikely to implement new instructional practices (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Richter, et al. (2011), who examined motivation in teachers by looking at the differences
in career stages and the needs for teachers at each stage, supported this perspective. These
researchers investigated “teachers’ uptake of learning opportunities across the career” (p. 116),
finding that mid-career teachers who were in the “phase of experimentation and activism” (p.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 71
124) were highly inclined to participate in professional learning opportunities; however, early
career and late career teachers were not. Significantly, for language teachers, Hiver and Dörnyei
(2015) found that “resistance to methodological change or innovation” (p. 1) emerged when
personal narratives of consistent educational practices—even if ineffective—became part of the
identity of the teacher. While seldom a consideration of professional learning programs (or for
that matter teacher preparation programs), a teacher’s perceived attainment value of participation
in professional learning confirms or disconfirms the degree to which they are likely to participate
in learning and in applying potentially improved techniques into professional practice.
Intrinsic value. Even as the attainment value of teachers determines their degree of
commitment to changes in instructional practices based on each teacher’s unique perception of
her or his identity, it is the determination of intrinsic value that generates and moderates the
personal commitment in acquiring and applying those instructional changes. Intrinsic value
considers behavior that is “undertaken for its own sake, enjoyment, and interest with a high
degree of perceived internal control” (Pintrich, 2003, p. 673). Deci and Ryan (1985) determined
that intrinsic values are a fundamental aspect of existence, connected to the individual’s
“organismic needs to be competent and self-determining” (p. 5). For the teacher, intrinsic values
can enable or disable critical leverage in the improvement of instructional practices.
Intrinsic value is a strong contributor to the selection and persistence in the career of
teaching, as Mori (1965) and Lortie (1975) established. Watt and Richardson (2007) added that
teachers take a career path that they recognize may not provide them with the economic benefits
of other careers; however, teachers frequently make their career selection based on “those
rewards that come from the experience of teaching, and the opportunity structure which teaching
affords to provide for the realization of their personal and social values” (p. 51). Beyond the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 72
selection of teaching as a career, intrinsic value exacts considerable impact on the continued
development of new practices by teachers.
Although Karabenick and Conley (2011) confided that specific studies evaluating the
direct influence of intrinsic motivation on the development of new teaching practices remain
lacking, they were able to demonstrate a strong correlation between a teacher’s willingness to
participate in professional learning opportunities and intrinsic motivation. Buttressing this
correlation are the findings of Marsh, et al. (2011), who found that intrinsic motivators
compelled teachers to engage in the development of performance improvement more than did
extrinsic motivators in the form of incentive pay. Neves de Jesus and Lens (2005) studied
elementary and secondary teachers, and learned that “efficacy expectations are the basis for
teachers’ intrinsic motivation” (p. 126), which presents compelling evidence in support of
professional learning programs that coordinate motivational improvement alongside improved
practices. For Neves de Jesus and Lens, alignment of intrinsic motivation with pre-service and
in-service professional learning practices significantly improved teacher’s instructional skills, as
well as teacher’s general sense of professional engagement.
Although the principles of intrinsic motivation are shared by individuals from diverse
cultures, the importance that those cultures place on intrinsic value differs. Dilworth (1991)
substantiated the value of intrinsic rewards for teachers, with White teachers registering
diminished intrinsic satisfaction in comparison to other ethnic groups. Interestingly, Dörnyei and
Ushioda (2011) found that extrinsic rewards often undermine the development of intrinsic
motivation, and that demotivating factors may retard development of other motivational factors.
For school districts populated by large populations of teachers who identify as White, these
findings that clarify the motivation among these teachers suggest that education organizational
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 73
leaders who wish to facilitate the development of new practices among White teachers must pay
careful attention to differentiating motivational influences in order to maximize productivity.
Utility value. Attainment value and intrinsic value, while often ignored in professional
development of teachers, remain considerably important in shaping instructional practices as
well as a teacher’s professional developmental trajectories over the course of the teacher’s
career. As important as these two values are, in terms of the development of effective strategies
for teachers in general (and particularly for teachers of EBs), perceived utility value and the
perception of the associated cost remain of the greatest significance from the perspective of
professional learning due to their greater degree of malleability. Attainment value and intrinsic
value are closely bound to perceptions of identity, and may require significantly greater
discretion in designing and instituting professional learning programs that are designed to
influence these critical factors of value positively. More concrete in their nature, utility value
and cost value present more practical professional learning possibilities for educational leaders as
they seek to facilitate the development of motivation by teachers to engage in the development
integration of improved practices.
Utility value considers the value of a task in meeting with future expectations. Wigfield
and Cambria (2010) asserted that utility value is “a means to an end rather than an end in itself”
(p. 39), and in the development of improved practices by educators, any form of professional
learning or of the development of new professional expectations must align with the teacher’s
perception of applicability if it is to have any success in implementation. Selection of teaching
as a career aligned with perceived utility value (Watt, Richardson, & Pietsch, 2007), and
secondary teachers with prior career experience in different fields cited utility value as their most
important motivational factor in pursuing teaching as a new career (Anthony & Ord, 2008).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 74
Utility value may compel individuals to select teaching as a career; it can also compel
teachers to seek professional learning opportunities, as well as to apply their discoveries from
those learning opportunities into professional practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that
alignment of teacher utility value with professional learning programs results in greater degrees
of application of new instructional practices (Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 2004; Berman,
McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellerman, 1977; Sparks, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Webster
(2006) claimed that the perceived utility value of instructional practices by teachers strongly
correlated with application of instructional innovations, and Zhang, et al. (2008) affirmed that
“utility value was considered essential by the participants” (p. 27) in continuing their
engagement with professional learning opportunities.
Utility value strongly correlated with specific applications of diverse instructional
practices, including the integration of technology (Limayem & Cheung, 2008; Roca, Chu, &
Martinez, 2006; van Raaij & Schepers, 2008). Similarly, teachers were more likely to initiate
innovative writing instruction based on perceived utility value (Pennington, 1995). Perhaps most
significantly, teachers of EBs had higher levels of motivation in applying new instructional
practices if they perceived a utility value (Coyle, 2006; Dörnyei, 2001; Hillyard, 2011;
McCombs & Whisler, 1997). Although different motivational factors influence teachers in
different ways at different stages of their careers, utility value registers as a consistently strong
factor in shaping teacher practices during each stage (Richter, et al., 2011).
Cost. The perceived usefulness of instructional practices corresponds strongly with
learning and engaging in those practices. For teachers to develop improved practices and
continue to implement them, these teachers must perceive that there is a value in learning the
new practices and in applying them. One of the contributors in the development of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 75
perspective of a value of a new behavior is that of cost value. Cost value is the “negative
consequences of engaging in the task” (Pintrich, 2003, p. 675). Cost value considers the required
effort, the sacrifice in time devoted to higher valued activities, and the individual's perception of
the potential for failure. While less rigorously researched in comparison to attainment, intrinsic,
and utility values (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), Eccles [Parson], et al. (1983), drawing on the
seminal work of Thibaut and Kelley (1959), nevertheless stressed that cost value exacted a
considerable influence on the choice of an individual to engage in a course of action.
Although scant literature investigates the specific influence of cost value and selection of
career track or professional development of teachers (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), Webster
(2006) maintained that cost value is a significant predictor of a positive outcome for a teacher’s
implementation of educational innovations. Importantly, in an investigation of in-service
teachers, Battle and Looney (2014) indicated that cost values associated with financial
compensation and fatigue demotivated teachers; they also found that cost values were
“negatively associated” (p. 373) with the desire to remain in the teaching profession.
Regarding the professional learning of teachers, Syed’s (2008) qualitative analysis of
experienced elementary school literacy teachers reflected a significant cost to “voice” (p. 285) in
professional learning programs that did not include teacher’s involvement in their own growth.
Singh and Shifflette (1996) noted that a majority of secondary teachers found professional
learning programs to be “a waste of time” (p. 156). Of particular importance, the teachers of
EBs did not feel that professional development met their specific needs, as it did not provide the
teachers with any value in improving instruction for their students (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, &
Driscoll, 2005). Professional development programs that do not consider the diverse
motivational factors influencing teachers, or that do not provide teachers with targeted
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 76
differentiation to meet these diverse factors are unlikely to provide lasting change, and may
negatively influence the existing motivation of the teachers.
In summary, attention to motivational values registers as a distinctly critical element in
effective professional learning of teachers of Latino PEBLs. Motivational values significantly
shape each teacher’s willingness to engage in pre-service and in-service professional learning
opportunities that could facilitate differentiated forms of evaluation, so critical to language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Equally, motivational values can
determine whether the teacher will employ newly discovered innovations into educational
practices, facilitating potentially improved outcomes for PEBLs.
Teacher Organizational Influences
Each of the schools in the State of California has identical external expectations of
accountability placed upon them in the Reclassified Fluent-English-Proficient (RFEP) process by
California Education Code § 313; however, the schools in which secondary English teachers
provide the evaluations that are a critical facet of the RFEP differ considerably in their
organizational structures, policies, practices, and cultures. Although a wide range of
organizational influences in different schools and districts may influence the eventual RFEP
designation of Latino PEBLs, the organizational influences (See Table 4) that most directly
influence secondary English teacher’s evaluations of those learners in PCSD include: (a)
inconsistent work processes, (b) professional learning opportunities targeted to meet the needs of
EBs, (c) material resources, (d) misarticulated policies, (e) organizational goal orientation, and
(f) site-level performance goals for RFEP of all levels of EBs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 77
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Methods of Assessment
Organizational Mission
PCSD strives to ensure that each and every student is educated and prepared to succeed in life. We are dedicated to
maximizing individual potential and developing lifelong learners who will be contributing members in a global society.
Organizational Global Goal
Ensure a democratic, informed society in which the students are important contributors.
Stakeholder Goal
PCSD asserts that 47% of English Language learners will advance one or more levels, and that 20% will be classified
as Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) by June of 2016, with subsequent annual 2% growth.
Organizational Indicators
Work processes, professional learning opportunities, material resources, policies, organizational goal orientation, site-
level performance goals for RFEP of Latino PEBLs
Assumed influence(s): Influence assessment:
 Work processes: Stakeholder group does not have
consistent practices of evaluation and benchmarking
procedures of EBs, including differentiated practices that
address the unique needs of Latino PEBLs.
 Observation of work practices at school sites; open-
ended interview with a maximum variation sample of
secondary English teachers of their perspective of the
consistency of work process for evaluation of Latino
PEBLs within the organization.
 Professional learning: Existing professional
development offerings are not designed to meet the needs
of EBs including differentiated evaluation practices that
address the unique needs of Latino PEBLs.
 Observation of the documentation of existing
professional development programs; open-ended
interviews with a maximum variation sample of
secondary English teachers of the purpose of previous
and existing professional learning opportunities that focus
on the needs of EBs and Latino PEBLs.
 Material resources: Although considerable technology
is used in the district, stakeholders involved with the RFEP
procedure do not have access to robust technology
platforms that would provide sufficient information to
engage in effective evaluations of Latino PEBLs;
secondary English teachers do not have access to existing
formative and summative evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
 Observation of existing technology platforms; open-
ended interview with a maximum variation sample of
secondary English teachers about their perspective of the
PCSD’s material resource contribution that would
facilitate best practices in the formative and summative
language development and academic performance
evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
 Policies: Policies do not exist that allow for explicit
articulation of best practices in evaluation of Latino
PEBLs, and site level policies vary considerably; PCSD
does not include formal administrator evaluation of
secondary English teacher abilities in evaluating EBs.
 Evaluation of existing policies as published in LCAP;
open-ended interview with a maximum variation sample
of secondary English teachers about their awareness of
existing policies designed to shape secondary English
teacher’s formative and summative evaluations of EBs
and Latino PEBLs.
 Organizational goal orientation: Practices that would
promote excellence for marginalized learners have not
been established or reinforced within the organization.
 Observation of existing site-level organizational goals
and practices; open-ended interview with a maximum
variation sample of secondary English teachers about
their perspective of the culture of the organization.
 Site-level performance goals for all levels of EBs:
Although considerable detail in performance goals have
been created at the district level, they are not articulated to
sites, nor do the sites have more refined, periodic
performance goals to meet those goals.
 Observation of existing (or non-existing) performance
goals at sites; open-ended interview with a maximum
variation sample of secondary English teachers about
their site-level performance goals.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 78
As in my formation of the frameworks for the knowledge and motivation influences that
impact secondary English teacher’s formative and summative language development and
academic performance evaluations of Latino PEBLs, the organizational influences that I have
identified contribute to these teacher’s evaluations, and by focusing my investigation on these
particular organizational influences, I can gain greater understanding of the role the
organizational influences play in secondary English teacher’s evaluations, making it possible to
form solutions to PCSD’s existing performance problem of the diminished language
development and academic trajectories of Latino PEBLs.
Work processes. Secondary English teachers in PCSD lack consistently effective work
processes that would enable them to evaluate Latino PEBLs with greater precision.
Significantly, the work processes of teachers who are responsible for evaluation and
benchmarking procedures of PEBLs were inconsistent from school to school, and from
classroom to classroom. California Education Code § 313 requires that teachers of PEBLs
provide “evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the student's curriculum mastery”
(Article 4.1[e]). In recognition of the unique environmental characteristics at diverse Local
Education Agencies (LEA), with Title 5, Section 11303 of the California Code of Regulations,
the state has permitted LEA to establish their own reclassification policies for EBs in fulfillment
of § 313. Leaders at PCSD have determined that its teachers will contribute to the district’s
RFEP evaluation by evaluating the curriculum mastery of EBs through student grades and bi-
annual benchmarking of student language development. Teachers in PCSD are responsible for
providing these critical forms of evaluation that could lead to a designation as RFEP for EBs;
however, the teachers in PCSD do not share consistent and coherent practices of evaluation and
benchmarking procedures of EBs, and command no capability in differentiating their evaluation
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 79
of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Each English
Language Arts teacher in the district is responsible for providing these evaluations for RFEP of
EBs; however, inconsistent evaluative determinations of learner language levels and academic
performance have muddled the capability of teachers to meet firmly established State guidelines.
Rumberger and Gándara (2004) explained that one of the reasons EBs do not demonstrate
similar educational outcomes in comparison with peer groups is that existing evaluation systems
are “of little value for monitoring their academic progress” (p. 2041). Parrish et al. (2006)
engaged in a rigorous five-year evaluation of the performance of EBs in the State of California
and discovered that the academic performance of EBs was inaccurately gauged by teacher’s
evaluation, with Latino EBs facing the most considerable disparities. Although the researchers
acknowledged that their analyses of these complex processes were in early stages,
incongruencies in local district’s application of evaluation methods “[gave] cause for concern”
(p. III-35). Pointedly, these findings indicated that local agencies consistently demonstrated
“methods that likely under-represent success and ignore English learners’ progress over time
across the spectrum of linguistic and academic performance” (Parrish et al., 2006, p. V-I).
PCSD, like many school districts in the State of California, applies its own systems to evaluate
the development of EBs; yet in attempting to meet the unique localized needs of the district,
PCSD has not established, and does not facilitate effective work processes of teachers in their
evaluations of EBs.
The evaluation processes of the majority of teachers of EBs in the State of California
“lack clarity” (Parrish, et al., 2002, p. ix), rendering effective evaluation (and instruction) less
than effective. Moreover, those processes lack alignment with foundational principles of second
language acquisition (Reeves, 2004; Walqui, 2000). Effective teacher evaluation practices are
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 80
critical to social and educational outcomes of EBs, yet consistency in those processes remains
absent among teachers in PCSD. Hill et al. (2014) explained that research demonstrates a
considerable value in EBs “being reclassified slightly sooner” (Hill, et al., 2014, p. 2), yet in
PCSD, ineffective teacher work processes have produced inaccurate evaluations of the language
development and academic abilities of EBs that has manifested in significantly diminished
reclassification rates for PEBLs, the majority of whom are Latino.
Professional learning. As researchers have continually demonstrated, teachers do not
engage in sufficient, rigorous professional learning opportunities that would enable them to
evaluate EBs more effectively (Barnard, 2009; California State University, Office of the
Chancellor, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics, 2001; Parrish
et al., 2006). Yet despite these findings, districts in the State of California largely do not provide
teachers with effective forms of professional learning that would meet the needs of the general
population of EBs (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003). Specialized
professional learning opportunities to meet the unique needs of Latino PEBLs remain practically
non-existent.
Latino PEBLs typically receive instruction in mainstream classes in which forms of
assessment are supposed to be differentiated; however, in these classrooms, the teachers are
“largely untrained” (Reeves, 2006, p. 131), depriving students of effective feedback that may
prove to be counterproductive in facilitating classroom engagement (Bartolome, 2004;
Valenzuela, 2005). Abedi and Gándara (2006) demonstrated that issues surrounding evaluation
“must be addressed to help close the performance gap” (p. 37); however, PCSD does not provide
its secondary English teachers with specific professional learning opportunities in modifying
evaluation methods of EBs, nor does the district provide any specific professional development
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 81
designed to meet the unique evaluation needs of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs.
Complicating matters further is that in the rare case when professional learning
opportunities for classroom evaluations of EBs are provided by districts, these opportunities are
rooted in the Deficit Model (Scanlan, 2007, drawing from Ausubel, 1964; Deutsch, 1964; Lewis,
1966; Riessman, 1963), that “[do] not give ELL students credit for the language and academic
skills they already have but are unable to communicate in English” (Holmes, Rutledge, &
Gauthier, 2009). Particularly for Latino PEBLs at the secondary level, the Deficit Model can
cloud accurate evaluation by teachers, all too often resulting in inaccurate placement and
diminished academic and social outcomes for these learners.
Tasked by the State of California, PCSD expects its secondary teachers to provide Latino
PEBLs with accurate evaluation in the form of quarterly grades, as well as bi-annual benchmarks
and recommendation for RFEP; yet PCSD does not provide specific professional learning
opportunities that would enable these teachers to evaluate these students with accuracy based on
their specific learning needs. Consequently, secondary English teachers frequently rely on their
own various versions of summative and formative evaluations of language development and
academic performance, diminishing institutional consistency. As numerous researchers have
demonstrated, teachers regularly demonstrate evaluation biases (Burgess & Greaves, 2009; Dee,
2004; Dee, 2005; Figlio, 2005; Hanna & Linden, 2009; Lindahl, 2007; Ouazad, 2008). More
perniciously, teachers very seldom apply grading strategies that align with standards, instead
employing their own proprietary forms of student evaluation (Brookhart, 1991).
Organizationally, the lack of specific professional learning opportunities in PCSD designed to
meet the distinct evaluative needs of EBs, and more specifically, Latino PEBLs has manifest in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 82
reclassification outcomes that are significantly below PCSD’s stated performance goals for these
populations of learners.
Guskey (1999) established that “organizational factors at the school and district levels
influence what works and what does not work in professional development. In some instances,
they can even be defining factors in a program or activity’s success” (p. 151). PCSD does offer
Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) training for secondary teachers who teach specialized
classes for EBs. Secondary English teachers, who teach the majority of Latino PEBLs in the
district, are not required to participate in the training. PCSD offers this training to teachers on a
voluntary basis, primarily during after school hours, significantly reducing widespread
participation, mitigating more thorough application in classrooms. As fruitful as BAS
evaluations may be in providing EBs at the early stages of their language development improved
reading instruction, evaluations only progress to the 8
th
grade reading level. PCSD does not
provide secondary English teachers of EBs with reading instruction that would progress students
from 9
th
to 12
th
grade levels of reading. Academic language evaluation of EBs as well as
benchmarking of language development do not always align with BAS evaluations, rendering it
less than effective—particularly at the secondary level, as the redesignation criteria relies upon
student’s grades.
The district does not provide teachers with any specific professional learning
opportunities designed to assist those teachers in their evaluation of the academic performance
and language development of EBs, even though accurate evaluation of this population of learners
is critical in facilitating reclassification (Wolf et al., 2008). PCSD also does not provide specific
professional learning opportunities that address teacher recommendations of English fluency, an
essential component of the reclassification process. Estrada and Wang (2013) found school
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 83
districts that included teacher recommendations as a factor in reclassification of EBs
demonstrated significant inconsistencies in their alignment with the results of standardized
assessments. Although recommendation of an EB’s English language fluency by a teacher is a
pivotal component in reclassification, teachers who held a “decisive role…tended to explain
away even Proficient or Advanced levels of performance as ‘single’ performances, ‘luck,’
possibly cheating, or an indication that some students ‘are just good test takers’” (Estrada &
Wang, 2013, pp. 31-32). Recommendations for RFEP rely on a teacher’s ability to subjectively
discern both academic and language development; however, as Fu (1995), Schmidt (2000), and
Valdes (1998, 1999, & 2001) demonstrated, significant populations of teachers demonstrated
discrimination in their evaluations of the academic performance and language development of
EBs—particularly Latino PEBLs. Without effective professional learning opportunities that
would potentially assist teachers in making accurate recommendations, teachers in PCSD employ
a salmagundi of subjective analyses in their evaluations of the academic and linguistic abilities of
Latino PEBLs, ultimately resulting in considerably diminished teacher evaluation metrics of
these students in comparison to more valid and reliable measurements, such as the CAASSP and
the CELDT.
Material resources. Beyond the work processes and lack of appropriate professional
development for teachers in PCSD, secondary English teachers do not have the critical material
resources to apply with accuracy and consistency periodic evaluations leading to designation of
all EBs as RFEP, despite legal guidelines designed to promote equity for EBs. The legal policies
from the State of California (Title 20 § 1703f, & CA-AB 2193) requiring equitable allocation of
resources for EBs have been firmly established; however, within PCSD, accurate assessment
materials that teachers could use to evaluate Latino PEBLs are not provided at the secondary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 84
level, where broader ranges of curricular demands require more refined evaluation of academic
performance. PCSD does have sufficient material resources to address this gap in application of
resources. It is a well-funded, fiscally sound organization. Stakeholders do have access to
adequate instructional materials to address the needs of most students in the district. Yet the
teacher stakeholder group most directly involved with the reclassification process of Latino
PEBLs does not have consistent access to materials that could provide more accuracy in
evaluating the language development and academic performance of these learners.
Cervetti, Kulikowich, and Bravo (2015) demonstrated the importance of effective
instructional materials in facilitating effective education of EBs, and Gándara & Contreras
(2009) used a situated example to confirm the impact that these resources can provide EBs.
Disparities in material resources provided to EBs have long been a concern of researchers
(Gándara & Rumberger, 2003), with the lack of effective forms of evaluation emerging as a
particularly prominent obstacle (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). Although many
summative assessments (particularly high-stakes standardized tests) are beyond the locus of
control of the classroom teacher, formative assessments (so critical in the development of
learning) do remain largely within the sphere of teacher control (Black & Wiliam, 2006). In
their ethnographic research of teachers of EBs in California schools, Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly,
and Driscoll (2005) found that: “the lack of appropriate assessment materials for determining EL
students’ grasp of academic subjects was particularly troublesome” (p. 9). Similarly, Parrish et
al. (2006) revealed that teachers of EBs in California did not have “assessments that [were]
appropriate for ELs and that provide[d] timely and useful information on their progress” (II-25).
The lack of effective forms of site-level evaluations provided to secondary English teachers in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 85
PCSD makes it very difficult for these teachers to determine the ongoing academic and language
performance of EBs, including Latino PEBLs.
Amaral, Garrison, and Klentschy (2002) evaluated the performance of EBs in a content-
area class and found that effective, student-aligned formative evaluations produced considerably
higher gains in academic achievement than traditional instruments used in similar content
classes. The challenge that schools face in better meeting the needs of EBs is that either teachers
need the skills to develop effective assessment instruments for EBs, or they need to be provided
with effective assessment instruments. Durán (2008) explained that expecting teachers to create
effective formative assessments is a dubious proposition at best, because “the reality is that very
few educational stakeholders are able to comprehend the technical characteristics of assessments
well, if at all” (p. 321). Providing teachers with rigorous, appropriate formative evaluations
could make it possible for teachers to maximize student learning of Latino PEBLs; however,
PCSD’s inability to provide secondary English teachers with differentiated instruments that
match the unique needs of Latino PEBLs significantly hampers this possibility.
Although budgetary guidelines in PCSD specifically explain that the district will provide
dedicated materials to all EBs for up to three years after they have demonstrated English fluency,
the lack of cohesive placement of critical concrete elements (such as formative and summative
evaluations) at school sites prevents effective evaluation and accurate recommendations of
Latino PEBLs, and draws into question whether the district has actually met formal expectations
of external accountability in its allocation of financial resources to EBs.
Without accurate application of appropriate evaluation instruments in alignment with
student needs, teachers are compelled to cobble together formative and summative evaluations of
language development and academic performance with various degrees of rigor and fidelity.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 86
This has deprived secondary schools in PCSD from establishing an alignment in evaluations
from grade to grade, or for that matter, from teacher to teacher or even from lesson to lesson.
Ultimately, this can create instructional redundancy or inappropriate placement for EBs, as the
very evaluative methods used for native English speakers may not measure the knowledge of
EBs due to significant evaluation habitus of the dominant culture, in which these learners face
varying degrees of marginalization (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000). As Bourdieu (1991)
succinctly explained, the language of the dominant shapes “integration into a single ‘linguistic
community’, which is a product of the political domination that is endlessly reproduced by
institutions capable of imposing universal recognition of the dominant language, [and] is the
condition of the establishment of relations of linguistic domination” (p. 45). Formative and
summative evaluations of language development and academic performance that emerge from
teachers embedded within these linguistic communities are unlikely to align with learners who
are not familiar with the cultural principles that have shaped those performance evaluations. It is
very possible that the resultant discontinuities may continue to foster oppositional behavioral
patterns that exacerbate negative academic trajectories for marginalized learners such as Latino
PEBLs.
Misarticulated policies. Policies at all layers of education shape outcomes, and
institutions that do not create and ensure accountability among all stakeholders in the realization
of those policies cannot be expected to maximize performance (Fullan & Mundial, 1989). In
particular, misarticulated policies at all levels of education may especially hinder the educational
and social development of EBs (Wiley & Wright, 2004). Seeking to evaluate the critical
influence of policies on effective institutional practices, Heineke (2015) studied the impact of
policies on the instructional practices designed for EBs in an Arizona school district,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 87
demonstrating that misarticulated policies significantly hampered the performance of EBs.
Datnow, Hubbard, and Mehan (2002) affirmed that policies shape teacher practices, and that
each educator’s “ideologies about ability, race, language, social class, and most fundamentally,
education strongly influenced how they implemented reforms” (p. 53). Explicitly articulated
policies can help positively leverage those ideologies, but bereft of this articulation, any
consistency in applying even the most effective policies remains dubious. In a democratic
society that promises its embrace of equality, ideally (as Brown, Bemmels, and Barclay (2010)
proposed): “organizations create policies in an effort to reduce injustice, as well as address the
needs and interests of organizational members” (p. 1587). Yet for PCSD, the lack of articulated
policies regarding the evaluation and recommendation of Latino PEBLs has deprived these
students of deeper dimensions of equity in academic opportunity.
As Olsen (2010) established in her groundbreaking: Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the
upkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s Long-Term English Learners, Latino
PEBLs face systemic obstacles in the form of policies that do not maximize educational
opportunities for these learners. Much of this can be traced to systems that often unknowingly
reproduce “formal and informal policies and practices that support notions of the superior nature
of English visàvis certain minority languages, such as Spanish” (Monzó & Rueda, 2009, p. 24).
Ultimately, these unfounded perspectives have manifest in “policybased practices in schools”
(Monzó & Rueda, 2009, p. 30) that are inequitable, and these discriminatory practices can
significantly diminish educational outcomes for EBs—particularly Latino PEBLs. Gándara and
Contreras (2009) explained that district and site-level policies shaped inequitable educational
opportunity for EBs, confiding that “the educational achievement of English learners is lowest of
all groups of students in the public schools except for special education pupils” (p. 146).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 88
Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, and Shields (2009) found that the lack of overt policies requiring parent
participation and an inequitable distribution of high quality teachers strongly contributed to the
performance deficit of EBs. Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993/1994) determined that parental
involvement and site-level policies were strong contributors to student learning; however,
inconsistent or non-existent policies of schools like those in PCSD that could otherwise
encourage greater participation of parents through site-level advocacy have consistently served
to mitigate these potential benefits.
In his seminal article, Zeichner (1992) explained the importance of collaboration and
reflection among teachers of marginalized populations in improving their educational outcomes;
however, schools in PCSD do not have overt policies that ensure these critical forms of
collaboration and reflection in the development of best formative and summative evaluation
practices designed to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs. Equally fundamental, Fullan and
Mundial (1989) established that “formal policies which explicitly create working conditions that
support and inspire movement in other cogs” (p. 14) significantly enhanced organizational
effectiveness. Policies that involved teachers in forming to school-wide goals as well as
consistent collaboration that promotes feedback between and among teachers contributed
significantly to student outcomes (Cohen et al., 2009). These policies can also diminish teacher
burnout, which is a particularly significant factor in teachers of Latino EBs (Flores-González,
2002; Gibson et al., 2004), who comprise the overwhelming majority of PEBLs at the secondary
level. PCSD’s lack of policies that promote collaboration and reflection among secondary
English teachers of Latino PEBLs has limited the capability for these teachers to work together
in establishing more culturally responsive evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of these learners.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 89
Administrator evaluation of teacher benchmarking practices of EBs. One particular
policy in PCSD that exacts a negative influence on more effective secondary English teacher
formative and summative language development and academic performance evaluations of their
Latino PEBLs is the lack of a district-wide policy that includes administrator evaluation of the
teacher evaluations of EBs.
Although criteria specified by the biennial teacher evaluation performed by site-level
administrators in PCSD as a condition for a teacher’s further employment do consider multiple
dimensions of the professional practices of teachers, student benchmarking and recommendation
of EBs for RFEP are presently not included in these evaluations. The present evaluation
instrument used by PCSD to determine continuation of employment for teachers includes
specific observation criteria, including “using the results of assessment to guide instruction” and
“using multiple sources of information to assess” (PCSD, 2015); yet no concrete criteria exists to
evaluate teacher’s ability in meeting the specialized evaluation and recommendation expectations
of EBs, not to mention Latino PEBLs. Stronge and Tucker (2003) established that “without high
quality evaluation systems, we cannot know if we have high quality teachers” (p. 3), and the link
between effective teachers and educational outcomes of learners has been solidly demonstrated
(Brophy & Good, 1984; Dunkin & Doneau, 1980; Fisher et al., 1980; Goe, 2007; Nye,
Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Rockoff, 2004). PCSD’s lack of a
formal evaluation of each teacher’s effectiveness in evaluating EBs for RFEP confounds
systemic maximization of educational outcomes by not providing effective organizational
accountability measures for teacher performance in their benchmark evaluations, as well as in
their formal and informal assessments of the language development and content area
achievement of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 90
The lack of coherent policies among secondary schools in PCSD complicates the already
slip-shod site-level administration of language development and academic performance
evaluations of EBs by secondary English teachers. The district has never explicitly articulated
best practices for teachers of the evaluation of EBs in the district’s classrooms, and consequently
site-level policies vary considerably—especially at the secondary level. The lack of cohesive
policies has shaped inconsistent formative and summative evaluations, creating discordance in
external and internal accountability, and has fomented increased tension among all levels of
stakeholders, all the while not addressing the specific needs of Latino PEBLs. Cumulatively, the
lack of coherent policies has compromised the institutional effectiveness of PCSD.
Organizational goal orientation. The lack of expertly applied resources and articulated
policies has stymied effective evaluation of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers in
PCSD. Moreover, secondary English teachers are further hampered in their efforts in the
reclassification process of these students by a distinct lack of alignment of explicit district goals
with the practices of secondary English teachers at each of the district’s high schools. Even
though research demonstrates the importance in aligning organizational goals with organizational
practices (Guskey, 1999), school sites in PCSD have widely diverse instructional and evaluation
practices for its population of EBs—particularly at the secondary level. These practices are
frequently misaligned with PCSD’s clearly delineated organizational goals. The goals of the
district are for the achievement of excellence for all learners; however, policies that could more
effectively shape practices that align with those goals have not been explicitly established or
reinforced by the sites within the organization. The result has been a diminished organizational
performance in meeting the specific learning needs for the district’s population of EBs, and a
practical obliviousness in recognizing the needs of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 91
Powell (1992) established that organizational alignment significantly enhanced
operational effectiveness. Similarly, Schein (2004) asserted that when diverse groups within an
institution are “aligned toward shared organizational goals” (p. 57), their collective effectiveness
is maximized. Senge et al. (2012) found that effective organizations develop a shared vision that
brings “disparate goals and statements into alignment” (p. 86), and in fact, the “degree of
alignment throughout the organization around the vision” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008, p. 30)
significantly improved organizational performance. According to Lunenburg and Ornstein, the
alignment of goals throughout the organization was the single most important factor in the
operational success of schools. Although PCSD has established considerably robust
performance goals regarding its educational outcomes for its population of EBs (even though it
lacks similar goals for Latino PEBLs), these district-level goals have not aligned with the goals
at school sites, resulting in inexact practices that do not meet the district’s expectations for
performance.
Site-level performance goals for reclassification of Latino PEBLs. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, the different school sites in PCSD do not have explicit goals for
reclassification of Latino PEBLs. The district has established goals for the subpopulation of
PEBLs in its Local Education Agency (LEA) plan, yet does not recognize that the overwhelming
majority of these students are Latino, resulting in an inexact understanding of how to align goals
with practices of secondary English teachers. In a school of largely marginalized learners, Beck
and Murphy (1998) found that clearly articulated site-level performance goals that were in
alignment with district goals improved student performance. Specifically, Villavicencio &
Grayman (2012) learned that “alignment of needs, goals, and actions in the schools drove the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 92
selection and use of appropriate strategies to improve teaching and learning” (p. ES-2), building
internal capacity for sustained improvement in educational outcomes.
A focus on only performance goals can be counterproductive to individual achievement
in multifaceted endeavors (Seijts et al., 2004); however, as Nahrgang et al. (2013) demonstrated,
specific performance goals yielded the best results among teams, such as those secondary
teachers in PCSD who have the responsibility for meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs. PCSD’s
lack of site-level performance goals in favor of haphazardly-formed individual goals on the part
of each of its secondary English teachers in each of PCSD’s five secondary schools has
diminished the organization’s collective effectiveness in facilitating accuracy in evaluating the
language development and academic performance of the district’s population of EBs, and has led
to a significant performance problem for PCSD in meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs.
In their examination of a highly successful school district, DuFour and Marzano (2015)
determined that the district “[had] articulated specific learning goals for all students and [had]
established a process to ensure that each school adopts student achievement targets that align
with district goals” (p. 33). PCSD has initiated a process through which this alignment could be
achieved. In fact, PCSD has established concrete performance goals for the district’s population
of PEBLs, with the district asserting that 47% of its 3,609 EBs (California Department of
Education Data Reporting Office, 2015) will advance one or more levels. It also has held that
20% will be designated as RFEP by June of 2016 (PCSD, 2015, p. 10). Yet the district does not
have organizational goals for RFEP among its population of Latino PEBLs, nor do any of its
secondary schools. The result is a diminished capability for secondary English teachers to
recognize performance capabilities and subsequently adjust their evaluation practices for the
district’s population of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 93
In summary, specific organizational influences at PCSD have reduced operational
effectiveness in facilitating accurate evaluation by secondary English teachers for all EBs,
especially for the district’s population of Latino PEBLs. The stakeholder group including
secondary English teachers has not consistently engaged in effective formative and summative
evaluations of the language development and academic performance of EBs. Additionally, the
district has not provided appropriate professional learning opportunities designed to meet the
needs of teachers so that they can more effectively evaluate the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Although accurate and appropriate formative
evaluations of content understanding and language development are critical in facilitating growth
for EBs, the district has not provided secondary English teachers with the necessary evaluation
materials or professional learning opportunities that would assist those teachers in improving
their application of valid and reliable formative and summative site-level assessments of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Even though the district
may have had specific policies that it instituted in its provision of educational services to EBs,
the district has not rigorously articulated those policies to secondary schools, significantly
lessening their usefulness. Finally, even though PCSD has created specific performance goals
for its EBs, secondary schools have not created specific incremental reclassification performance
goals for these learners, nor have they established site-level performance goals for Latino
PEBLs, depriving the district of the critical alignment of established organizational goals with
site-level practices.
Summary
In this chapter, I have explored the existing literature that considers the larger social and
cultural influences on Latino PEBLs and the way that they have been evaluated by teachers.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 94
Drawing from the seminal work of John Ogbu, I have considered the important differences in the
types of minority populations, and how these differences influence expectations for teacher
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Importantly, I have also investigated the impact of a misalignment
of teacher and student demographics in California schools. I concluded my review of the
literature by evaluating the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of secondary
English teachers as they evaluate the language development and academic performance of Latino
PEBLs. In the next chapter, I will explain the methodology that I have used to engage in my
own inquiry of the evaluation processes of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers in
PCSD.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 95
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Long marginalized by American schools, Latino learners continue to demonstrate
diminished academic trajectories in comparison to their peer groups, despite explicit legislation
requiring that all schools provide equitable educational opportunity for all learners—including
Latino PEBLs. More recently in the State of California (2016), the perennially diminished
academic performance and language development of Latino EBs has led the state to formally
institute the deficit-paradigm label “Long-term English Learner” with California Education Code
§ 313.1. California has recognized the educational inequity that continues to be reproduced, and
with § 313.1 required explicit identification of learners potentially leading to redresses for long-
standing practices of inequity. Despite the application of deficit terminology, § 313.1
nevertheless has established a category of learners that can thus receive greater attention by the
State through establishing policy and funding possibilities potentially leading to improved
evaluation methods by teachers and improved educational trajectories for the state’s population
of Latino PEBLs.
Given the overwhelming totality of regulations that call for equitable educational
opportunity for all learners (including Latino PEBLs), Local Education Agencies (LEA) are
responsible for shifts in evaluation practices by teachers that will make it possible for PEBLs (of
which the overwhelming majority are Latino) to gain greater fidelity in educational opportunity
guaranteed to them by the State of California and the United States of America. While this
expectation should certainly represent a watershed moment for Latino learners in the State of
California, success in realizing the expectation can only be forged through substantial changes in
practices by classroom teachers. In recognition of the changes in expectations required of
teachers, as well as in recognition of the existing dispositions of teachers who will be required to
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 96
accommodate those changes, my study sought to understand the dynamic interaction of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that shaped the existing evaluation
practices of secondary English teachers at a suburban Los Angeles secondary school.
In the first chapter of my study, I provided a description of the organizational context of a
suburban Los Angeles school district (PCSD) located in Maplewood, California within which the
performance problem of diminished language development and academic performance of Latino
PEBLs exists. Additionally, I detailed the characteristics of secondary English teachers, the
stakeholder group at the heart of my study. I concluded the first chapter with an explanation of
my rationale for applying the gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2009) problem solving approach,
which I have used to evaluate the existing knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that dynamically interact within the organizational environment, ultimately shaping and
reproducing a significant performance problem for PCSD. In the second chapter, following an
investigation of the broader social and cultural factors that contribute to the perpetuation of
social inequalities that have resulted in traditionally diminished academic outcomes for Latino
learners, I evaluated the existing literature that has delved deeply into the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that contribute to shaping teacher’s evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of EBs. I devoted special attention to how those
influences impact teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs at the secondary level.
In this, the third chapter, I will first explain how I have applied Clark and Estes’s (2009)
gap analysis problem solving model to direct my inquiry. I will then detail my rationale of the
application of a qualitative methodology. I have sought to distance myself from an exogenous
focus, instead seeking to adhere to an endogenous focus that will encourage the development of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 97
Droysen’s (1977) explanation of Verstehen
10
, effectively interpreted by Beiser (2011) as a
“constant movement back and forth between part and whole, because knowledge of one depends
on and grows with the other” (p. 300). Despite increased demands of external accountability
continued to be placed upon educational organizations in California, consideration of the
potentially more pivotal forms of internal accountability are all too often avoided in an effort to
provide immediacy in the evaluation of institutional effectiveness. My inquiry addressed these
forms of internal accountability, that take the form of the dispositions of teachers who are
entrusted by the State of California to provide Latino PEBLs with accurate forms of evaluation
of their language development and academic performance.
Seeking to illuminate how internal systems of accountability influence and are influenced
by the evaluation practices of secondary English teachers, my study focused on the dispositions
of teachers, rather than the more convenient statistical measures in the form of test scores that
align with a positivist discourse. In alignment with an endogenous focus, I have applied a three-
tiered qualitative approach, striving to develop a comprehensive Verstehen, or insight into the
dynamic interaction of forces (symbolically reduced into the labels of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors) that have shaped secondary English teachers’ evaluations of Latino
PEBLs in PCSD.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to utilize a gap analysis to investigate the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that interrelated in shaping evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers.

10
Burger’s (1977) eloquent argument for the adhesion to Weber’s positivistic view of Verstehen notwithstanding, I
have drawn from Droysen’s (1977) accounting of the intuitive nature of Verstehen.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 98
Research Question
o How do the dynamic influences of knowledge and motivation react, interact, and
counteract with organizational influences in shaping the language development and
academic evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers?
Conceptual Framework
In satisfaction of California Education Code § 313, PCSD has established two distinct
criteria for site-level contribution to the reclassification of secondary-level emerging bilingual
learners from limited to fluent English proficient: (a) evaluation of student academic competency
in the form of grading, and (b) recommendation of student English language fluency as measured
through bi-annual benchmark assessments. English teachers in the district are responsible for
completion of each of these processes. Understanding the identified performance gap of
secondary level English teachers in PCSD who are responsible for the criteria required to
reclassify Latino PEBLs from limited to fluent in English requires considerable discernment of
the attributes of those processes, as well as the dynamic influences that have shaped, and will
continue to shape them. Maxwell (2013) divulged that gaining insight of phenomena is
facilitated by the application of a conceptual framework, or “a model of what is out there that
you plan to study, and of what is going on with these things and why” (p. 39). To develop a
comprehensive understanding of what secondary English teachers in PCSD know and what
motivates their evaluation practices, as well as how the organization influences moderate what
they know and how they behave in relation to the RFEP of Latino PEBLs, my study employed a
conceptual framework that adapts Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model of performance
goal achievement. This framework will help simplify the rich array of influences and activity
processes that interrelate in forging the teacher processes required for RFEP, ultimately resulting
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 99
in a more comprehensive understanding of the existing performance problem in PCSD of the
diminished academic outcomes for Latino PEBLs, as well providing me with the necessary
understanding to forge a practical solution plan for PCSD’s organizational performance problem.
My conceptual framework accommodates the principles of Dynamic Systems Theory
(Thelen & Smith, 1994; Van Gelder, 1998), in recognition of the interconnectedness of all
variables that contribute to the formation and the reproduction of systems. My framework
reflects on the mediating aspects of knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that
interact dynamically to influence English teacher processes salient to the RFEP of Latino PEBLs
(see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Conceptual Framework.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) “big three causes of performance gaps” (p. 42) undeniably
consociate as they influence the evaluation processes of secondary English teachers in PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 100
To gain a depth of understanding of the how these three causes shaped teacher processes that
contributed to RFEP of Latino PEBLs in PCSD, I designed a conceptual framework for my study
that considers: three knowledge influences (declarative, procedural, and metacognitive); five
motivation influences (self-efficacy, attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost) and
six types organizational influences (work processes, professional learning opportunities, material
resources, policies, organizational goals, and site-level performance goals).
With their gap analysis model, Clark and Estes (2008) may have simplified the rich,
dynamic social constructions in arguing that “three critical ingredients influence all work
performance—our knowledge, our motivation, and the organizational environment where we
work” (p. xiv), yet the authors also asserted that these categories must “cooperate effectively”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 43) to maximize organizational performance. As Clark (2003)
articulated, it is of critical importance to recognize that “motivation generates the mental effort
that drives us to apply our knowledge and skills” (p. 22), requiring concomitant understanding of
how motivational factors shape knowledge, and for that matter, how knowledge can influence
motivation. With his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1989) established a model of triadic
reciprocal determinism that explained human capabilities, further detailing that “behavior,
cognition and other personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as interacting
determinants that influence each other bidirectionally” (p. 2). Clark and Estes (2008) aligned
with this reciprocal causation dynamism, albeit with a focus on the perspective of organizational
performance improvement. From this standpoint, factors such as “missing tools, inadequate
facilities, or faulty processes or procedures” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 45), can be distinguished
from knowledge and motivation factors to facilitate the “type of improvement program required”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 40) within an organizational setting.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 101
The knowledge and motivational influences of individuals may shape organizational
processes; however, it is the organization that establishes a context in which those critical
influences are continually and dynamically shaped. From methods of leadership and articulation
of organizational performance goals to the influence of organizational climate and culture, overt
and tacit organizational influences by the agents of an organization can exert considerable force
on all stakeholders. To apprehend the influences of the range of performance gaps in PCSD
regarding its population of Latino PEBLs and subsequently to establish and to apply the most
effective solutions, recognition of the interdependence of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors is required, and is supported by my application of the gap analysis model.
As my study focused on the site-level evaluations of Latino PEBLs, each secondary
school represented the immediate organizational context that I considered in its capacity to exact
influence upon the actions of secondary English teachers. In secondary schools, the principal
leads, and she (or he) in turn is held externally accountable by district leadership regarding site-
level evaluations of EBs. Ideally, district leadership establishes concrete performance goals for
these evaluations to satisfy the expectations of the school board and extended educational
community. These goals for EBs in PCSD are measured by the biannual benchmark evaluations
of the language development and academic performance of these students. Moreover, district
leadership enforces any specific policies and practices that teachers are expected to follow in
completion of these evaluations. District leadership and site-level administration can exact
specific organizational influences on the teacher in the form of concrete expectations for their
performances that may take different forms; however, contractually, they take the form of the
biennial teacher evaluation as a condition for further employment. Also of considerable
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 102
importance (even if tacit), cultural factors of the district and of each site strongly shape all
teacher work processes, including the evaluation of EBs.
Secondary English teachers enact, react, and often counteract with and to the larger
organizational influences in their interactions with each of their EBs as they determine her or his
academic and language development, ultimately leading to the teacher’s production of the two
forms of evaluations as required by California Education § 313(f)(2). District leadership collects
and uses the results from these evaluations, and may subsequently adjust its organizational goals
and policies. Subsequently, district leadership can be expected to coordinate with site-level
administrators to establish a range of professional learning efforts for teachers or avoid action
based on the results of the frequency of RFEP of EBs in PCSD.
Seemingly simple, teacher processes that lead to the RFEP of Latino PEBLs are in
actuality a complex network of activities shaped by the dynamic interchange of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Ideally, this complex network informs and motivates
teachers to provide accuracy in recommendation and evaluation of these learners. Ideally, the
organization provides effective support to the teachers, ultimately leading to the realization of
district performance goals. Yet these are ideals. In reality, if something is amiss in any of these
interactions, complications can develop that can compromise accuracy in evaluation. These
compromises can lead to diminished performance and limit organizational effectiveness.
Importantly, even as teachers may not command a comprehensive knowledge of language
development principles that contribute to effective recommendation and grading of Latino
PEBLs, this facet does not stand alone, but is instead infused by the degree of self-efficacy in
effective recommendation and grading of Latino PEBLs. Without the development of mastery
experiences, the development of intrinsic motivation diminishes. Attempts to ameliorate this
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 103
difficulty through professional learning models that are rooted in a Deficit Model (Scanlan,
2007) may prove to be counterproductive to accuracy in teacher processes (Holmes, Rutledge, &
Gauthier, 2009). Moreover, the absence of professional learning opportunities that address
motivational factors, coupled with misarticulated organizational goals and non-existent site-level
performance goals can serve to impinge on any incipient development of teacher knowledge that
could otherwise translate into evaluation practices that would be more effective in meeting the
specific needs of Latino PEBLs.
My conceptual framework captures the rich interchange of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors while recognizing the complexity of the activity systems with special
attention to the socio-cultural factors that shape those systems. This framework also recognizes
and applies the tripartite performance factors that represent the clearest route to address the gap
between organizational goals and actual performance. Einstein (1934) delineated that “the
supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as
possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of
experience” (p. 165). Without sacrificing the richness of the educational enterprise, my
framework also captures the simplicity of influences that are more likely to encourage
application in practice. The functional nature of my framework can lead to more accurate
identification of performance gaps among the complex activities that form secondary English
teacher processes, granting considerable insight that eventually could facilitate improved
professional learning leading to improved practices, more culturally responsive teacher
dispositions, and ultimately, improved academic outcomes for Latino PEBLs in PCSD.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 104
Participating Stakeholders
My study included three tiers of sequential data collection, focusing on secondary
English teachers in PCSD. In the primary stage, I evaluated the corpus of data in two biannual
benchmarks (Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016). In the second stage, I observed secondary English
teachers at Oceanside High School as they completed their Fall, 2015 benchmark evaluations. In
the third stage, I interviewed a maximum variation purposive sample of eight teachers currently
employed by PCSD in two secondary schools: Bayside, and Riverside. The maximum variation
sample enhanced the depth of my data collection by making it possible for me to gain a rich
range of information from a smaller sample of participants, while still capturing the diversity of
the practices of teachers in the various secondary schools within PCSD.
Sample Selection, Data Collection, and Instrumentation
Although quantitative methodologies can be very valuable means of collecting data and
can have considerable importance in educational research of the enumeration of phenomenon
(Creswell, 2008), to gain a depth of understanding of secondary English teacher evaluations of
Latino PEBLs, I selected a qualitative approach as it aligned more effectively with my research
question. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) detailed that qualitative methods are the most effective
form of inquiry in providing the researcher with an understanding of what Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) referred to as the investigation of phenomena “in all their complexity, in context” (p. 2),
and this aligns with the purpose of my inquiry. It is true that a quantitative approach that perhaps
utilized surveys as a data collection would have granted me insight into the externalities
surrounding my research question. These externalities may be important; however, my focus
was in gaining access into the inner landscapes of teachers so that I could understand why they
made the decisions they made regarding the language development and academic performance of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 105
Latino PEBLs. Understanding what the teachers’ knowledge, skills, and motivational influences
are could potentially have been gained through data collection of precise surveys. Yet my
research question sought to understand how these influences interacted within the organizational
context, and aligned best with my selection of a qualitative methodology.
The qualitative approach, with its stronger capability in “understanding behavior from the
informant’s own frame of reference” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 2) aligned more adroitly with
my specific line of inquiry. Moreover, my study adopted a research paradigm that finds
considerable limitation with a positivist approach, instead acknowledging Lewontin’s (1982)
perspective that individuals “do not adapt to environments; they construct them” (p. 163). This
constructivist paradigm recognizes the multiple subjective meanings that individuals may hold,
and asserts that those meanings are shaped by the social engagement of participants, or what
Marx (1973) referred to as their “mutual interaction” (p. 100) in a situated environment.
Teachers may be perceived as solely responsible for their production of the biannual evaluations
and recommendations of Latino PEBLs. Yet in truth, this seemingly simple production is in fact
a rich, dynamic interaction of multiple influences, of which teachers may not be entirely aware.
Vygotsky (1978) asserted that learning is “a complex, mediated act” (p. 40), and my qualitative
approach aligns with understanding the multiple mediations and complexities that secondary
English teachers in PCSD experience as they evaluate Latino PEBLs.
To engage in the depth and breadth of qualitative inquiry that my research question
demanded, I required multiple forms of qualitative data collection, justifying my selection of a
three-tiered approach. Moreover, I also needed to understand the various strengths and
drawbacks of my selection of sample, data collection and instrumentation. My exploration of
these elements, as well as the rationale of my decisions follows, and is supported by the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 106
importance of aligning my form of inquiry with my research question, as well as with the
logistical realities that encompassed my present study.
Although I did have specific questions I asked each teacher (see Appendix A), the semi-
structured nature of the interview provided teachers with the opportunity to expand upon their
perspectives of their evaluations of Latino PEBLs. My interview structure also facilitated each
teacher’s ability to reveal hidden dimensions of their practices as they revealed to me their
current levels of understanding of their evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. I recorded my observations of the teachers as they considered my
questions and answered the questions, and this enriched my understanding of how each teacher
negotiated the various knowledge and motivational influences required to evaluate Latino
PEBLs, as well as the organizational influences with which teachers reacted and counteracted.
Before and during the interviews, I took copious observational notes of the two schools,
including the students, teachers, support personnel, parents, and administrators who were present
during the times I interviewed the teachers. I also detailed the physical appearances, actions, and
dispositions of the teachers I interviewed. I used a digital voice recorder to ensure accuracy
during the interviews, and persisted in taking observational notes throughout my inquiry.
Immediately following each interview, I engaged in a process of reflexive note taking, focusing
on my interactions with the teachers during the interviews, as well as any emergent questions or
perceptions that I considered pertinent to my inquiry. I also took great care to note any
theoretical discoveries I began to identify as I reflected on the corpus of the data following the
teacher interviews.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 107
Sample selection. Alignment of a sampling strategy with my methodological approach
necessitated the selection of a purposive sample. Beyond the awkward application of the
terminology of ‘sampling’ with qualitative research, which Maxwell (2004) referred to as
“problematic” (p. 88), qualitative research benefits from application of the purposeful selection
of a population. Guba (1981) determined that the use of a purposive sample “is intended to
maximize the range of information uncovered” (p. 86), and I maximized this range through a
collection of data that included: (a) a comprehensive review of existing data to sharpen my
focus; (b) an observation of teachers at a specific site that revealed the process of teachers as
they completed their benchmark evaluations; and finally, (c) detailed interviews of a maximum
variation purposive sample of English teachers drawn from two of the five secondary schools in
PCSD.
In recognizing the considerable range of experiences, philosophies, and practices of
English teachers in PCSD in my sample selection, I gained a deeper appreciation of the
significance of the “common patterns” (Patton, 2002, p. 235) that emerged from the reflections
shared by diverse secondary English teachers throughout PCSD. The limited time frame during
which these teachers completed their biannual evaluations supported the formation of the
relatively small sample size of eight teachers for the third tier of my data collection. Patton
(2002) clearly detailed that selection of the size of sample “depends on what you want to know,
the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility, and
what can be done with available time and resources” (p. 244). Additionally, Miles, Huberman,
and Saldaña (2014) indicated that the size of a sample is connected to its ability to provide the
researcher with the opportunity for a sufficient density of description, in turn allowing readers of
the report to “assess the potential transferability and appropriateness in their own settings” (p.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 108
314). For my study, the perspectives of Patton (2002) as well as Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña
(2014) informed my recognition of the logistical realities of my study and led to the formation of
the sample population of secondary English teachers drawn from two schools that represented
the greatest differences in the academic and language development performance of EBs. My
selection of secondary schools (Bayside and Riverside) is also reflective of the identification of
demographic characteristics of each school that included low and high (Bayside and Riverside,
respectively) populations of Latino PEBLs.
I identified one significant criteria for my targeted population of teachers at each of the
secondary schools that shaped my selection of the maximum variation purposive sample:
differences in the overall years of teaching experience in a secondary English classroom. The
application of a maximum variation sample of teachers provided me with the greatest range of
information possible given the temporal restrictions of my study, adding a depth of
understanding of the range of experiences among teachers that was essential to my inquiry.
Data collection and instrumentation. Seeking to gain a depth of understanding of
English teachers’ knowledge, skills, and motivations, as well as their dynamic interaction within
the organizational context that shape teacher evaluation and recommendation of Latino PEBLs, I
employed three qualitative methods of data collection in three sequential stages: (a) evaluation of
the corpus of PCSD data reflecting secondary English teacher’s descriptions of the language
development of EBs as recorded in two biannual benchmarks (Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016); (b)
observation of fifteen secondary English teachers at a site as they completed their Fall, 2016
benchmark language evaluations of EBs; and (c) semi-structured interviews with a maximum
variation purposive sample of eight teachers employed by PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 109
Far from applying a positivist view to the data collection methods by attempting to
operationalize research questions and subsequently confine responses to targeted hypotheses, my
qualitative study sought to expand my understanding of the dynamic interaction of secondary
English teacher’s knowledge, skills, and motivations that influence evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs within the organizational environment
of PCSD. The focus of my inquiry led to my method of data collection.
Evaluation of biannual benchmarks. Merriam and Tisdell (2009) established that the
researcher must keep an open mind so that she or he can take advantage of “serendipitous
discoveries” (p. 175) that may emerge during inquiry. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) detailed that
typically, data collection of documents is used as an auxiliary method; however, the researchers
acknowledged that this form of data could also present a significant potency. Reflecting on
Marx’s (1973) “transitoriness of things” (p. 361) as well as the importance he held of cultural
production, my collection and evaluation of the biannual benchmark evaluations of Latino
PEBLs by secondary English teachers shed considerable light on their processes, as well as on
the multiple contributions that influenced them.
I did not see the documents and artifacts as a way to validate or invalidate hypotheses;
rather, I saw the documents and artifacts as an inductive means of gaining more comprehensible
initial insight of processes that are intricate. By reviewing two sets of biannual benchmark
evaluations of Latino PEBLS that had been completed by secondary English teachers in PCSD, I
could trace how the teachers used formative and summative evaluations of language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. In following each teacher’s
explanation of reasons in support or in denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs, I gained precision in
understanding the process of teacher benchmarks, deepening my understanding of how
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 110
knowledge and motivation influences shaped teacher’s decisions, as well as how any
organizational influences contributed to or complicated those decisions.
Observation of the completion of benchmarks. The second stage in the research
sequence involved an unstructured observation of teachers at Oceanside High School in their
classroom environments as they completed the first of their biannual 2016-17 evaluations and
recommendations of EBs (with a focus on Latino PEBLs) for RFEP. My unstructured approach
facilitated my ability to observe the array of factors that influence teacher’s choices in their
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described observation in qualitative
research as “a powerful tool” (p. 274), in that it limits the degree to which the data collection
depends upon forms of “contrivance” (p. 274) that can distance the researcher from
understanding the phenomena in its natural context. The unstructured approach did present
challenges; however, my knowledge of the field and my familiarity with the experiences of
teachers engaged in this process yielded considerable depth of understanding of teacher
evaluations of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Through
persistent reflexivity (Guba, 1981), my potential tendency to overlook potentially important
facets of teacher processes or to engage in practices of assumptions was continually checked,
adding considerable confirmability to my findings.
Glesne (2011) described the role of the qualitative researcher as that of being positioned
between the two polarities within the “participant-observational continuum” (p. 64). My role
within the organization as a teacher-leader during several of PCSD’s professional development
efforts over ten years had positioned me in a unique position within the classroom environments
in which I observed teachers as they completed their benchmark evaluations. In some
classrooms, I was closer to the observational pole, and in some classrooms, I was closer to the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 111
participant pole. Glesne (2011) detailed that as a participant-observer, the focus of my
observation was to develop a depth of understanding of the environment and of the participants
through the observation of their behaviors. Patton (2002) explained that this was accomplished
by collection of observational data that had both “depth and detail” (p. 28). During my
observation of English teachers of Oceanside High School in their classrooms as they completed
their required benchmark evaluations and recommendation for EBs, I acted as a resource
assisting teachers as they rendered their decisions regarding Latino PEBLs. For others, I did not
provide any information whatsoever. I took detailed observational notes, and if at any time the
teacher had any questions or offered any of their perspectives to me as they completed the
biannual evaluations, I recorded those reflections in the form of detailed notes including any of
my observational views. This provided me with an uncommon depth of understanding of the
rich interplay of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contributed to the
evaluative processes of secondary English teachers in Oceanside High.
I utilized the observations in the second tier of data collection that followed my
engagement with the corpus of data in the first tier of data collection to provide me with a more
comprehensive understanding of the intersections in teacher’s perspectives of the language
development and academic performance of their Latino PEBLs. As I observed their benchmark
evaluations, I contextualized my discoveries of each teacher’s descriptions of Latino PEBLs with
my observations of their practices in completing the biannual benchmark evaluation.
The findings collected during my observation made it possible for me to deepen my
understanding of the relationship of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that contributed to secondary English teacher’s evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Examining the
rich interplay of consociation of these influences as English teachers completed their evaluations
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 112
and recommendations of Latino and PEBLs for RFEP led me to outline my inquiry in examining
how knowledge and motivation influenced the decisions of teachers, and how the organizational
context shaped those decisions. By capitalizing on the “powerful tool” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
p. 274) of observation, I gained a considerably richer context of the decisions of teachers, which
added to my discretion of their dispositions. Perhaps more importantly, I developed an increased
understanding of how those choices and these dispositions resulted in the respective evaluations
and recommendations by secondary English teachers of their evaluation of Latino PEBLs for
RFEP.
Interviews. The final stage of data collection took the form of semi-structured interviews
with English teachers who evaluated Latino PEBLs for RFEP. Bogdan and Bilken (2007)
maintained that applying the semi-structured form of interviewing enabled the researcher to gain
data that can be used comparatively, as commonalities of responses in more targeted areas can
facilitate more comprehensive collective inquiry. At the same time, the semi-structured
interview offers room for expansion or contraction of questions that can invite entirely
unanticipated avenues of discovery. Structured interviews can “distort” (Briggs, 1986, p. 13) the
totality of the data collected, in that the researcher may confine the parameters of a participant’s
response. At the same time, Mishler’s (1986) underscoring of the inductive potency of the
unstructured interview in providing “a flexible strategy of discovery” (p. 28), while certainly
compelling, does not necessarily align with the more focused nature of this stage of my data
collection. My inquiry was not an open exploration of the phenomenon of teacher evaluations
and recommendations of Latino PEBLs, nor was the inquiry designed as grounded theory. My
research was a focused inquiry that was bounded by specific parameters.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 113
Given the relatively limited time frame of the study, I used the semi-structured interview
during the third and final stage of data collection. This approach, with its capability in granting a
degree of focus and expansion, encompassed a comprehensive discovery of the potential
knowledge and motivation factors that shaped the evaluation practices of secondary English
teachers of Latin PEBLs in PCSD, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the
organizational influences at PCSD that shaped secondary teacher’s methods of formative and
summative evaluations for these learners.
The initial interview stage consisted of a short collection of demographic information,
followed by 10 questions (Appendix A). I focused the semi-structured interviews on gaining
insight into diverse values and belief systems of teachers; moreover, I used this form of interview
to facilitate my unraveling of the complicated intertwining of knowledge and motivational
influences that contributed to secondary English teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. The
established questions were only utilized to initiate conversation. As I discovered information, I
asked questions based on the information that the participants offered me. Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) explained that this form of flexibility in questioning can “offer the subject a chance to
shape the content of the interview” (p. 104). My qualitative approach did not simply seek
validation or invalidation of questions. Instead, I sought to gain the insight that is beyond what
Mishler (1981) referred to as the “stimulus-response paradigm” (p. 14). Providing participants
with the opportunity to participate in directing the inquiry significantly increased the quality of
data that I collected as I sought understanding of the unique qualities of each teacher’s
experiences in evaluating Latino PEBLs. Guba (1981) asserted that “social/behavioral
phenomena exist chiefly in the minds of people, and there are as many realities as persons” (p.
77). Mining the depths of these diverse realities required that I take considerable latitude in my
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 114
questioning. At the same time, my inquiry was bounded by very specific parameters. The semi-
structured interview provided me with the opportunity to focus my inquiry within these
boundaries, while also providing me with the necessary extensibility to explore entirely
unanticipated lines of questioning.
Although both topical and cultural factors are certainly important elements regarding a
development of understanding of the rich interplay of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on teacher practices, I align with Rubin and Rubin’s (2012) perspective of the value of
the cultural interview in “understanding the norms, rules, and values that underlie people’s
behavior, their sense of ethics, and/or their traditions” (p. 31). To that end, even though my
interviews included opportunities for participants to share with me their perspectives of topical
factors that contribute to evaluations and recommendations of Latino PEBLs, it is upon the
invisible influences that I focused my efforts. Topical factors may have shed light on concrete
elements that undoubtedly influenced teachers; however, my study investigated the rich territory
that Claude Lévi-Strauss (1962) referred to as “situent toujours à mi-chemin entre des percepts et
des concepts” (p. 27), or the area that is always situated between percepts and concepts. Seeking
the “à mi-chemin entre” of the interaction of knowledge and motivational elements that influence
secondary English teacher’s evaluations and recommendations of Latino PEBLs, my interviews
engaged participants beyond the superficial and into the recesses of often-invisible forces that
can shape those teacher’s evaluation practices of Latino PEBLs.
Data Analysis
For my study, I have adhered to the principles for qualitative data analysis established by
Guba (1981) that rely on the inductive discovery of theoretical coding of findings. My coding
process aligns with the approach established by Glaser (2004), who admonished that deductive
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 115
forms of qualitative data analysis applying a “logically deducted, a priori hypotheses” (p. 3.1)
diminish the development of theoretical sensitivity. Rather than veer from Guba’s philosophical
moorings for qualitative data inductive analysis into a Straussian (1987) approach that hinges
upon systematic categorization of discoveries and application of deduction, I have rigorously
engaged with my data, letting “the natural organization of substantive life emerge” (Glaser,
2004, p. 3.2). My reliance on an inductive approach was of critical importance to my study,
because any imposition of deduction that I would have otherwise applied to the data would have
encroached on the emergent nature of the discoveries. In other words, as convenient as a
deductive approach may be in providing “verification” (Strauss, p. 12, 1987), my data analysis
was not inclined to ‘verify’ any notions that I may have had of the totality of the data I collected;
rather, my data analysis centered on the discovery of findings that emerged from the data, not
from categorization that I have imposed upon the data. Fidelity to the principles of induction
demanded that I employed and adhered to the approach of qualitative coding of data established
by Glaser (2004), initially with my analysis of the corpus of data containing teacher evaluations
of EBs, subsequently with my subsequent observation of teachers, and finally, during my
interviews with a maximum variation purposive sample of secondary English teachers.
Inductive inquiry differs from deductive inquiry in that deductive researchers use
collected data to test hypotheses; instead, inductive researchers gather data gained from
observations to develop understanding of phenomenon. One technique that qualitative
researchers can apply in their inductive analysis of collected data is that of open coding.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described this technique as one in which the researcher is “open to
anything possible” (p. 204). More specifically, open coding, as Strauss and Corbin (1990)
detailed, is “the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 116
categorizing data” (p. 61). This inductive technique enables generation of ideas from what can
be a very broad amount of collected data. Open coding is a valuable first step that facilitates the
development of ideas for the researcher as she or he begins the analytical process that can
eventually lead to deeper degrees of understanding of the data collected. I utilized open coding
to help me identify the seminal ideas that emerged from each stage of my three-tiered data
collection.
Following application of open coding at each stage, I applied an axial coding approach to
gain comprehensive insight of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
shaped teacher evaluations of their Latino PEBLs. Strauss and Corbin (1990) asserted that axial
coding was a method that would assist the researcher through a categorical reconstruction of
data, generating deeper connections that otherwise may have remained hidden. In contrast,
Glaser (1978) found a betrayal of the inductive approach through axial coding, stating
unequivocally that researchers who apply axial coding are imposing their theoretical values onto
the data, distancing the possibility of the emergence of “the myriad of implicit integrative
possibilities in the data” (p. 73). Glaser’s views have an important value, as the qualitative
researcher must continually maintain an open mind to protect against imposing values upon the
data that may not be present; however, axial coding can provide parameters from which the
researcher can discern a much deeper integrative understanding of discoveries that can emerge
from the data.
I have selected to apply an axial coding process at each stage after my application of open
coding, striving to forge “conceptually denser” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 14) theories that
could reflect a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of the knowledge and
motivational influences and the organizational influences that contribute in shaping secondary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 117
English teacher’s evaluations of Latino PEBLs. At the same time as I applied my axial coding, I
was careful to not impose upon the data any conclusions that were not supported by “the full
range of variation in the phenomena” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 13) through any application of
a priori methodology based on pre-identified codes from the previous stage. Choosing instead to
allow the data to reveal what Strauss and Corbin explained as “a thorough theoretical explanation
of social phenomena under study” (1990, p. 5), I continued my cycle of open coding followed by
axial coding at each stage of my data collection.
Evaluation of biannual benchmarks. I initiated my analysis of data by engaging in a
detailed review of the Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016 benchmark evaluations for EBs that were
completed by secondary English teachers in PCSD. I isolated all secondary level evaluations,
and then winnowed out any recommendations of students who were not identified as ‘Hispanic’;
I then collected those evaluations into a group that included only students who had been in PCSD
schools for at least five years. With this segment drawn from the larger data set, I began to
engage in an inductive course of coding, recording each of the codes in a code book. My coding
procedure, or my organization of data to facilitate greater degrees of analysis (Strauss & Corbin,
1990), provided me with the opportunity to engage in “deep reflection” (Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña, 2014, p. 72) about the meaning of the data within the larger scope of inquiry.
At this stage of my data collection, I strove to gain an understanding of how the product
of teacher’s evaluations of the language development and academic performance of their Latino
PEBLs shed light on each teacher’s dispositions, and the sequence of open to axial coding
assisted me in gaining greater insight into the gaps in teacher knowledge, motivation, and any
organizational factors that may have contributed to the diminished capability of PCSD to meet its
organizational performance goals for RFEP of EBs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 118
Observation of the completion of benchmarks. My analysis of data at the second tier
of my research involved my review of field notes from my observations of secondary English
teachers at Oceanside High School as they completed their Fall, 2016 benchmark evaluations. I
completed the observations subsequent to my analysis of the Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016
benchmark evaluations, and while I did allow the findings that emerged from my open coding-
to-axial coding sequence from the first tier of my research and data analysis to inform my
observation of teachers as they completed their Fall, 2016 benchmark evaluations, I adhered to
Dey’s (1993) distinction that “there is a difference between an open mind and empty head” (p.
65). I recognized the accumulation of understanding that I had developed through the first tier of
my research as I began to observe teachers as they completed their benchmark observations, but I
diligently avoided any application of codes in an a priori fashion as I evaluated the new data.
Interviews. During the final stage of my three-tiered data collection, I interviewed
teachers (n=8) drawn from a maximum variation purposive sample. After transcription of the
recorded interviews, I started an inductive course of coding, recording the initial codes in a code
book. I embarked an open-coding process with my observation data, engaging in a consistent
process of self-inquiry of what the teachers were confiding to me in their responses regarding
their evaluations of Latino PEBLs. I dismissed the idea that teachers would deliberately provide
inaccurate evaluations, choosing instead that the choices teachers made emerged from
dispositions that they had formed over the course of their diverse careers, and of which they were
confident. I maintained a theoretical sensitivity to the data by not engaging in any initial
categorization; instead, I focused on the concomitantly occurring phenomena, drawing initial
codes from the data using terminology found within the data itself. I then recognized axial codes
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 119
that emerged from the interview data, following the same methodological principles I applied
during my first and second tiers of data collection and analysis.
Following the completion of data collection drawn from reviewing the Fall, 2015 and
Spring, 2016 teacher benchmarks, teacher observation, and interviews and my data analysis at
each of the three stages, I reviewed the totality of my analysis, and recognized the emergence of
core variables (Glaser, 2004), which I then utilized to begin my process of selective coding. In
contrast to application of selective codes prior to the emergence of the data, my selective codes
were drawn from the data itself, in alignment with my foundational principles buttressing the
study. Refining these emergent categories, I then engaged in a process of delimitation. I
evaluated the existing data, as well as evaluated the sequence that resulted in the codes. I then
removed the non-essential facets from my discoveries. At the same time, I recorded the
theoretical concepts that emerged and then engaged in a process of sorting from the totality of
the data, avoiding “over-conceptualization and pre-conceptualization” (Glaser, 2004, p. 3.15),
instead gaining a refinement of my understanding of the emerging theories.
With theoretical categories that emerged from a process of “constant comparison”
(Glaser & Strauss, 2009, p. 106) coupled with my ongoing process of analytical memoing to
support my inductive processes in coding data as well as a consistent sorting process, I furthered
my ability to gain comprehensive insight into the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences that dynamically interacted and shaped the evaluations of Latino PEBLs in PCSD by
the secondary English teachers I interviewed during my study.
After I completed my interviews with the secondary English teachers, I transcribed the
audio recordings manually, listening to every word spoken by the teachers, recording them, and
cross-checking the words by listening to the recordings again. I continued this process until I
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 120
was certain that the words I had written on the page reflected the words the teachers had spoken
verbatim during our interviews. Beyond the multiplicities of selections that the qualitative
researcher can apply to the “transcription form” (Ochs, 1979, p. 72), the convenient choice of
computerized transcriptions and coding over the often-arduous manual versions has become the
default preference for many contemporary qualitative researchers. Acknowledging Ochs’s
(1979) claim that “transcription is a selective process reflecting theoretical goals and definitions”
(p. 44), I asserted in my method of manual transcription that I have been more enmeshed within
the “cultural activity” (Duranti, 2007, p. 308) of transcription as “a theoretical process reflecting
theoretical goals” (Ochs, 1979, p. 44). Given the social-constructivist moorings of my study, the
admitted representative nature of transcripts cannot be elided by suggesting some form of greater
objectivity afforded through mechanized transcriptions that are produced by computerized
transcriptions and coding. Instead, my involvement in the transcription process presented me
with the opportunity to immerse myself in the data, adding to my understanding of the complex
comingling of influences that resulted in secondary English teacher’s language development and
academic performance evaluations of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Subsequent to my transcription of the interviews, I applied the same cycle of data
analysis that I used in the first and second tiers of data collection. I initiated my data analysis
with a cycle of open coding and subsequently conducted a second phase of analysis, during
which time I applied thematic codes that emerged when examining the relationships among the
open codes. Then, I cross-checked my thematic codes against the initial data to discover any
findings that I may have overlooked, or any suppositions that may have not been robustly
supported by the data. I then created a visual representation of the codes alongside teacher
descriptions that allowed me to cross-reference teacher responses in the different schools,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 121
clarifying any differences or similarities in teacher descriptions of their evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Following Guba’s (1981) seminal assertion of building credibility in qualitative findings
by considering multiple sources and types of data, my selection of methods has given me “the
opportunity to build on tacit knowledge” (p. 79) of secondary English teachers who are entrusted
by the State of California to provide equitable evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Indeed, the tacit
dynamic interactions of the influences of knowledge and motivation within the organizational
environment revealed themselves with richer depth than methodologies driven by positivist, or
even post-positivist perspectives that may have obeyed what Bourdieu (1990) referred to as
“doxa” (p. 66), but which could only “provide the illusion of immediate understanding,
characteristic of practical experience of the familiar universe, and which at the same time
excludes from that experience any inquiry as to its own conditions of possibility” (p. 20).
My inquiry sought to gain understanding of the unfamiliar; it sought insight into the
unquantifiable. My inquiry sought to understand the discrete personal factors of knowledge and
motivation of secondary English teachers as they reacted, interacted, and counteracted with
organization influences, and to accomplish that, I have utilized myself as the “primary
instrument for data collection and analysis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 15). To maximize integrity of
the findings, I have followed Guba’s (1981) criteria for credibility by engaging in prolonged
observation of and engagement with secondary English teachers at multiple sites within the
district. Similarly, I have thoroughly documented my observations and interviews to provide an
audit trail to ensure dependability.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 122
My approach and methods have made it possible to decrease the potential for limitations
in findings, even as I have enhanced the strength of my discoveries by gaining insight from
multiple sources of data. In alignment with the social constructivist worldview, my study
recognized Guba’s (1981) definition of credibility as providing a “truth value” (p. 80). In light
of different researchers’ (e.g., Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Maxwell, 2012) recognition of the
interchangeability of the term and the potential for confusion, my study utilized the term
credibility to reflect a “truth value” in the interests of clarity and cohesion. Moreover, my
application of terminology that adheres to the social constructivist worldview (instead of
terminology more closely aligned with a positivist world view) aligned with the nature of my
study of the existing influences that presently inhibit secondary English teachers from providing
accurate language development and academic performance evaluations for Latino PEBLs.
Credibility. Establishing credibility within a qualitative study necessitates evaluation of
the multiple ways that diverse researchers approach the “truth value” (Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña, 2014, p. 313) of the study. The very terminology used to accurately reflect Saldaña’s
“that’s right factor” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 313), or what is frequently referred
to as credibility, represents a challenge to those who wrestle with the range of diverse terms
rooted in what Guba and Lincoln (1994) called “competing paradigms” (p. 105) in methods of
research. Creswell’s (2013) investigation of the considerable variance in terminology found in
qualitative research ranged from LeCompte and Goetz’s (1982) parallel of positivist terminology
(internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity) to Richardson’s terminology of a
(1994) “central imaginary” (p. 963) best symbolized by a metaphorical crystal. This variation in
terminology illustrates that while qualitative researchers may embrace different approaches and
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 123
may utilize different terminology, each seeks to ensure the same essence of fidelity for their
research designs as well as in their collection and analysis of data in qualitative inquiries.
Different researchers have held different methods for increasing credibility in their
qualitative research (See Table 5).
Table 5
Diversity of Methods to improve credibility/validity in qualitative research
Guba (1981) Merriam and Tisdell (2009) Maxwell (2012)
Similarities:
 Triangulation
 Prolonged engagement

 Member checks

 Peer debriefing
 Triangulation
 Adequate engagement in data
collection
 Member checks, or respondent
validation
 Peer examination, or peer review.
 Triangulation
 Intensive long-term involvement

 Respondent validation
Differences:
 Persistent observation
 Collection of referential adequacy
materials
 Researcher’s positionality, or
reflexivity
 Comparison
 Rich data
 Intervention
 Comparison
 Searching for discrepant evidence
and negative cases
 Application of quantitative
components

In his seminal article, Guba (1981) established six factors that researchers should consider in
their qualitative inquiry. Embracing the social constructivist worldview, Merriam and Tisdell
(2009) adopted the foundations of Guba, while also adding the importance of researcher
reflexivity, or the ongoing recognition of the researcher’s relationship with the participant “and
how one affects the other in the research process” (p. 63). Maxwell (2012) maintained that eight
factors can increase researcher’s credibility in qualitative research, with only three shared
methods in common with Guba, or Merriam and Tisdell. Most compelling in an evaluation of
each of these researcher’s views of methods in increasing credibility during inquiry is the clear
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 124
value of triangulation and rigorous researcher engagement in the collection of data, significantly
underscoring their respective importance in improving credibility in qualitative findings.
In meeting Merriam and Tisdell’s (2009) admonition of the importance of establishing
findings that are “congruent” (p. 242) with reality, my study employed Guba’s (1981) methods to
establish credibility, as these methods confided both the depth and breadth of elements that can
best improve credibility in a study. Maxwell’s (2012) model relies upon intervention, which
Lincoln and Guba (1985) found to be inharmonious with the qualitative approach. Many
qualitative researchers do not fully embrace this perspective, holding that Maxwell’s view of
intervention can have a value in a qualitative approach. For example, intervention is a critical
component in action research (Lewin, 1946) or participatory action research (Freire, 2014), both
established qualitative methods. Yet the particular needs of my qualitative inquiry would only
be complicated by investigating concurrent forms of intervention, and therefore I relied on
Guba’s (1981) methods for increasing credibility in my study.
Trustworthiness. Guba (1981) maintained that the entire qualitative approach hinged on
the ability to demonstrate trustworthiness in findings, which relied on credibility, transferability,
dependability, confirmability. Credibility is but one of the pillars of foundation of
trustworthiness upon which the researcher relies. The author explained that this approach
accepts the viewpoint that: “there are multiple realities, that inquiry will diverge rather than
converge as more and more is known, and that all ‘parts’ of reality are interrelated so that the
study of any one part necessarily influences all other parts” (Guba, 1981, p. 77). This is not to
suggest that diverse views of increasing trustworthiness do not have their own unique strengths;
however, it is to suggest that situated within the rich enterprise of public education, the multiple
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 125
influences that shape the evaluations by secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs
necessitated an approach that recognized the dynamism described by Guba.
My study employed Guba’s (1981) approach to establishing trustworthiness largely
because of the rigorous structural considerations in all the phases of inquiry, and it improved my
capability in increasing each of the four elements of trustworthiness at each of the phases
(design, data collection, and data analysis) of my inquiry.
Increasing credibility in research design. My study utilized a qualitative case-study
design because it best aligned with the organization, in that it was “an integrated system [that]
ha[d] a boundary and working parts” (Stake, 1995, p. 2). With the researcher at the locus of data
collection, this design does present potential threats attributable to the trustworthiness of the
researcher. Maxwell (2013) explained that threats to the credibility of the qualitative research
design are best addressed by the researcher’s “conceptualization” (p. 23) of those threats to
credibility, and importantly, the steps that the researcher takes to evaluate the plausibility of the
threats in the “actual research situation” (p. 23). In acknowledgement of the vast potential
threats to a qualitative study, Maxwell specified two threats that influenced the researcher: bias,
and reactivity. Bias considers the role of the researcher; yet rather than striving to eliminate bias
by assuming an imagined pose of subjectivity, the qualitative researcher acknowledges the way
her (or his) “values and expectations influence the conduct and conclusions of the study”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 124). Reactivity, or the researcher’s impact on individuals or the various
settings encountered, is not an aspect than can be removed from the complex interaction present
during research. The qualitative researcher must discern how her (or his) presence influences the
world studied. For the qualitative researcher, as Bogdan and Biklen (2007) detailed, “being a
clean slate is neither possible nor desirable” (p. 38). The important inclusion of establishing an
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 126
expectation for higher degrees of credibility in research design is to envision the manner in
which bias and reactivity can register as conceivable during the process of inquiry.
Conceptualizing potential threats to my study required acknowledgement of my role, my
perception of my status in the organization, my interpretation of my perceived status by others in
the organization, and the totality of my experiences within the organization. At the time of the
study, I was an English Language Development (ELD) coordinator at one of the five secondary
schools within the Pacific Coast School District (PCSD) in Maplewood, California, a suburb of
Los Angeles. I had held the position for two years. Prior to this, I led the English department at
the school as department chair, and was a team-leader in the district’s Common Core transition
team. I was one of the more experienced members of the faculty, having taught at the school for
20 years. My role as a site-level professional learning leader required me to be an agent of
change in the organization, which complicated relationships with many teachers. Some teachers
confided in me, yet most did not. I had what I would perceive as productive working
relationships with all the teachers, as well as a productive relationship with site-level and district
level administrators.
In addition to my presence as a site leader and teacher in the district, I was compelled to
recognize my potential for bias and reactivity due to my experience as a scholar in the field of
English language development. I have published several research articles internationally that
have investigated effective methods of instruction for EBs at the secondary level, and my
experiences, values, and expectations for instruction may have influenced my observations. At
the same time, my awareness of this potential obstacle and my considerable body of knowledge
of the field allowed me to engage more accurately in my data collection. It is possible that some
of the teachers I interviewed may have had certain perceptions of me based on my experiences as
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 127
a researcher. I had not disclosed to any teachers in the district my experiences as a scholar in the
field; nevertheless, the principal at my site was generally aware of my scholarship, and it is very
possible that he had disclosed this information to some teachers on the campus. I recognized
these potential influences on my bias and reactivity, as well as the potential for participants to
view me with suspicion, and I have striven to increase the credibility of my inquiry through
diligent data collection and continuous application of methods designed to maximize my efforts
in this regard.
My application of a qualitative case study design made it possible to minimize the
engagement of perceived power during interventions. In order to ensure higher levels of
credibility in the design of the study, it is crucial that I avoided what Becker (1966) cautioned as
the “unthinking acceptance of the hierarchy of credibility” (p. 243). Perceived status does not
automatically connote credibility, and in applying the case study design, I needed to be
perpetually “open to being shaped by the research experience and to having [my] thinking be
informed by the data” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 38). Drawing from Guba’s (1981) assertions,
the case study design that I have selected provided for prolonged engagement with teachers, as
well as a recognition of the importance of referential adequacy materials (including but not
limited to existing documentation of teacher practices). This assisted me in bringing
considerable credibility to the study, and significantly improved my capability in effectively
evaluating plausible threats prior to and throughout my data collection.
Increasing credibility in data collection. My conceptualization of potential threats, so
critical in ensuring greater measures of credibility in research design, transformed into pragmatic
steps during the data collection phase of the study. Guba (1981) stated that a sampling approach
that “is intended to maximize the range of information uncovered” (p. 86) can significantly
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 128
improve credibility in data collection during interviews, and my study employed this method of
increasing credibility by applying a maximum variation purposive sample of secondary English
teachers in PCSD to be participants in the third tier of data collection in my study. Credibility
was increased by obtaining data from the widest possible range of subjects in terms of their years
of experience as teachers of Latino PEBLs, from early career professionals who were provided
with current research findings in the most effective methodologies, to teachers at the end of their
careers who may have had very little in the way of training designed to meet the needs of EBs.
During the first and second of the three stages of data collection I employed in my study,
I sought to gain a deeper awareness of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that shaped what secondary English teachers produced in the form of their biannual benchmark
evaluations by first observing the corpus of data, and then by directly observing secondary
English teachers as they completed those evaluations. In the third stage of data collection, I
sought to discover from secondary English teachers the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences by giving teachers the opportunity to share with me their experiences
in their formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. To gain the greatest degree of detail and depth in these
discoveries, I utilized individual, informal conversational interviews, using open-ended
questions. Creswell (2007) explained that this form of questioning increased the capability of
participants to “share their views” (p. 8), a critical component of my study. Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) pointed out that interviews are “used to gather descriptive data in the subject’s own words
so that the researcher can develop insights on how subjects interpret some piece of the world” (p.
103). Open-ended questions promoted the discovery of the depth and breadth of the personal
experiences of teachers engaged in evaluations of the language development academic
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 129
performance of Latino PEBLs. The third tier of my inquiry focused on obtaining the insights of
teachers, and my selection for an interview method aligned with this focus.
In the same vein as my research design, Maxwell’s (2013) underscoring of the
importance of researcher recognition of potential bias and reactivity resonated strongly during
this phase of the study. Guba (1981) determined that persistent observation during interviews
and diligent application of triangulation addresses bias and reactivity by increasing the credibility
of the research during the interview data collection process. Significantly, Guba distinguished
triangulation of data collected during interviews from triangulation performed after data
collection, recommending that during data collection, researchers triangulate by seeking different
forms of data collection alongside the interview. My selection of three tiers of data collection is
in support of this form of triangulation. In gaining multiple pathways of data, I gained the widest
possible range of understanding of the dynamic systems that reacted, interacted, and
counteracted as secondary English teachers completed their evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Another method I used to increase credibility of data collection was my collection of
detailed field notes. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) explained that “qualitative researchers guard
against their own biases by recording detailed field notes that include reflections on their own
subjectivity” (p. 38). Guba (1981) clarified that comprehensive field notes of the “pervasive
qualities as well as atypical characteristics” (p. 85) encountered by the researcher can add
credibility. Finally, during my data collection, I engaged in “persistent observation” (Guba,
1981, p. 85) that allowed me to sift through connections that provided richer relevancy of the
interview data.
Guba (1981) established that upon completing the data collection, the qualitative
researcher can increase credibility of the data by establishing (a) structural corroboration or
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 130
coherence, (b) referential adequacy, and (c) another round of member checks. My study applied
structural corroboration by examining the data prior to analysis to make certain that it was
coherent. I sought to find explanations for any evident contradictions in the data (as opposed to
multiple perspectives), and looked for potential reasons for these contradictions. Using
referential adequacy materials in the form of observation notes, documents, and artifacts
collected during primary data collection, I augmented the fullness of the data collected during
interviews, adding considerable credibility to my comprehensive collection of data.
In consistently member checking with the participants in my interviews and observational
data collections, I made it possible to open another avenue of perceptions that invited greater
levels of clarity and credibility to findings. Morse et al. (2002) determined that member checks
may complicate rather than add to credibility; however, as Creswell and Miller (2000) found,
through giving participants an opportunity “to react to both the data and the final narrative” (p.
127), the researcher has yet another valuable opportunity to investigate the perceptions of the
participants. My study embraced Creswell and Miller’s approach, largely because of its
capability in potentially engendering greater degrees of trust among participants, thereby
potentially increasing their disclosure.
Increasing credibility in data analysis. Merriam and Tisdell (2009) described data
analysis as “the process of making sense out of the data” (p. 202), and rendering credible
analysis in my study relied upon perpetual application of the general principles of Maxwell
(2013) concerning bias and reactivity. Consistent engagement in stages of triangulation as well
as dependability audits can also significantly improve credibility in data analysis (Guba, 1981).
Guba recommended that at the conclusion of the analysis, the researcher should apply a
confirmability audit by a peer, to ensure that the interpretations of the data are consistent with the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 131
data, as opposed to an interposed narrative on the part of the researcher. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) held this can be achieved by establishing an audit trail, or the “residue of records
stemming from inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 319). Creswell and Miller (2000) clearly
detailed processes for this method of increasing credibility, suggesting that the qualitative
researcher engage in “journaling and memoing, keeping a research log of all activities,
developing a data collection chronology, and recording data analysis procedures clearly” (p.
128). I engaged in copious observation notes, as well as journaling and memoing during my
study to extend potentials for analysis, providing peers with my findings at each stage of my data
analysis. Through my inclusion of a broad range of documentation coupled with the ongoing
recognition of bias and reactivity, I constructed considerable credibility in the data analysis phase
of the inquiry by establishing a rigorous audit trail.
Another method of increasing credibility in data analysis is through inductively
establishing integrated coding categories rather than preassigned coding systems (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). A categorical pre-assignment may slant findings toward the researcher’s
expectation for findings rather than an inductive discovery of categories that emerge from the
data. Guba (1981) did not prescribe a specific method for coding; however, he pointed to the
importance of the researcher in qualitative data analysis to recognize the “emergent quality” (p.
89) of the method, and to work diligently in not superimposing expectations that could
compromise this quality. I engaged in inductive coding practices to increase the credibility of
the coding categories.
Finally, increasing credibility during the data analysis stage required diligence in
triangulation. At this stage, the multiple points of data that I had collected could then be
evaluated. Fielding and Fielding (1986) found that triangulation is not merely combining data
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 132
collection, and detailed that this type of lenience in approach will not necessarily produce
credibility. In fact, Bogdan and Biklen (2007) “advise[d] against using the term” (p. 115),
suggesting that the researcher should avoid the unnecessary abstraction triangulation invites.
Instead, they maintained that the researcher should simply detail what practices she (or he)
employs. The danger of a vague application of triangulation is that the differences presented
from diverse data may promote variability, which could be missed if the researcher is attempting
to use a biased expectation of triangulation to prove, to assert, or to establish a covert depiction
of objectivity within a qualitative study. Investigating and evaluating the multiple forms of data
without trying to prove, but instead by trying to understand ensured a higher degree of credibility
in my qualitative study because it allowed me to appreciate the complexity of the data rather than
merely to simplify or to reduce the data.
The design of my study provided me with a strong capacity for triangulating findings.
The three tiers of my data collection (document analysis, observation, and interviews) allowed
me to encompass an understanding that arose though the connections that the composite of the
collected data offered. Creswell and Miller (2000) explained that triangulation is “a validity
procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of
information to form themes or categories in a study” (p. 126), and the design of my study lent
itself to increasing what Guba (1981) called the “credibility” (p. 81) of my findings through
triangulation in collecting data, and through my method of evaluating the data. While my three
methods of data collection enhanced my capability in establishing greater degrees of credibility,
my engagement in an ongoing process of field notes of my observations during each of the stages
also amplified my capability to triangulate effectively.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 133
Maxwell (2013) reminded qualitative researchers that the tendency to take field notes of
observations during interviews often means that findings become forgotten or beyond the
purview of observation itself, losing the potential importance of a researcher’s perceptions by
waiting until the latter stages of data analysis to evaluate them. Thus, I consistently engaged in
preliminary data analysis of my field notes immediately after the interviews to maximize their
contribution to the inquiry. In keeping an open mind to my initial findings, I was able to
understand the “reactive effects” (Denzin, 1973, p. 204) of my involvement with the participants
of the study. Moreover, I was able to reflect more effectively on my interview experiences
through the observation notes, enabling much deeper understanding of the complexities of
teacher’s motivation and knowledge as they acted, counteracted, and interacted with
organizational factors. Patton (2003) firmly stated that field notes should contain “everything
that the observer believes to be worth noting” (p. 302), and it is through this additional form of
comprehensive data collection that I gained much greater insight of the dispositions of the
secondary English teachers in my study, adding considerably to the totality of my understanding
of these teacher’s language development and academic performance evaluations of Latino
PEBLs.
Guba (1981) asserted that triangulation in qualitative study makes it possible to “cross-
check” (p. 85) findings, and through my field notes, I added considerably to my capability in
performing this critical aspect of qualitative research. Denzin (1973) detailed four types of
triangulation: (a) data, (b) investigator, (c) theory, and (d) methodological. In collecting a
diverse range of data (apart from the methods of the data collection), I established for myself the
opportunity to discover the ways in which the concepts, as Denzin explained, became “common
across settings” (p. 301).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 134
As the sole researcher in my study, I did not have the capability of applying investigator
triangulation, nor were the purposes of my research to facilitate theoretical triangulation. At the
same time, I was able to present my data collection and analysis at each stage to a peer, who
reviewed my work and conferred with me about my discoveries. Denzin determined that the best
way to achieve theoretical triangulation is to assemble all the pertinent theoretical approaches in
the field in determination of their respective degrees of validity; however, this perspective did
not align with the purposes of my study. My study stressed the vitality in the application of
methodological and data triangulation, and in particular, Köckeis-Stangl’s (1982) use of
triangulation as a “kaleidoskopartigen” (p. 363). Rather than using triangulation as a funnel, I
applied Köckeis-Stangl’s (1982) kaleidoskopisch use of triangulation to assist me inductively as I
engaged in collecting data of the multiple perceptions presented by teachers during my three tiers
of data collection.
At each stage of my inquiry, I have been considerate in my application of diverse
methods of data collection, as well as in my ongoing reflection throughout the data collection
process. In developing and applying these multiple lines of data collection and analysis, I have
constructed a form of triangulation (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009) that has maximized my
capability in establishing what Guba (1981) described as data and interpretational confirmability.
Ethics
Glesne (2011) detailed that “ethical considerations should accompany plans, thoughts,
and discussions about each aspect of qualitative research” (p. 162). My study employed a
qualitative case study approach, demanding impeccable application of ethical principles. Despite
“ethical tensions” (Guillemin, & Gillam, 2004, p. 261) that can emerge at all moments in the
research enterprise, as Guba & Lincoln (1994) implored, consistent consideration of ethical
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 135
principles on the part of the qualitative researcher is essential “because of the inclusion of
participant values in the inquiry” (p. 115). As a researcher who was committed to the highest of
ethical principles in protecting subjects while engaged in my inquiry, it was of critical
importance that I was transparent with subjects of the purpose of the study. Moreover, I
provided all subjects with the opportunity to consent or to decline their participation in the study
at any moment during the investigation.
I acted on the highest ethical principles at every moment in my research. I also ensured
that all participants in the study were protected to the greatest possible degree by engaging the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval of my inquiry.
Acting as a principled agent of accountability, the IRB has established principles, practical rules,
and specific procedures to “ensure that research follows prescribed ethical guidelines” (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012, p. 90) designed to protect all who participate in approved studies. To ensure my
personal ethical principles throughout the research process and to meet the expectations of the
IRB, I required that all participants in the study complete detailed information sheets that clearly
indicated the purpose of the study, as well as the collection and dissemination of data. To pursue
understanding during my inquiry while acknowledging Foucault’s (1980) concern of the power
dimensions within ethical systems, I clearly communicated to all participants involved in the
study that the agents of power in the district (at both the site and central organizational level)
would not in any way be provided with information I discovered during the course of my data
collection, analysis, or publication. I ensured the participants in my study that I would do
everything in my power to protect participants so that they were not harmed because of their
participation in the research. I provided this measure of protection by establishing to my greatest
ability anonymity for all participants at each stage of the research process. Reports of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 136
interviews utilized pseudonyms, and any distinct personally identifying information during the
interviews was camouflaged through an encryption procedure I enacted that allowed me to share
composite descriptions of participants without revealing the ascription of those descriptions.
Sound recordings of interviews were transcribed, with only demographic descriptors included.
Audio tapes were destroyed after transcription.
Limitations and Delimitations
Prior to a generalized reflection of limitations and delimitations of my study that will be
followed by more specific elaboration on particularities of both, I am reminded of Blake’s (1972)
eloquent rebuke of Sir Joshua Reynolds with the piquant epigram: “To Generalize is to be an
idiot. To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit” (p. 451). I have chosen to open my
section on limitations and delimitations with Blake’s words to underscore that the purpose of my
study was not to provide any generalizability of my findings. As I have made no attempt at any
veiled notions of generalizability, limitations of this nature present little consequence to my own
study. My naturalistic form of inquiry embraced the social constructivist approach, and I hold no
illusions of the generalizability of my findings; rather, it has been my intention to focus my
inquiry on the specific phenomenon of the evaluation practices by secondary English teachers in
PCSD, the dispositions of secondary English teachers that shaped their evaluations of Latino
PEBLs, and the organizational influences that contributed to these teacher’s evaluations. Rather
than conflating generalization with the principles of limitation, I am instead establishing that
there is no “single, ultimate truth, but rather multiple, divergent, and whole-cloth constructions”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1989, p. 230). Creswell (2003) broadly defined limitations as the potential
weaknesses of a study, while Best and Khan (1993) described that “limitations are those
conditions beyond the control of the researcher that may place restrictions on the conclusions of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 137
the study and their application to other situations” (p. 40). To be certain, there remain many
factors that were beyond my control as I completed my comprehensive three-tiered process of
data collection and data analysis; however, the convenient boundaries provided by the traditional
labels of limitations and its polar opposite may invite adhesion to positivist paradigms that
suppose a larger purpose for findings that could be applied in other environments.
Although I have distanced any conventional application of limitations to my study, I am
reminded of Dey’s (1993) explanation of the deepest form of limitation in qualitative research
analysis, which emerges from the meaning that the reader derives from the findings. As Dey
revealed, analysis “can describe, interpret and explain, but cannot hope to reproduce the full
richness of the original data” (2003, p. xii). I have provided considerable details in my
descriptions of my discoveries, yet I must acknowledge that my vividity in descriptions cannot
reflect the actuality of the phenomena of teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Thus, I
acknowledge that my representations—no matter how detailed—may represent a form of
limitation for the reader who seeks to gain the verstehen of the evaluation processes of these
teachers for their populations of Latino PEBLs.
Adding to this broader distinction of the potential for limitation in my study is the
double-edged nature of the utilization of myself as the only data collector in the study. On the
one hand, my existing and inseparable perspectives of both the larger scope of reality and the
narrower scope of the organizational environment at PCSD represent constituents that would
appear to be limitations, especially drawn from positivist or positivist influenced approaches.
Yet as Guba (1981) described, recognition of the relevancy of findings by the human observer—
particularly the tacit factors that traditional forms of data collection such as surveys “can never
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 138
have” (p. 79)—provided a benefit in understanding that could never be approached by any
supposed sense of objectivity in a study of this kind.
Longitudinal effects, also conventionally considered to be a form of limitation, could be
perceived as a limitation in my study based on the temporal considerations of studying
phenomena in an organizational environment. The common notion of a bounded time period as
a limitation in my present study would presuppose that the verstehen of the evaluative practices
of teachers would be qualitatively better understood if more time was taken in observation, or
during interviews. Added time may have deepened the understanding; it also may have served to
deepen ignorance were I to become inured to many of the dispositions of teachers through more
frequent exposure. At the same time, additional time may have made it possible to broaden the
understanding of a greater variety of teacher practices and dispositions. Over the course of initial
research, data collection, and analysis that encompassed my study, I recognized that even one
more day of data collection could have deepened my understanding; yet I must also acknowledge
the point of Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) saturation, or the point “when no new categories or
relevant themes are emerging” (p. 148). Based on my understanding of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that act, counteract and interact in shaping secondary
English teacher’s summative and formative evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs, I am satisfied with the point of saturation I have gained;
however, I also am open to the viewpoint that this very declaration could be perceived as a form
of limitation.
My final acknowledgement of a potential limitation in my qualitative study comes in the
form of the sample population size of one school for my observations and the maximum
variation purposive sample sizes that I used for observations and interviews in two secondary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 139
schools within PCSD. Patton (2002) maintained that the application of the maximum variation
purposive sampling approach increased understanding precisely because it limits the population
studied, and as Lincoln and Guba (1985) reminded, “all sampling is done with some purpose in
mind” (p. 199); however, Gentles, Charles, Ploeg, and McKibbon (2015) articulated considerable
methodological differences in application of the maximum variation purposive sample,
potentially rendering it as a limitation. I recognize the ambiguities in the methodology inherent
in applying the sampling approach I have selected as well as the size of sample that I assembled.
Yet I align with Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014) sense of their understanding of this
approach, finding that application of extreme ranges to discover the cohesive patterns that
emerge can lend considerable credibility to the findings. To be certain, application of another
form of sampling and another size of sample could have yielded findings that are dissimilar to
mine. Yet considering Guba’s (1981) call for establishing credibility, dependability, or
confirmability in naturalistic inquiry, my selection of a maximum variation purposive sample
and its size as a potential form of limitation must be taken within the context of the totality of my
inquiry, lest the organic nature of my discoveries be impugned.
Creswell (2003) described delimitations as the deliberate boundaries that a researcher
imposes on the study to “narrow the scope” (p. 148). Embracing Minh-ha’s (2009) perspicacious
recognition that “despite our desperate, eternal attempt to separate, contain, and mend, categories
always leak” (p. 94), I apprehend that my imposition of boundaries upon my study could be
perceived as delimitations. For example, with my conceptual framework, I have defined a
specific dynamic system that determined the course of my data collection. Moreover, I have
engaged in a form of delimitation by distancing myself from dyadic relationships in my study of
teacher activities, favoring instead Engeström's (1987) triadic model of human activity as
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 140
culturally mediated. These decisions are rooted in my constructivist paradigm that reflects
Vygotsky (1978) description of learning as “a complex, mediated act” (p. 40), with the
developed understanding of Leont'ev (1981) description that “only through a relation with other
people does man relate to nature itself, which means that labour appears from the very beginning
as a process mediated by tools (in the broad sense) and at the same time mediated socially” (p.
185). The conceptual framework that I have established and applied in my study represents a
delimitation that certainly influenced my findings.
Another delimitation is the very paradigm that informed each step of my inquiry.
Although I find considerable fidelity in the constructivist paradigm (as well as in my
methodologies and analysis that align with it), I recognize that in my orientation to this
paradigm, I have shaped a delimitation that undeniably influenced my methodologies and
infused my findings. Lincoln and Guba (2013) detailed the delimitation that a paradigm
produces, explaining that these paradigms reflect the “most fundamental sets of beliefs that can
be enunciated by their proponents. They cannot be justified on any more external, objective, or
foundational grounds; if they could, then those grounds would assume the status of the most
fundamental beliefs” (p. 59). My selection of the constructivist paradigm bounded the
parameters of my inquiry, and though not as tangible as my application of my conceptual
framework, nevertheless could represent a delimitation.
Finally, and perhaps most pointedly, my application of a modification of Clark and
Estes’s (2009) gap analysis model for problem solving into three categories (knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences) represents a delimitation within the scope of my
inquiry, even as I have detailed previously the importance of the dynamic interrelation of forces
that shape secondary teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Yet in adhering to the three
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 141
categories to drive my inquiry, I must recognize a delimitation that most certainly shaped my
discoveries.
Background
As an embedded researcher with over twenty years of experience working in each of the
secondary schools in PCSD, I have considerable understanding of my perceptions of the physical
and cultural characteristics of each of the five secondary schools within the district’s boundaries,
and of the stakeholders that contribute to the mission of PCSD in each of these schools. I have
served in some capacity at each of the sites, and have had personal interactions with many of the
teachers I observed. I contrast, I had not worked with any of the teachers I interviewed.
My experiences in the district have provided me with a deep degree of involvement that
has focused my inquiry; at the same time, my involvement required considerable and persistent
self-observations of my reactions, which I recorded in my field notes, and which I reflected upon
in my reflexive journal. With the acknowledgement that the entirety of my data collection is
context-bound, my experiences in PCSD have made it possible for me to focus on relevancies
and avoid redundancies; at the same time, my experiences have inclined me to permeate
perceptions of existing phenomena through a lens that often became cloudy. Consistent clearing
of the lens through application of the reflexive journal made it possible for me to gain potentially
deeper understanding of the experiences of other teachers as I wrestled with my own perceptions,
my own experiences that shaped them, and the recognition of their differences and similarities as
I came to understand the perceptions and experiences of the secondary English teachers I
observed and interviewed.
I acknowledge my positionality, aptly described by Alcoff (1988) as the relationally
formed, dynamic context within and from which the individual constructs meaning. In
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 142
establishing the foundation of her definition of positionality, Alcoff drew explicitly from
Foucault’s (1983) exploration of the dynamics of power, particularly his study of “the way a
human being turns himself into a subject” (p. 778). Especially considering the use of language to
reflect upon and to respond to positionality, Alcoff applied Derrida’s (1981) elaboration of
différance, in which “subjectivity-like objectivity-is an effect of différance, an effect inscribed in
the system of différance” (p. 28). Alcoff maintained in her description of the concept of
positionality that it is “a place from where meaning is constructed, rather than simply the place
where a meaning can be discovered” (p. 434). My own positionality has shaped, and has been
shaped throughout my inquiry.
Born in America, my heritage is Spanish, and as an adult I have experienced associations
with “forms of domination” (Foucault, 1982, p. 781) through my external appearance as a White
male and via my identification by others as an agent acting on behalf of an educational institution
within a predominantly White region in suburban Los Angeles. Simultaneously, I also
acknowledge that throughout my life I have been subject to a degree of marginalization by others
through identification of my heritage reflected by the surname Álvarez and the subsequent
“othering” (Spivak, 1999, p. 215) the association of my surname has engendered in various
social contexts in the United States.
My unfortunate childhood nickname, “the Spic” was established by an elementary school
teacher and reinforced by students and other teachers throughout my public-school education in
the State of Utah. In addition to my cultural marginalization, my religious status as Catholic
conflicted with the prevailing religious socio-cultural influences in Utah of the Church of the
Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons. During my childhood years, my ethnic identity formation would
be accurately summarized as conflicted. On the one hand, I marched with Cesar Chavez to
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 143
establish rights for farm workers. I passed out pamphlets at Utah State Liquor Stores, asking
customers to boycott Gallo wines in support of the United Farm Workers of America. Yet at the
same time, I was discouraged from speaking Spanish in public spaces by my well-intentioned
parents, who wished for me to avoid any additional social exclusion.
Even as my experience as a youth familiarized me with life on the margins of society, as
an adult, my ethnic identity experience has been complicated. I have lived most of my adult life
in Southern California, and I have recognized that my youthful experiences of marginalization as
the “other” (Spivak, 1999, p. 9) may not compare to the experiences of the marginalized groups
of Latinos in Southern California. At the same time, I have continued to experience the margins
of my current society, notably within my workplace through generalizations by many White
leaders, who see me as a Spanish speaker and all that this connotes through the racial
expectations of the White majoritarian stakeholders within my organization. Curiously, I also
have experienced a distancing from some of the handful of Mexican-Spanish speakers in my
organization, who simultaneously embrace our shared linguistic heritage, yet at the same time
have no problems in mocking what they consider to be my imperfect Castilian Spanish, seen as
pretentious by most Mexican-Spanish speakers within my organization.
As the instrument of data collection, I have embraced my own experiences. I have taken
special care to recognize my positionality. In completing the data collection for each of the
sections of this chapter, I have consistently engaged in a process of reflexive journaling, as well
as a collection of observational notes to provide additional avenues of understanding of the way
that the participants in the study have situated and socially constructed their diverse realities
regarding their evaluative process of Latino PEBLs. I have taken care to note my own
contribution to these constructions as I observed and interviewed secondary English teachers.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 144
Summary of Methodology
To summarize, in this chapter I have explained the methodology that I have used in my
inquiry of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that act, counteract, and
interact in shaping secondary English teacher’s formative and summative evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Drawing from seminal and
recent research, I have provided explanations for my selections of methodology. Using Guba’s
(1981) foundation of naturalistic inquiry, I have also detailed the nature of my “truth value” (p.
80) that I have sought to ensure throughout the course of my inquiry. Next, I will share the
results of that inquiry.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 145
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The Pacific Coast School District (PCSD) in the Los Angeles suburb of Maplewood has
fallen far short in meeting its stated organizational goal for the language development and
academic performance of EBs. With 72% of its population of secondary EBs categorized as
Persistently Emergent Bilingual Learner (PEBLs), and 91% of those PEBLs Latino, PCSD has
not realized the vision of the CDE that all students—including the population of marginalized
Latino PEBLs: “will attain the highest level of academic knowledge, applied learning and
performance skills to ensure fulfilling personal lives and careers and contribute to civic and
economic progress in our diverse and changing democratic society” (California Department of
Education: Vision, Mission and Goals, 2017). Through my comprehensive data collection
efforts and data analysis, I have sought to develop a keen understanding of the following
research question:
o How do the dynamic influences of knowledge and motivation react, interact, and
counteract with organizational influences in shaping the language development and
academic evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers?
Structure of the Chapter
In this chapter, I share my findings gained through a comprehensive three-tiered
approach applying Bandura’s (1988) triadic reciprocal causation and Engeström's (1987) triadic
model of human activity that includes: (a) evaluation of the corpus of data reflecting secondary
English teacher’s (n=58) descriptions of the language development of Latino PEBLs in PCSD as
recorded in district-wide administration of two biannual benchmarks (n=1164); (b) observation
of secondary English teachers (n=15) as they completed biannual benchmark language
evaluations at one secondary school (Oceanside High School); and (c) semi-structured interviews
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 146
with a maximum variation purposive sample (n=8) drawn from two secondary schools (Bayside
High School and City High School) in PCSD with the greatest difference in the percentage of
Latino PEBLs (City High School: 94%, and Bayside High School: 85%).
I have augmented this broad range of findings by providing rich, detailed descriptions of
the environments of the various high schools in which I observed and interviewed teachers. It is
my intention to give the reader insight of these various environments in which the teachers I
studied practiced, so that the reader can begin to assemble a more cohesive understanding of the
discrete interplay of forces that constructed each school’s organizational culture, as well as how
these forces shaped and were shaped by the larger culture of the organization of PCSD. Through
my detailed descriptions, I have facilitated the potential for a more robust reflection of the
dynamic interactions of knowledge and motivation influences that reacted, interacted, and
counteracted with organizational influences in shaping the language development and academic
evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers in PCSD.
I will conclude the chapter with an analysis and summary of the totality of my findings,
and what this indicates in relationship to the existing performance problems in language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. In recognition of the
conventions of the gap analysis model, in the final section of this chapter I have taken special
care to note the ways that the findings from each of the previous three sections dynamically
interrelated by categorizing the totality of findings into the (a) knowledge, (b) motivation, and (c)
organizational influences that shaped the evaluations by secondary English teachers of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 147
Tier One: Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Data
The biannual benchmark evaluations
11
provide teachers in PCSD with the opportunity to
evaluate the language development of EBs in three modes of language: (a) Collaborative, (b)
Interpretive, and (c) Productive, as well as two dimensions of knowledge: (a) Meta-linguistic
awareness, and (b) Accuracy of production. These modes and dimensions were established in
2012 by the State of California with its English Language Development Standards. In each
category, teachers of EBs are required by PCSD to determine the language development level of
these students using three proficiency descriptors (Emerging, Expanding, Bridging), each
differentiated by entry and exit levels (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. Proficiency Level Descriptors and Levels of English Development.
Sample Population
Comprised of five schools (Bayside, City, Oceanside, Riverside, and Roscoe, the
district’s one alternative secondary school), PCSD’s secondary schools are staffed by a

11
On approval of PCSD’s district leadership, I have been permitted to use the benchmark evaluations in my
research, provided I did not include any specific identification of students or teachers. I have used pseudonyms
throughout this section, and encrypted descriptions of teachers and students to protect their identities.
Emerging:
Entry
Emerging:
Exit
Expanding:
Entry
Expanding:
Exit
Bridging:
Entry
Bridging:
Exit
English
Fluency
Mode of Production:

Collaborative

Interpretive

Productive

Dimensions of
Knowledge:

Meta-linguistic
awareness

Accuracy of
production

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 148
homogeneous population of primarily female White teachers. The majority of the teachers had
over ten years of experience, with only four first-year teachers (See Table 6). I evaluated the
totality of the responses from the Fall, 2015 (n=543 students) and Spring, 2016 (n=621 students)
evaluations by secondary English teachers of PCSD’s population of EBs.
Table 6
Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers in the Pacific Coast School District
Years of Experience: n Gender: n Ethnicity: N
1 4 Female 43 African American (Not Hispanic) 0
2-10 16 Male 15 Asian (Not Hispanic) 6
11-15 17 Hispanic 2
16-20 11
21+ 10 White (Not Hispanic) 50
Total 58 58 58

Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Forms
Biannual benchmark evaluations have been selected by PCSD’s leadership
12
to satisfy
Article 4.1[e] of California Education Code § 313. PCSD maintains that the benchmark will
meet the expectations for what the state demands as the “participation of the pupil's classroom
teacher” (§ 313), required by the state to ensure that a student has met expectations for RFEP.
Seeking understanding of the complex interaction of influences that shaped secondary English
teacher’s evaluations of Latino PEBLs, in the first tier of my data collection I sought insight into
the nature of these evaluations. To that end, I engaged in a secondary analysis of the corpus of
data that included a review of the 231 teacher responses of the performance of Latino PEBLs in
secondary English classes in PCSD for Fall, 2015, followed by a review of the 230 teacher

12
PCSD’s “Reclassification Criteria” for EBs was approved by the PCSD School Board following a unilateral
decision by district leadership without the inclusion of site-level ELD Coordinators, secondary English teachers,
or parents of EBs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 149
responses for Spring, 2016. These responses represented the entirety of PCSD’s population of
Latino PEBLs who were evaluated by secondary teachers in PCSD during each of these
semesters.
Although I could not gain direct insight into the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences from examining the corpus of data from the biannual benchmark
evaluations in the first tier of my inquiry, my appraisal of teacher descriptions of the language
development and academic performance of their populations of Latino PEBLs made it possible
for me to recognize potential themes that emerged, reveling potential directions for my
subsequent collection of data in the second and third tiers. With a considerable gap between
more formal, standardized measures of the language development of Latino PEBLs and
secondary English teacher evaluations of the language development and academic performance
of these students in PCSD, understanding the production of secondary English teachers in the
form of the documented evaluations shed light on the possibilities of how the teachers evaluated
Latino PEBLs.
I initiated my data analysis of the totality of data collected from benchmark teacher
evaluations by first culling only the secondary teacher evaluations from the larger body of data.
I then organized this more focused set of data by isolating only the secondary English teacher
evaluations of Latino PEBLs, based on language codes and year of entry of the students into the
English Language Development program at PCSD. Using this set of findings, I then engaged in
a cycle of open coding, seeking emergent data that reflected teacher’s descriptive responses of
the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. I subsequently
conducted a second phase of analysis, during which time I applied thematic codes (Merriam,
2009) that emerged when examining the relationships among the open codes. Then, I cross-
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 150
checked my thematic codes against the initial data to discover any findings that I may have
overlooked, or any suppositions that may have not been robustly supported by the data.
Subsequently, I created a visual representation of the codes alongside the teacher descriptions of
the language development and academic performance of their Latino PEBLs that allowed me to
engage in cross-referencing of teacher responses in different schools, and to seek any differences
or similarities in teacher descriptions of the language development of Latino PEBLs. Finally, I
considered the thematic codes I discovered during this initial phase of the study to focus my
efforts during my second stage of data collection during which time I observed all the English
teachers at Bayside High School in their completion of their Fall, 2016 benchmark evaluations.
Applying Merriam and Tisdell (2016) exhortation to the researcher to be “open to anything
possible” (p. 204), I have not focused on an a priori approach in my analysis of this data, instead
following Dey’s (2004) explanation that open coding allows the researcher to apply “largely
descriptive labels for occurrences or phenomena” (p. 73). Following my coding of the responses
of the secondary English teachers as reflected in their biannual benchmark evaluations, five
codes emerged as prominent: (a) Data discrepancies, (b) In absentia, (c) Due to disability, (d)
Poor writer, and (e) Able, but lazy.
Data discrepancies. Following my first round of evaluating the Fall, 2015 and Spring,
2016 benchmark evaluations, a clear finding emerged revealing that secondary English teachers
in the district struggled to command any consistency with their data input. EBs at the Expanding
Early Level of Proficiency were frequently recommended for RFEP, and yet EBs who were
described by teachers as being at the Bridging Exit Level of Proficiency were not recommended
for RFEP. Discrepancies in data entry included wide ranges in the modes of language and the
dimensions of knowledge of language levels for each student, with teachers recommending
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 151
RFEP, yet not recommending a change in language levels. From my investigation of the
benchmark data, significant measurement errors existed, as secondary English teachers had fully
completed each of the requested evaluation items in the benchmark evaluation in Fall, 2015 and
Spring, 2016 for only 21.5% of secondary EBs.
Errors by secondary English teachers made during two cycles of benchmark evaluations
were certain based on my detailed investigation. Yet it remained uncertain whether these errors
were simply data entry problems, or inaccurate evaluations by secondary English teachers.
Investigation of rigorously completed, and likely more reliable evaluations based on the detailed
data provided suggested the latter. The accuracy of the evaluations that teachers believed
faithfully represented the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs
was further drawn into question when comparing benchmark data with two more reliable
standardized assessments used by PCSD for the RFEP of EBs: the California Assessment of
Student Performance and Progress California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
13
and
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASSP).
Disaggregated statistics for Latino PEBLs are not published by the State of California;
yet comparative findings of secondary English teacher benchmarks with standardized assessment
performances by Latino EBs (which are disaggregated by California) indicated likely
discrepancies related to inaccurate evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers
as reflected in their biannual benchmark evaluations. For example, results from the 2015
CAHSEE revealed that all EBs in PCSD registered a 62% pass rate, with the district’s population
of Latino students registering an 89% pass rate. For reference, the total populations of students

13
The California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) test was suspended on January 1, 2016 by the CDE. I
have compared the results of the 2015 CAHSEE and 2015 CAASP results with the secondary English teacher
biannual benchmarks of EBs in PCSD during that time period for reference.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 152
in PCSD demonstrated a slightly higher pass rate, at 93%. Results from the 2015 administration
of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) test reflected that
65% of the entire population of tested students in PCSD met or exceeded the standard. On this
same assessment, 51% of Latinos in PCSD met or exceeded the standard, and 54% of EBs who
had been in PCSD for 12 months or more met or exceeded the standard. Yet in their Fall, 2015
benchmark evaluations of the language development of EBs in PCSD, secondary English
teachers in the district believed that only 26% of EBs were fluent in English (See Figure 7). Per
the State of California’s cornerstone academic measurements, EBs as well as Latino students in
PCSD have demonstrated consistently higher performances in meeting language development
and academic standards, yet secondary English teachers in PCSD believed otherwise, as they
reflected in the Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016 benchmark evaluations.

Figure 7. Latino Secondary Student Assessments in PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 153
The benchmark evaluations PCSD uses are designed to measure language development
of EBs; however, the considerable differences in measurements between vetted standardized
assessments and the benchmark teacher evaluations suggested that PCSD’s secondary English
teachers’ perspectives of what constitutes English fluency and high academic achievement may
not be calibrated accurately with more reliable forms of evaluations, or that teachers may be
evaluating aspects of performance simply not associated with the expectations by the State of
California for the language development and academic performance evaluations of EBs,
including Latino PEBLs.
In absentia. A consistent reason that secondary English teachers provided in support of
their denials of RFEP for Latino PEBLs was that these students did not attend regularly enough
to provide teachers with sufficient opportunity for language evaluations. Emergent from teacher
descriptions of Latino PEBLs, I have defined this category as: The perceptions by teachers that
the poor attendance of Latino PEBLs hampered their language development and designation for
RFEP. The biannual benchmark does not contain any specific category that considers the
attendance of students; however, as reflected in their benchmark evaluations, secondary English
teachers in PCSD maintained that irregular attendance by these students was a cause for denial of
RFEP.
As reported by teachers in their description for denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs,
irregular attendance came in two forms: (a) non-attendance to school; or (b) exclusion from the
teacher’s English class for participation in a specific intervention, (including counselling or other
special services). Some teachers denied RFEP to Latino PEBLs because they believed students
simply were not present in class enough times, such as the case of Alejandro, who was evaluated
by Mr. Ford. According to this teacher, Alejandro demonstrated a Bridging Exit Language
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 154
Proficiency in all language and knowledge categories. Yet the teacher felt that the student
simply had not been in class enough to qualify for RFEP. An English teacher at one of the
district’s secondary schools with the highest population of Latino PEBLs, Mr. Ford determined
that Alejandro’s language capability was high enough to qualify for RFEP; however, the teacher
did not recommend the student because the student “ha[d] not been present enough.” Similarly,
Ms. Johnson, a teacher at the other secondary school with the highest population of Latino
PEBLs, determined that Drea may have been doing well academically in the English class, but
that Drea did not attend frequently enough to qualify for RFEP. Ms. Johnson described that the
student: “[did] not come to school often enough…I think she has potential to progress if she was
present a bit more often.” In each of these cases, the responses of the teachers stressed that
attendance was a pivotal factor in RFEP qualification, even though no consideration of
attendance patterns is present in the benchmark evaluation. Instead, it asks teachers to focus
solely on the evaluation of English language development of learners in explicitly detailed
categories.
Poor attendance. Deeper insight into what teachers perceived as the purpose of
benchmark evaluations emerged from the comments of another teacher regarding a Latina PEBL.
The teacher, Ms. Miller, detailed the reason that she did not recommend RFEP for Celeste, even
though the student had been determined by the teacher to command Bridging Exit Language
Proficiency in all language and knowledge categories. Ms. Miller specifically remarked that:
Celeste does a great job on her assignments when she is here. The problem is getting her
to school since she is traveling from so far away. If she was [sic] here more often, she
would be passing the class. If this is the only criteria that keeps her from re-leveling, I
think we should consider her a special case due to her circumstances.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 155
From Ms. Miller’s comment, it appeared that she believed the benchmark evaluation included an
evaluation of the student’s grade in class, instead of a measurement of English language
development. Attendance had been intertwined into this teacher’s grading policy, and
consequently, a student whose English language capabilities would have otherwise qualified her
for RFEP led to a teacher denial. Yet another teacher, Ms. Finn, asserted the importance of
grading in the language evaluation, explaining that since her student Julissa was frequently
absent, the student did not qualify for RFEP. The teacher stated that “Julissa is absent
frequently, which is somewhat interfering with her grade, however, she still has a C in the class.
I would be willing to rethink my re-leveling decision based on her CELDT score.” Interestingly,
the teacher agreed to change the RFEP determination for Julissa only if the student’s CELDT
performance reinforced the teacher’s impression of the student’s language capability. In any
case, attendance was the clear reason for Ms. Finn’s RFEP denial of Julissa.
Absence due to intervention. Involvement in other forms of intervention within each
secondary school necessitated periodic absences from class for some Latino PEBLs, causing
their English teachers to deny these students RFEP. The teachers believed that these additional
services came at the expense of the student’s capability in earning high enough grades in their
English classes, which, for these teachers, was important in determining a student’s English
language development. For example, Miss Shelby denied Santiago RFEP because the student
spent too much class time working with the site’s speech specialist. The teacher’s reason for
denial was simple, and not supported with any other description. Teachers like Ms. Arnold were
more detailed in their descriptions, yet did not give a reason for denial of RFEP for her student,
Esteban, beyond that the student’s absence due to participation in a special education support
program required that he miss class too frequently: “[he] attends the Learning Center. He is able
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 156
to express his needs, but often gets upset when he becomes frustrated with his peers.” The
student had special needs, and was working with a support team; however, Ms. Arnold, the
student’s mainstream English teacher, denied the student RFEP because he was not in her class
frequently enough.
Whether it was from participation in site-level interventions and programs, or simply
because of a high frequency of absences, for many teachers in PCSD, Latino PEBL’s infrequent
attendance to class became causes for denial of RFEP. It is possible that the students did not
attend enough to even be evaluated, which may have been the case for one teacher, Mr. Donnels
who remarked that “the student was out of the country for early testing,” or another teacher, Miss
Wilshire, who explained that her student “is new to the school (and district) and is having some
attendance issues, so I do not have enough work from him to feel like I can accurately assess
moving him.” Yet given the requirements of the benchmark evaluations, which can be satisfied
in a single assessment administered in one class period, it is very unlikely that any student who
attended a class at least once could not have been provided with a benchmark evaluation by the
classroom teacher.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD frequently demonstrated in their benchmark
evaluations of Latino PEBLs that student attendance and its influence on class grades played
important roles in the teacher’s RFEP decisions. Despite the benchmark evaluations requiring no
information about student attendance (and the diminished grades that may have ensued), many
teachers consistently referred to attendance-related factors as reasons for the denial of RFEP of
their Latino PEBLs.
Due to disability. Often cited as justification for the denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs,
PCSD’s secondary English teachers frequently explained that these students were hampered by
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 157
learning disabilities that prevented them from qualifying for RFEP. It is worth establishing that
these students had been attending PCSD’s schools for at least five full years, meaning that
PCSD’s experts in special education had been unable to identify any disabilities of these students
during that time. The district had faced considerable pressure in the form of several highly-
publicized legal actions in recent years pertaining to identification of students for special needs,
requiring considerable financial settlements; accordingly, PCSD had maintained a vigilant stance
in accurately evaluating students for special education services. Nevertheless, many secondary
English teachers believed that a significant population of their Latino PEBLs had not been
properly evaluated for learning disabilities. Teacher perceptions of undiagnosed learning
disabilities led many teachers to deny Latino PEBLs RFEP. In fact, teachers described in their
benchmark observations in Fall of 2015 that 19% of the Latino PEBLs who had previously not
been designated as learning disabled for at least five years in PCSD’s schools in fact had
unidentified learning disabilities that were preventing these students from demonstrating fluency
in English.
In their benchmark evaluations, a significant population of Secondary English teachers in
PCSD cited previously undiagnosed learning disabilities as the cause for denial of RFEP for
Latino PEBLs. Based on these teacher’s perceptions of this population of learners, I have
defined this category as: Teacher perception of student disabilities that were preventing these
students from demonstrating English fluency. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these
descriptions came from teachers at two of the secondary schools in PCSD: City High School, and
Riverside High School. Both schools had the largest percentage of Latino EBs (as well as Latino
PEBLs). Many of the teachers in these schools described learners who could express themselves
with basic levels of language skills, yet who were incapable of commanding higher levels of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 158
academic language, leading these teachers to attribute the diminished capability of these students
to undiagnosed disabilities. Secondary teachers reflected in their descriptions that Latino PEBLs
could communicate in English; however, in these teacher’s estimations these students could not
communicate at an acceptable academic level because of one or more in a range of disabilities. I
have grouped the types of disabilities cited by teachers into three types: (a) undiagnosed
generalized language processing disorders, (b) undiagnosed attention deficit disorders, and (c)
undiagnosed dysgraphia related disorders.
Undiagnosed generalized disorders. Unspecified language processing disorders
represented a primary reason secondary English teachers denied RFEP for Latino PEBLs. For
example, Mrs. Martin declared that her student Jorge “is an LTEL and struggles with processing
of content.” In this teacher’s professional opinion, Jorge had never demonstrated fluency in
English for over five years in PCSD’s schools, due to unidentified processing problems. The
teacher’s application of a deficit label (LTEL), while conveniently used by many teachers, had
become an entrenched status leading the teacher to believe that Jorge’s challenges did not relate
to Mrs. Martin’s instruction. Similarly, Ms. Wilson justified her denial of RFEP of Eva, stating
that the student could communicate, but could not meet expectations of RFEP because, as the
teacher stated, “I believe she has an undiagnosed learning disability. Orally, she expresses herself
well.” Another teacher, Ms. Jensen, bluntly maintained that Esteban did not qualify for RFEP,
not because of instructional gaps in his language development, but because of disability. In her
benchmark evaluation for this student, Ms. Jensen firmly stated: “This is not a language
acquisition issue; it is a special education issue.” The issue was clear from this teacher’s
perspective. The student had not been able to develop language capabilities as the teacher had
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 159
expected because of disabilities, not because of instructional factors, and this perception by Ms.
Jensen led to her denial of RFEP for Esteban.
Other teachers were not as explicit in describing the learning disabilities of their Latino
PEBLs, yet still confided their perceptions of the learning difficulties of these students. As Mr.
Julien described, “Emelie appears to me to be fluent or close to fluent. However, her reading and
writing are a bit below grade level, but these challenges may not be due to language.” The
implication was that Emelie’s diminished performance was the result of something outside of the
teacher’s locus of control. This perception was shared by many teachers, such as Miss Howard,
who said of her student Janeth that: “I believe she is dealing with learning abilities [sic] that are
impeding her writing and grades. When given an oral comprehension assessment, she does
extremely well.” From Miss Howard’s standpoint, the oral production of Janeth should have
aligned with her written production, or a learning disability had to have been the cause. The
teacher did not consider that Janeth’s writing production may simply not have caught up with
what Miss Howard considered to be keen oral productive capabilities. Instead, for this secondary
level English teacher, the delay in Janeth’s productive language capabilities validated the
teacher’s decision that the student had a learning disability, and validated denial of RFEP.
Undiagnosed generalized attention deficit disorders. Even as secondary English
teachers described in various ways how the learning disabilities of Latino PEBLs prevented their
language development leading to RFEP, a significant population of teachers cited broadly
defined Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD, or more commonly in teacher
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 160
responses, ADD
14
) as the reason why Latino PEBLs did not qualify for RFEP. Teachers like Mr.
Donahue claimed simply: “This student has ADD” as the reason that the student could not
demonstrate satisfactory language development to merit RFEP. Others provided slightly more
detail, such as Mrs. Graves, who specifically determined that her student, Gustavo was not
developing his language capability to her expectations: “I feel that Gustavo's struggles are less of
a language issue and result more from his attention issues.” Many secondary English teachers in
PCSD may have accurately perceived that their Latino PEBLs were not focused on the teacher’s
instruction, yet rather than ascribing the inattention to something that the teacher could control
(such as harnessing student motivation, or culturally responsive methodologies and curriculum),
teachers simply assumed that their perceived diminished English language development of
Latino PEBLs was due to their yet to be diagnosed ADHD.
An example of how teachers ascribed disqualification for RFEP because of ADHD issues
was found in the words of Ms. Simpson, a teacher in the school with the highest population of
Latino PEBLs. The teacher described her student in the following way: “Victor struggles with
attention issues. He is on a contract with City High and most likely will be kicked back to his
home school next year.” The deficit-oriented approach to the evaluation of the learner by the
teacher is evident, and while the benchmark evaluation is designed to provide district leaders and
other teachers with information about the language development of students, Ms. Simpson’s
reflection of the lower grade that Victor would receive due to what she perceived as “attention
issues” superseded any evaluation of his language development.

14
In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association,
2013) the editors define Attention Deficit Hyperactivity (ADHD) as “a persistent patter of inattention and/or
hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development” (p. 61). The DSM-5 does not specifically
recognize Attention Deficit Disorder, or ADD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 161
The connection between perceived attention disorders and lower grades was echoed by
Ms. Brunson, an experienced teacher. Ms. Brunson did not go into detail about the language
development of one learner, Alex, choosing instead to focus on diminished classroom
achievement, even though the student’s English language level was high: “Unfortunately, Alex's
grades to not qualify him for re-leveling. However, I think some of the weaknesses stem from
his earning [sic] disability, ADD, rather than language.” Ms. Brunson believed that a disability
was the reason that Alex could not complete enough assignments to earn a passing grade, and
therefore, he could not qualify for a higher language level. It is important to note that Ms.
Brunson clearly stated that the student did not have a problem with language development,
which is the defined purpose of the biannual benchmark evaluation.
Teachers frequently perceived that Latino PEBLs had demonstrated English language
capabilities that should qualify them for RFEP, but these teachers nevertheless denied RFEP
because of classroom performance deficits related to the perceived inattention of students. This
viewpoint was underscored with clarity by Mr. Sykes. In his evaluations, Mr. Sykes reflected his
understanding (however uninformed) that the benchmark evaluation represented a measurement
of the student’s completion of the teacher’s assignments: “I feel as though [Alvaro] has excellent
knowledge of the English language and his struggles are related to his diagnosis of ADD.” The
“struggles” that Alvaro may have had in Mr. Sykes classroom were not related to English
language development, as the teacher clearly described. Yet the teacher did not approve the
student for RFEP, even as the teacher detailed the student’s “excellent knowledge of English.”
Mr. Sykes typified a perception held by many secondary English teachers. These teachers
ascribed the inability for students to qualify for RFEP as related to poor academic performance
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 162
caused by deficit disorders, even though these teachers neglected to provide any information
about the actual English language development of the student.
Undiagnosed dysgraphia related disorders. Interestingly, many secondary English
teachers in PCSD who recognized performance gaps in the writing of their Latino PEBLs
described that dysgraphia
15
(a specific disability that impairs written expression) was the cause
of many of these students’ inability to demonstrate high enough English language skills to
qualify for RFEP. Although all Latino PEBLs in this population of learners would have been
subject to a battery of tests (such as writing in native language) for at the very least a half of a
decade that would likely reveal their supposed written disabilities, many secondary teachers in
PCSD insisted that the perceived gap between oral production and written production by Latino
PEBLs was caused by a writing disability.
Even as some secondary English teachers referred to undiagnosed disabilities as the
reasons for the writing production problems of Latino PEBLs, other teachers described students
who had otherwise high categorical benchmark evaluations yet who were incapable of higher
levels of academic achievement because, as these teachers perceived it, the students were
afflicted with writing disabilities. Teachers used this description of a writing disability in
justifying their claims, especially if these students had qualified for special services. For these
particular students, discontinuities in writing were attributed to other disabilities, as Mr. Handler
said of his student, Carlos: “His writing can be confusing and sometimes have errors, but this is
most likely due to his qualification for an IEP.” As the student demonstrated difficulty in his
writing, the teacher did not perceive that the problem could be remedied by instruction, instead

15
Typifying a lack of consensus among experts around the world of specific definition for dysgraphia, the DSM-V
only recognizes “an impairment in written expression” without specifically labelling it as dysgraphia.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 163
believing that the cause for the problem was a disability. Mr. Decker conjectured with detail
that his student Juan demonstrated specific writing problems that the teacher found attributable
to a learning disorder related to writing: “Writing including evidence and commentary is a huge
struggle for him. This could be based on his qualifaction [sic] for special education.” This
student’s inability to provide his teacher with satisfactory evidence coupled with elaboration in
his written compositions led the teacher to maintain that the student’s disabilities were the cause
for the diminished performance. As previously was the case with Mr. Handler, Mr. Decker
provided high categorical evaluations for the student’s production of language that otherwise
would have qualified the student for RFEP.
Some teachers noted an existing designation for special services provided to students, and
then speculated generally in their provision of reasons for declining to advance Latino PEBLs to
RFEP. These teachers did not advance the learners because of perceived writing disabilities of
these students, even if no such designations had been rendered by experts in the district over at
least five years of attendance by these students in PCSD. Still other secondary English teachers
speculated on undiagnosed disabilities to explain writing deficits for students. For example,
Miss Snowden confided that the reason for the perceived performance gap between oral
production and written production by her student Marguerite was because “she is dealing with
learning abilities [sic] that are impeding her writing and her grades.” Interestingly, Miss
Snowden gauged that Marguerite had merited a high writing evaluation by scoring the student at
the bridging level of proficiency in terms of productive language, as well as in her accuracy of
production. Yet incongruously, the teacher’s perception of the student’s writing disability stood
in the way of a recommendation for RFEP. Interestingly, as in many other cases already
mentioned, the relationship of student disability to grades was clearly stated by the teacher, even
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 164
though the benchmark evaluation does not include any elements that consider a student’s success
in completing classwork. Instead, the benchmark only considered the student’s language
development. Nevertheless, for Miss Snowden, Marguerite’s academic performance was
connected to a diminished proficiency in writing, that in turn was caused by a disability. This
meant that even though Marguerite had demonstrated high enough categorical evaluations on the
benchmark to merit RFEP, Miss Snowden asserted otherwise and did recommend Marguerite for
RFEP.
Even as many teachers generalized their descriptions of the learning disabilities of EBs
that those teachers felt precluded RFEP, a smaller percentage of teachers provided more specific
descriptions of these disabilities that the teachers thought were preventing Latino PEBLs from
gaining RFEP. Ms. Doyle maintained that her student Mateo had demonstrated the highest
levels of language development in each of the five categories in the benchmark evaluation. Yet
the teacher did not promote Mateo for RFEP because Ms. Doyle conjectured that the student did
not demonstrate high enough academic performance due to a writing disability. The teacher
specifically (if ironically) described this purported disability, saying that the student “has a
descrepancy [sic] between ability and achievement in the areas of written expression due to a
processing disorder. Mateo struggles to complete writing and to stay on task.” From the words
of Ms. Doyle, she seemed convinced that Mateo had a writing disability as well as an attention
disorder, and coupled together, these disabilities were significant enough to deprive Mateo of
RFEP designation. This, despite Ms. Doyle’s evaluation of Mateo’s language development
levels as higher than many students the teacher had promoted for RFEP. Interestingly, none of
the promoted students were Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 165
In the professional opinions of many secondary English teachers in PCSD, a significant
population of Latino PEBLs who merited very high English language development evaluations
suffered from various disabilities that caused the teachers to deny those students RFEP. The
teachers reflected in their descriptions of the RFEP denial of these learners that because of their
various disabilities, the students did not demonstrate academic skills that would merit high
grades in those teacher’s classes, thereby disqualifying the student for RFEP. The benchmark
evaluation does not ask teachers to provide any information about class achievement as reflected
in teacher grading; however, secondary English teachers in PCSD nevertheless interposed their
proprietary classroom grading as a factor in RFEP. Even as students could demonstrate fluent
English language capabilities, secondary teachers perceived lower academic performance by
these students and denied them RFEP. For reasons that are not clear in their evaluations, these
teachers believed that the lower academic performance of many Latino PEBLs was caused by
undiagnosed learning disabilities. Interestingly, in none of these cases did teachers determine
that the academic problems of student associated with ineffective instructional practices,
misaligned curriculum, or ineffective grading methods that did not include differentiation in
assessment for this specific population of learners. Instead of examining reasons for a
demonstrated discontinuity between standardized assessments and their own proprietary
practices, teachers chose to label Latino PEBLs as deficient in their language development and
academic performance because of undiagnosed disabilities that had yet to be identified by district
teachers and personnel for the five-plus years that these students had been in PCSD schools.
Poor writer. Despite the focus of the benchmark evaluation on language development in
three modes of language and two dimensions of knowledge, the English teachers at PCSD
frequently used different categorical performance areas to justify their denials of RFEP for
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 166
Latino PEBLs. Academic achievement, although not a criterion in the benchmark evaluations,
represented a consistent reason for the denial of RFEP for these learners. For some teachers,
spotty attendance or tardiness by Latino PEBLs represented an academic deficit (likely due to
points provided for attendance) that caused secondary English teachers to deny these students
RFEP. Other teachers focused on general and specific learning disorders as reasons that students
could not qualify for RFEP. These groups of teachers frequently provided otherwise favorable
feedback on the language development of these students, but did not recommend RFEP due to
issues that negatively influenced the academic performance of Latino PEBLs, even as the
biannual benchmark evaluation asked teachers to only evaluate the English language
development of EBs.
Another of the codes that emerged from my investigation of teacher biannual benchmarks
considered the diminished writing skill of Latino PEBLs. Using the words of more than one
teacher, I have labelled this coding as “Poor writer.” I have defined this category as: Teacher
perception that a student had writing difficulties (not connected to a learning disability) that
prevented teachers from approving RFEP. These students were described by teachers as having
the capability to demonstrate fluency in English, but not having the capability to demonstrate a
grade level quality of academic writing. Teacher descriptions of the diminished writing skills of
Latino PEBLs emerged in three distinct categories: (a) generalized reflections of below grade
level writing of students, (b) specified reflections of below grade level writing of students, and
(c) reflection of the writing deficiencies of Latino PEBLs due to motivational issues.
Generalized reflections. The most frequent reflection by secondary English teachers of
the diminished writing capability of their Latino PEBLs was generalized in nature, as teachers
described these students as “weak” writers, or as students who were “struggling” with writing.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 167
Neither of these descriptors was provided in the benchmark evaluation, nor did the benchmark
ask solely about writing; however, teachers were very clear in their responses that they saw
Latino PEBLs as being “weak” writers who were “struggling.” A perfect example of how
teachers depicted the writing capabilities of Latino PEBLs came from Miss Sutherland, who
reflected in her description of Lucas that the student demonstrated academic deficits in writing.
Curiously, Miss Sutherland did not believe that Lucas’s deficit related to his English language
development. The teacher explained: “His writing skills are weak, but I am not convinced at this
stage that it is a result of his second language learning—I feel he is just not a strong writer.”
Interestingly, Miss Sutherland recommended Lucas for relevelling based on his language
development, but did not recommend RFEP. Yet in her categorical evaluations for this student,
Miss Sutherland described Lucas as proficient. The reason for the discrepancies in categorical
evaluation are unclear. Clearer was the reason that Miss Sutherland did not recommend Lucas
for RFEP. She did not think Lucas could write at an acceptable academic level, and her opinion
was that Lucas was “not a strong writer.” In her eyes, Miss Sutherland’s opinion of Lucas’s poor
writing superseded her determination of Lucas as a fluent English student, justifying her denial
of RFEP for Lucas.
The sentiment shared by teachers that Latino PEBLs did not demonstrate high enough
levels of written language was echoed by Mr. Johnson, who was convinced that Hector could
communicate effectively in English in the verbal form, yet could not demonstrate similar
command in writing: “In discussion, things go well; his weaknesses show up in his writing.” Mr.
Johnson’s colleague Ms. Brunson typified the perspective held by many teachers of Latino
PEBLs, remarking that her student Jaqueline demonstrated high language levels in all areas
except writing. The teacher, in denying the student RFEP, detailed her reasoning: “I believe that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 168
Jacqueline functions at a level that is equal to her English only peers. Her only set back [sic]
may be the writing component: She is a weak writer.” Similarly, Ms. Colby determined that
Jasmine had demonstrated equivalent performance to her peers in other areas of classroom
instruction, but her writing represented a language deficit. The teacher reflected: “Jasmine still
struggles with writing skills but does well with class participation and the understanding of text.”
For these teachers, their expectations for quality of writing were not met by their Latino PEBLs,
even though each teacher recognized the strong productive oral language capabilities of each of
the students denied RFEP.
For many teachers, the writing skills of secondary level Latino PEBLs were not at grade
level, representing for them a reason not to recommend these students for RFEP. Whether it was
a comment such as: “Esteban needs to work on his writing skills” by Mrs. Lagerstrom, or “Pilar
is reading better but struggles with writing” as described by Mr. Denny, secondary English
teachers perceived their Latino PEBLs as simply not demonstrating the level of writing that was
required for secondary classrooms. Curiously, these teachers scored Latino PEBLs very highly
in the categories of language development that the benchmark evaluation asked teachers to
consider; however, in their final analysis, teachers determined that even though the English
language levels of these students were at the highest level, the teacher’s perceived gap between
their expectations for grade level writing and the writing ability of the students led many
secondary English teachers in PCSD to deny Latino PEBLs RFEP.
Specified reflections. While many teachers used general descriptions of what they
perceived as below grade level writing of their students, some teachers detailed specific
attributes of the writing problems demonstrated by these students. Ms. Adams explained that her
student, Valeria could use other productive forms of English to communicate effectively, but
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 169
when it came to academic writing, the student “struggle[d] with writing structure.” This
expectation for a specific evaluation of the writing of EBs was not present in the benchmark, but
in teacher’s commentaries following categorical evaluation of student language development,
comments of this sort were quite frequent. Another teacher, Ms. Brunson, provided a
considerably refined description of Angel’s written production, detailing that “his weakness is in
the area of writing. He needs to expand and extend his discourse and vocabulary when writing
academically.” For Ms. Brunson, Angel had demonstrated the highest levels of language
proficiency in all five categories, but she could not recommend RFEP because of Angel’s
diminished capability to apply grade level diction in his academic writing.
Specific, detailed evaluations of the writing of Latino PEBLs may have reflected
secondary English teacher’s opinion of Latino PEBLs’ capabilities in academic writing, but it is
unclear if these evaluations were indicative of the totality of the student’s writing, or of student
performance among specific genres of writing. This distinction may be important, as writing that
did not satisfy expectations of teachers represented consistent reasons why teachers did not
support RFEP for many Latino PEBLs. Interestingly, in providing specific genre-based writing
comments, the gap between the benchmark evaluation and the teacher’s perspective of what
warranted fluency increased. A case in point can be found in the description of the writing of
Daniel by Mrs. Summers. This teacher evaluated the student as demonstrating bridging levels of
proficiency in all categories except for Accuracy of Production. Yet in the teacher’s
commentary, she only reflected on Daniel’s lack of support in his academic writing, stating:
“Student experiences difficulties with providing evidence in writing.” Genre differences aside,
Mrs. Summers determined that Daniel’s inability to provide evidence in support of what would
presumably be a claim in an argumentative writing assignment was grounds for denying the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 170
student RFEP, even though none of the proficiency descriptors refer to the use of evidence, or for
that matter, techniques of argument. The student may not have demonstrated skilled written
argument techniques, and for Mrs. Summers, her perception of this deficit in student
performance was pivotal in preventing her designation of Daniel as fluent in English.
Richness in academic writing may separate excellent writing from average writing, but
for Mr. Handler, the lack of observed richness in student writing caused the teacher not to
recommend Kevin for RFEP, because the student: “struggle[d] with adding complexity to his
writing.” Fluency, as Mr. Handler maintained, depended on his proprietary (if vague) notion of
complexity, not on the capability of the student to demonstrate fluency in productive language as
the California English Language Development Standards (2012) requires. These standards
explain that for EBs to satisfy expectation of English fluency for RFEP, students may: “produce
English, but may exhibit some minor errors in pronunciation, grammar, and writing conventions
that do not impede meaning” (p. 24). Many teachers like Mr. Handler held their own personal
benchmarks for demonstrating English fluency, and these personal benchmarks superseded the
existing ELD benchmarks established by the State of California—even though the existing
standards were clearly detailed at each stage of the online biannual benchmark form.
Motivational issues in writing. Although the purpose of the biannual benchmark
evaluation was to obtain information about the language development of EBs in PCSD, an
overwhelming majority of secondary English teachers referred to classroom grades in their
evaluation of their Latino PEBLs for RFEP. Since many teachers used the completion of
classroom assignments and attendance as primary components in grading, many of these teachers
drew connections between poor academic performance in class (which they reflected in the
benchmark evaluation) and motivational issues. For Latino PEBLs, who have faced considerable
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 171
institutionalized discrimination in the form of stereotyping, the description by teachers of Latino
students as “lazy” represented a larger concern that will be addressed in the next coding section,
entitled “Able, but lazy.” The present section concludes the section on writing deficits, with
specific attention to comments by secondary English teachers that the Latino PEBLs they
evaluated did not qualify for RFEP because of motivational issues specifically related to writing.
Some of the motivational issues that influenced student writing considered teacher’s
perception of the lack of student self-efficacy or value. For example, Mr. Foreman detailed that
his student Brandon demonstrated a high level of English language proficiency in the teacher’s
categorical evaluation; however, the teacher did not provide the student with an RFEP
designation because of Brandon’s diminished writing skills that were related to motivational
issues: “Brandon is on grade level in reading. His writing is short, but more due to the fact that
he is a reluctant writer.” This attribution of a lack of student motivation was also ascribed to
Isabella, a student of Ms. Brunson. The student’s reading level was documented as higher than
peers who did gain RFEP; however, the teacher decided that Isabella’s diminished writing
capabilities due to motivational issues merited a denial of RFEP. The teacher explained:
“Isabella struggles with writing. She is doing a bit better than last year, but is easily discouraged.
She is not confident that she can do the work.” Similarly, Miss Chen’s student Javier did not
merit RFEP because the student “lack[ed] motivation to improve in written expression.” The
comments of Mr. Foreman, Ms. Brunson, and Miss Chen demonstrated that secondary English
teachers attributed a level of importance to student confidence in writing when evaluating the
fluency of these students. Yet many of the comments provided by teachers for the denial of
RFEP were of a more general nature, such as Mr. Givens, who said of his student Alejandra that
the student: “Struggles with writing and doesn't have motivation to write.” As in the case with
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 172
many Latino PEBLs who were denied RFEP by secondary English teachers, students who were
not able to demonstrate to teachers what they perceived as proficiency in academic writing due
to motivational issues were not approved for RFEP, with teachers using distinct forms of deficit
terminology to support their decisions.
Able, but lazy. Although each of the previous codes were generated from a sizable
frequency of teacher descriptions of their Latino PEBLs, by far the most frequent description of
secondary English teacher’s denial of these students for RFEP considered the motivation of
students to complete classwork. Emerging from one teacher’s comment of a Latino PEBL, I
have designated this code as “Able, but lazy.” I define this as: Teacher’s characterization of
Latino PEBLs as able, but unwilling to complete classwork.
Despite longstanding recognition of educators of the influence of teacher attribution of
stereotypes on the development of student’s self-concept among Latino students (Palomares,
1970; Reyna, 2000), teachers in PCSD remained rooted to the stereotype of their Latino students
as “lazy.” For benchmarking purposes, teachers were to have determined the language
development of their students; however, teachers largely considered classroom performance (as
reflected by grades) as a key factor in denying RFEP to Latino PEBLs. Attendance and behavior
appeared to play a considerable role in student grades, and even though many of the students
demonstrated satisfactory language development (as described by those teachers), the teacher’s
evaluation of the student’s performance in satisfying the proprietary classroom expectations of
the teacher played a significant (if not primary) role in the decisions of secondary English
teachers for the denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs. Each of the comments used to explain why
secondary English teachers did not approve their Latino PEBLs for RFEP touched on the lack of
motivation by these learners in completing classroom assignments; however, within that broad
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 173
designation, I have segmented teacher responses into two smaller categories: (a) student not
motivated to complete classwork or homework assignments, (b) student disposition that resulted
in a perceived lack of effort or will.
Not motivated to complete classwork or homework assignments. References to the lack
of student motivation to complete classwork or homework assignments represented the most
frequent reason teachers cited for denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs. Many secondary English
teachers perceived that their Latino PEBLs had commanded the language ability to perform
effectively in the teacher’s classes and in fact had given these students high categorical
benchmark evaluations; however, these same teachers maintained that their perception of the
diminished academic performance of these students was caused by motivational deficits, leading
teachers to deny these students RFEP. Teachers used different ways to describe how they
perceived student motivation deficits in completing classwork and homework assignments. Miss
O’Neill explained that “Francisco does not produce an immense amount of work, so his grades
do not support re-leveling.” The teacher’s words demonstrated a certainty of the importance of
grades in evaluation, even as no categories in the benchmarking process asked teachers about
classroom grades. Mr. Savitch shared this improper (if incongruous) application of the
benchmarking evaluation, stating: “Miranda is fluent; she just doesn't complete her work.”
Unfathomably, even as the teacher acknowledged that Miranda was fluent in English, he did not
approve the student for RFEP. Miranda just did not meet the teacher’s proprietary expectation
for the completion of classwork, which Mr. Savitch (and many other teachers) felt was most
crucial for their RFEP approval of Latino PEBLs.
Other teachers shared the perspective that student motivation impacted classroom
performance; however, while these teachers stated that the lack of student work did diminish
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 174
their academic performance, they also suggested that this prevented more effective language
evaluation—even though the benchmark evaluations were completed after months of classes.
Mr. Choi underscored his misunderstanding of the purpose of the benchmark evaluation by
stating: “Joseph often does not complete work which lowers his grade;” yet the teacher provided
some justification for the denial of RFEP for his student by saying that: “Joseph’s inability to
complete work makes it difficult to assess him.” For this teacher, the student grade influenced
the benchmark language evaluation; however, it was the lack of completed work that solidified
the denial of RFEP. Similarly, Ms. Griffith confided that her student Veronica did not provide
the teacher with enough evidence to make an accurate decision, even though the teacher
determined that the student commanded the highest proficiency designation in each of the
benchmark categories. For Ms. Griffith, an accurate language evaluation for RFEP would
require additional data: “Veronica would be a candidate for re-designation if she completed more
of her work so I could assess her skill set with more depth.” The teacher then detailed insight
into what she believed to be required for students to demonstrate fluency in English: “[Veronica]
does function at a high level linguistically and could be considered for RFEP next year if she
demonstrates mastery, especially with writing.” In Ms. Griffith’s eyes, RFEP for a Latino PEBL
required mastery, not fluency in writing.
For Mr. Choi as well as Ms. Griffith, observation of a student for two months as they
completed various classroom assignments was simply not enough information to make the final
judgment for RFEP. For Latino PEBLs to gain RFEP, they also needed to demonstrate
capability in completing enough assignments for these teachers to be satisfied—even though on
the categorical evaluations, each teacher detailed that their students had demonstrated English
fluency. Other teachers demonstrated the same pattern of categorical approval of levels of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 175
proficiency to engender an RFEP designation, yet were not as detailed in their explanations of
the lack of work required to nudge the teacher toward an RFEP decision for their Latino PEBLs.
These teachers simply reflected that the students did not complete enough work to merit RFEP.
One teacher stated: “Juan Carlos struggles to complete work for my classes,” while another
teacher, Miss Mason, maintained that her student Rodrigo “sometimes struggles with work
completion.” Still another teacher bluntly explained the reason for denial of RFEP by declaring:
“Student does not complete enough work.” The completion of class assignments by students
represented a frequent reason for teachers to deny Latino PEBLs of RFEP, demonstrating the
value that teachers placed on satisfactory completion of assignments in comparison to actual
language evaluation of the students as they engaged in collaboration, reception, and production
of the English language within the classroom environment—all requirements clearly spelled out
in the biannual benchmark evaluation.
Many teachers specified that the reason for denial of RFEP was that Latino PEBLs did
not complete assignments required to earn passing grades. This view of teachers shared
similarities with the previous category of work completion, yet included more specificity. These
teachers stressed that students needed to earn a passing grade in class to merit RFEP, even
though grades were not a component of the benchmark evaluation. For example, Coach Jensen
explained in her denial of RFEP for her student, Ana Maria, that if the student “would turn in
more of her assignments, she would be receiving a passing grade, and I therefore would think she
could be reclassified.” Similarly, Mr. Wiggins determined that his student Yolanda
demonstrated the highest levels of categorical language proficiency; however, he did not
recommend the student for RFEP because of her academic achievement: “Unfortunately,
Yolanda's grades to not support re-leveling. When she works it is good and shows improvement;
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 176
she has problems being sure major assignments and smaller ones are actually turned in.” For
both Coach Jensen and Mr. Wiggins, turning in assignments was a prerequisite for the
demonstration of academic achievement, and the demonstration of the teacher’s proprietary
evaluation of academic achievement—not English language fluency—was the prerequisite for an
RFEP designation for Latino PEBLs.
Demonstration by Latino PEBLs of academic achievement in class represented an
important factor in the RFEP decision-making process for many secondary English teachers in
PCSD. This did not stop teachers from approving a higher level for students, even if they did not
justify RFEP. For example, Mrs. Stewart acknowledged the achievements of her student Ricky,
approving across-the-board categorical level changes for the student. Yet she did not approve
RFEP for Ricky because the student did not demonstrate satisfactory academic proficiency in her
classroom:
Ricky is failing my class due to missing assignments, but there is no way he is still a
Level 3. With his Z+ reading level and his participation in class, I know Ricky is ready
to move up despite his grade.
The teacher recognized that the student had developed improved English skills, yet the classroom
grade remained the key to unlock the gate to RFEP. Miss Turnbull shared this viewpoint,
explaining of Estelle, her Latina PEBL:
[Her] low grade is due to low test scores and missing assignments. She does want to be
more successful and I believe being around strong students will help influence her. She
puts effort into drafts of her writing and will ask for help when needed.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 177
The teacher clearly recognized the efforts of the student, and recommended a level change;
however, even though her categorical language proficiency merited RFEP, Estelle was not
approved because of low grades in Miss Turnbull’s class.
Passing grades represented a pivotal factor in teacher approval for RFEP of Latino
PEBLs in PCSD. Whether it was the motivation to complete work in the classroom, or the
completion of assignments including homework, teachers were fain to approve Latino PEBLs
who did not demonstrate sufficient scores on whatever those teachers cobbled together to
determine student grades. As previously mentioned, the benchmark evaluation specifically
describes that teachers are to evaluate only the student’s English language development;
however, it was impossible for many secondary English teachers to separate language
development from their grading decisions in the denial of RFEP to Latino PEBLs.
Student dispositions that resulted in a lack of effort or will. While many teachers
supported their denial of RFEP for Latino PEBLs because the students did not complete
sufficient classwork and homework assignments, other teachers attributed this lack of completion
to attitudinal and emotional issues. For these teachers, Latino PEBLs did not demonstrate the
attitudes that would facilitate effective classroom achievement. These students, who did not
complete necessary work in class or homework assignments, did not have the right attitudes
according to this population of secondary English teachers. Some teachers felt that student
attitudes had to do with confidence; however, most teachers who cited misorientation to
classroom achievement referred to student apathy or the unwillingness to commit to academic
success as determined by these teachers. In each case, secondary English teachers perceived that
Latino PEBLs were not motivated to complete assignments and consequently were not advanced
to RFEP—even if teachers recognized the student’s fluency in English.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 178
Teacher perception of an apathetic attitude demonstrated by Julissa represented a reason
that Ms. Kim did not approve the student for RFEP. The teacher categorically approved the
student’s fluency in English; however, because the student did not complete all classwork and
homework assigned to her, Ms. Kim did not indicate RFEP for Julissa. Yet rather than simply
state that the student could not generate sufficient work, the teacher qualified it by stating:
“Julissa is often off task and has missing assignments. She simply does not care to do it.”
Similarly, Miss Stern did not approve Javier for RFEP, because she felt that “Javier's apathy
toward academic success is slowing down his progress.” In both cases, the teachers perceived
that each student did not demonstrate the commitment to academic success, and consequently,
neither student merited advancement to RFEP.
Differentiated from motivation for the completion of classwork and homework, the larger
issue of misorientation towards academic success was cited by many secondary English teachers
in PCSD as reason to deny RFEP to Latino PEBLs. This larger generalized attitude reflecting a
lack of motivation for success in school was cited by many teachers of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Marta could not generate success in the classroom, not because of her language ability, but
because she was not “academically focused,” according to Miss Petty. The teacher related that
the student had “a ton of potential” as reflected in high categorical language proficiency
evaluations by the teacher. Yet Miss Petty maintained that Marta lacked the necessary focus for
academic success in her classroom. In the same fashion, Ms. Macauley provided insight into the
evaluative principles of many secondary English teachers by detailing that “Alex has the ability
to RFEP, but he will not put forth the effort to stay on task or to earn grades that show he is
capable.” Ms. Macauley recognized that Alex consistently demonstrated a level of English
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 179
fluency, but for this teacher, Alex’s lack of effective academic performance connected to a lack
of motivation for academic success and compelled the teacher to deny Alex RFEP.
Many teachers shared overt statements of the lack of academic motivation of their Latino
PEBLs. Clearly echoing the sentiment of the importance of classroom grades in teacher’s
decisions supporting RFEP, secondary English teachers perceived that these students were
simply not oriented for academic success because of a lack of will. Mr. Covey described that
“Diego is barely sliding by at the lowest D that I offer (50%). He needs to work harder,” and
Mrs. Carruthers said of Chris that the student “needs to put in more effort” to gain RFEP, just
like another other student, Luis, who similarly had demonstrated to Mrs. Carruthers that he had
a: “will issue.” This theme was echoed by Miss Scott, who conveyed that “Yaneth just does not
do her work…Sometimes it seems like it is will verses ability.” Each of these teachers described
the lack of desire by Latino PEBLs for academic success, even if the teachers clearly reflected
that each of these students had demonstrated levels of English fluency that should have
engendered RFEP approvals given the guidelines presented in the actual evaluation instrument.
Taking teacher attribution of student behaviors to a more specific, more deficit-oriented
level, many teachers explicitly attributed the lack of student success to a distinct lack of effort,
which these teachers labelled specifically as laziness. These teachers assigned this attribute
based on the poor academic performance by students, which the teachers believed connected to
the student’s classroom attitudes. Mrs. Richardson complained: “As of one week ago, Pablo had
a zero percent in my class. He is extremely lazy and unorganized.” The student did not merit
RFEP because he did not make a commitment to completing the assignments and classwork the
teacher set forth for him in her class. She also labelled him as a lazy student, an attribution that
does not directly connect to language fluency, but which nevertheless resulted in a denial of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 180
RFEP. Mrs. Richardson was not alone, as Ms. Macauley also attributed a student’s diminished
academic performance in her classroom to laziness. Even while declaring Jonathon as fluent in
English, she incongruously did not approve him for RFEP, stating: “He is in this program
because of grades; he is fluent, but lazy.” Finally, Mr. Handler attributed Fausto’s diminished
academic performance in the teacher’s class to laziness: “He is extremely lazy in getting his
school work done. If he actually did his work, he'd be fine.” Secondary English teachers did not
recognize any explicit academic skill deficits for these students, instead attributing the lack of
academic success and language development by these Latino PEBLs to laziness.
Core Findings: Biannual Benchmark Evaluation Forms
My comprehensive exploration of the Fall, 2015 and Spring, 2016 teacher benchmark
evaluations for EBs within PCSD provided me with keen insight of how secondary English
teachers viewed their Latino PEBLs, as well as how these teachers valued their benchmark
evaluations of English language development of these students. Secondary English teachers’
descriptions and my data analysis provided me with glimpses of how knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences reacted, interacted, and counteracted in the organizational
environment as secondary English teachers completed their benchmark evaluations of Latino
PEBLs for RFEP. Coding the totality of the teacher descriptions revealed that these teachers did
not demonstrate consistent data entry as evidenced by inconsistencies in categorical evaluations
as well as recommendations for English language level changes. Rigorous evaluation of each of
the codes that emerged from the data demonstrated that: (a) teachers consistently applied deficit-
based attributes to an alarming population of Latino PEBLs; (b) teachers conflated proprietary
grade decisions in their classrooms with established levels of English language development; (c)
teachers avoided responsibility for student challenges in producing academic success; (d)
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 181
teachers did not understand the purpose of the biannual benchmark, nor did they command
knowledge of critical factors in language development necessary to successfully complete those
benchmarks; and (e) teachers valued their own grading decisions in their classrooms more than
they valued the detailed categorical evaluations established by the CDE in the benchmark
evaluation. These discoveries directly reflected how the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences reacted, interacted, and counteracted within the organizational
environment to shape the language and content area evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary
English teachers in PCSD.
I have segmented the findings that I have drawn from my engagement with the data into
knowledge, motivation, and organizational categories that allowed me to explore the interrelated
influences of forces that resulted in the evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English
teachers. My discoveries that emerged from the data dynamically interact with one another, and
consequently my evaluation of the discoveries weighs each of the emergent findings not in
isolation, but in relationship to the interaction of the knowledge and motivation of teachers
within the organizational environment of PCSD.
Knowledge. Exploration of the corpus of teacher responses in two cycles of benchmark
evaluations of EBs in PCSD demonstrated a considerable lack of declarative knowledge by
secondary English teachers of critical elements in the benchmark evaluation, with the knowledge
of the proficiency level indicators representing the greatest deficit. This lack of knowledge led to
many improper applications of procedural knowledge, as teachers reverted to practices with
which they commanded greater self-efficacy to complete the biannual benchmark evaluations.
For example, even though attendance was not a consideration in the benchmark evaluation, many
teachers denied RFEP for Latino PEBLs because of poor attendance. This insistence of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 182
classroom grading policies over the clearly established rubric presented in the benchmark
evaluation revealed that secondary English teachers were likely to transfer their own proprietary
classroom grading practices to other forms of language evaluation—even when those forms
required of teachers to adhere to specific categorical distinctions.
Lack of knowledge of critical concepts and principles. Latino PEBLs in PCSD are most
frequently placed in mainstream English classes at the secondary level based on their typically
higher English language levels (in comparison to other EBs) as measured by the CELDT. This
placement should present the potential for these students to accelerate their language and
academic development through engagement with peers at slightly higher levels of academic
English language fluency; however, this educational opportunity for Latino PEBLs was not
maximized by secondary English teachers in PCSD as reflected by their comments in their
benchmark evaluations. Instead of modifying classroom assignments and assessments as
required by the ELD Standards by the State of California, secondary English teachers were very
unlikely to differentiate for Latino PEBLs in their classrooms. Many teachers of these students
simply referred to these learners as already fluent but lacking motivation, or that they were
unable to complete work. No comments by teachers touched on any discussion of how their own
differentiation of methodologies, curriculum, or formative and summative evaluations impacted
the learning of these students. Instead, secondary English teachers described the inabilities of
Latino PEBLs to fulfill teacher expectations—even if those expectations were distant from ELD
or ELA standards established by the CDE.
It remained unclear whether these secondary English teachers in PCSD were
knowledgeable of their responsibility for differentiation of instruction and assessment for their
populations of EBs; however, comments by what would be the likeliest teachers to have a
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 183
command of this awareness (ELD Coordinators at each site) indicated that it was very unlikely
that secondary English teachers commanded knowledge of the principles of differentiation in
their formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs.
Teacher and ELD Coordinator Ms. Brunson established a consistent theme in her
descriptions of denial of Latino PEBLs for RFEP. According to the teacher, these students (of
whom the teacher described could not meet her classroom expectations because of attendance or
interest) were likely to be disabled. Given the number of years that these students (5+) had been
in PCSD schools, it was very unlikely that these students had an undiagnosed learning disability.
Ms. Brunson’s frequent rejoinder of the inability for Latino PEBLs to meet her personal
expectations in completing classwork (or in their failures in classroom assessments) was a strong
indicator that she was not able to differentiate instruction or assessment for these learners—
especially considering that standardized test scores of these learners aligned with peers. It is
worth noting that the same students who were considered by Ms. Brunson to be disabled met the
expectations for grade level academic achievement in English as required by the State of
California as reflected in summative standardized assessments; however, Ms. Brunson preferred
to assert her own knowledge of what constituted academic achievement as well as English
fluency for her population of Latino PEBLs. As ELD coordinator at her site, she would have
received one week of daily training provided by the district that considered the proficiency level
indicators, as well as a week of training that focused solely on the California State Board of
Education English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework. The
ELA/ELD Framework is very clear of the importance of differentiation in assessment and
instruction for EBs, and Ms. Brunson’s inability to integrate these important responsibilities
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 184
presents a strong likelihood that she did not develop the knowledge of those responsibilities, and
consequently was incapable of integrating them into her classroom processes. Given that it was
her responsibility as ELD site-level coordinator to prepare the other English teachers at her site
to meet the expectations of the ELD Standards as well as the ELA/ELD Framework, and given
that Ms. Brunson would have been the primary recipient of all district learning opportunities that
considered EBs, her lack of knowledge likely led to few, if any of the teachers at her site gaining
at the very least a declarative knowledge of these standards and of this framework.
Consequently, it is highly likely that secondary English teachers at her site did not apply the
necessary procedural knowledge required of them to provide accurate evaluation of EBs.
It is possible that secondary English teachers gained the necessary declarative knowledge,
and subsequently demonstrated a command of procedural knowledge that aligned with the
existing guidelines established by the CDE without guidance provided by PCSD. It remains
possible that these teachers recognized and had command of these guidelines, but instead made
decisions that ran counter to the guidelines as reflected in these teacher’s descriptions of the
language development of their Latino PEBLs. For example, it remains possible that Mr. Handler
had declarative command in understanding that the California English Language Development
Standards (2012) described fluent students as those who: “produce English but may exhibit some
minor errors in pronunciation, grammar, and writing conventions that do not impede meaning”
(p. 24). It remains possible that Mr. Handler knew this, but decided not to recommend Kevin
because of a lack of “complexity” in the student’s writing, not because Mr. Handler did not
understand the guidelines, but because the teacher found his own guidelines to be more
important. It is possible that many secondary English teachers had a deep knowledge of the
critical guidelines required by the biannual benchmark evaluation, but chose their own guidelines
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 185
instead. It is possible, but it is very, very unlikely. Far more likely is that these teachers simply
did not command a cursory awareness of the guidelines as presented by the CDE. Based on my
rigorous examination of the benchmark evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English
teachers in PCSD, these teachers were not very likely to have had a knowledge of the standards,
and as a result, their lack of knowledge became manifest in benchmark evaluations that were not
in alignment with the existing standards.
Lack of knowledge of the difference in relevelling and reclassifying. While a more
detailed knowledge of existing standards that have been created by the CDE to ensure effective
instruction and evaluation EBs may be lacking among secondary English teachers in PCSD, a
simpler lack of knowledge by these teachers may also have stood in the way of more accurate
evaluation for EBs. This simpler lack of knowledge of the difference between releveling
students and recommending the student for RFEP represented a considerable discontinuity in the
data, indicating that secondary English teachers in PCSD did not have a command of the distinct
(and very basic) differences between releveling and reclassifying.
The decision for relevelling is based on the teacher’s perception that the student has
progressed from the language development levels indicated in the student’s previous benchmark
evaluation (based on the proficiency levels in the three modes of language and the two
dimensions of knowledge of language). The decision for RFEP recommendation is an ultimate
decision, based on the teacher’s perception of the student’s capability in meeting the expectations
required by the benchmark evaluation to relevel the student as fluent in English. In both the
Spring, 2016 and Fall, 2016 benchmark evaluations, secondary English teachers frequently did
not recommend level changes for students, but did recommend RFEP. Just as frequently, these
same teachers recommended RFEP for students, but did not recommend level changes. In
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 186
evaluating the data, it became evident that most of the teachers: (a) did not understand the
meaning of each of these decisions, (b) incorrectly entered data, or (c) willfully provided the
wrong data. The latter is very unlikely, and while many data errors are reflected in the corpus of
data, the likeliest reason for the discrepancies in relevelling and RFEP evaluations by secondary
English teachers in PCSD was that they simply did not have a knowledge of these fundamental
elements of knowledge presented in the benchmark evaluation.
Culturally unresponsive evaluations. Another considerable gap in teacher knowledge as
reflected in their descriptions of the reasons not to advance Latino PEBLs for RFEP was the lack
of knowledge by secondary English teachers in PCSD of the influence cultural factors place on
learning, and subsequently the capability of teachers to evaluate knowledge and language
development without perceptual cultural biases. The deficit-based paradigm held by teachers of
their Latino PEBLs evidenced in teacher’s descriptions of the so-called laziness or apathy of
these students is not a form of overt discrimination, but in its covert nature may be more
destructive. As Tuck (1946) reflected on the experiences of Latinos in the United States in her
groundbreaking ethnography, the gravest influence Latinos have suffered “has not been
perpetrated deliberately but through indifference, that has been done not with the fist but with the
elbow” (p. 228). The knowledge by teachers of the importance of providing culturally relevant
methods of instruction and evaluation would appear to be lacking in secondary English teacher’s
descriptions of their Latino PEBLs found in benchmark evaluations. Many of these students
demonstrated categorical fluency as evaluated by their teachers, and even more students
demonstrated grade level academic fluency as provided by standardized instruments. Yet
according to the comments of secondary English teachers, these students did not perform at a
suitable academic or language development level within teacher’s classrooms. Teachers
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 187
attributed student failures to disability, or various forms of a lack of motivation including
laziness, and it is worth investigating in each successive tier of inquiry in this study (teacher
observation of benchmarking, and teacher interviews) whether these cited student deficits are
savvy discoveries by teachers that fly in the face of proven standardized tests, or if secondary
English teachers are engaging in a practice of cultural bias as they complete language evaluations
for their respective populations of Latino PEBLs.
Misunderstanding of the purpose of the benchmark evaluation. Although lack of
understanding of the concepts and principles, lack of understanding of the difference between
language level and recommendation, and lack of cultural awareness of the needs of Latino
PEBLs certainly represented significant influences in teacher evaluations of these learners in
PCSD, perhaps the most important gap in knowledge that emerged from investigating the corpus
of data is the lack of teacher knowledge of the purpose of the benchmark evaluation. The
benchmark evaluation clearly states that it is an opportunity for teachers to provide insight into
the language development of their EBs, yet from the comments of teachers who cited attendance
as a qualifier for RFEP, a large population of teachers lacked the knowledge of the purpose of
the benchmark evaluation. Instead, secondary English teachers’ comments reflected the
perception that the purpose of the benchmark evaluation was to provide insight into each
student’s abilities in meeting each teacher’s classroom expectations for attendance and
assignments, not to provide insight into each student’s English language development.
Motivation. During this tier of data collection, I was only able to look at the written
products of secondary English teachers in PCSD as reflected in their biannual benchmark
evaluations. Ascertaining understanding of the influences of motivation on the evaluations of
these teachers was very difficult; however, I could draw some conclusions based on my
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 188
comprehensive evaluation of the corpus of data of teacher responses. Most notably, I was able to
understand that secondary English teachers faced considerable motivational deficits in
maximizing their capabilities in providing PCSD with accurate evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
The sheer volume of Latino PEBLs who demonstrated high enough categorical language
proficiency but who were denied RFEP by secondary English teachers in PCSD was staggering.
Items not even considered by the benchmark evaluation nevertheless became reasons for teachers
to deny Latino PEBLs RFEP, and it draws attention to the degree to which secondary English
teachers were motivated to provide accurate language evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Three clear
indicators of motivational influences that emerged from the data demonstrated that secondary
English teachers in PCSD did not have high degrees of self-efficacy, nor did they place great
value on the benchmark evaluation process: (a) information provided in student descriptions that
had no connection to the benchmark evaluation, (b) inaccuracy of data entry, and (c) limited time
spent on each evaluation. Lacking self-efficacy and value for accurate completion of the
biannual benchmarks for Latino PEBLs, the motivation of secondary English teachers
represented a considerable roadblock in PCSD’s expectation of the fulfillment of organizational
goals for the language development and academic performance of EBs.
Organizational. From observation of two cycles of benchmark evaluations, much of the
way that organizational influences shaped teacher evaluations remained difficult to ascertain.
From what I could derive from my engagement with the data, the digital platform that required
teachers to enter evaluations of their Latino PEBLs did not lend itself to clarity. Frequently,
teachers had selected incongruous proficiency level descriptors that conflicted with other
categories of evaluations. Teachers evaluated many of their students as Bridging Exit in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 189
productive language, but as Emerging Entry in interpretive language. It remained unclear
whether this was due to teacher error in operating the technology, teacher misunderstanding of
the proficiency level descriptors, or to other yet to be identified influences.
Even as the technology platform provided by PCSD to teachers for completion of bi-
annual benchmarks may have limited each teacher’s accuracy in their evaluations of Latino
PEBLs, a greater organizational problem that an investigation of the technology platform
revealed was the difference between a teacher recommendation for a releveling and a teacher
recommendation for RFEP. Many teachers recommended learners for RFEP, but did not
recommend releveling. Still others recommended releveling from Bridging Exit, but did not
recommend RFEP. With the clear indication of problems with the technology platform, a more
exact determination of additional organizational influences remained beyond my capacity based
solely from my examination of existing data sets drawn from two cycles of benchmark
evaluations.
Tier Two: Observation of Benchmark Evaluations
I observed English teachers completing benchmark evaluations at Oceanside High School
in October of 2016. I met with teachers during their preparation periods, or during lunch if they
had elected to utilize their preparation periods for a different function. I observed teachers in
their classrooms as they completed the online benchmark evaluations for their EBs, and each
teacher was very agreeable to having me observe their completion of the Fall, 2016 biannual
benchmark evaluations. Moreover, the teachers I observed at Oceanside were very open in
conferring with me about their evaluation selections.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 190
Sample Population
Reflecting a broad range of classroom experience from first year teachers (n=2) to those
with over twenty years of experience (n=3), the secondary English teachers I observed at
Oceanside High School (n=15) demonstrated a remarkable degree of linguistic and racial
homogeneity, with no teachers commanding fluency in more than one language, and 13 of the 15
teachers classified as White. Only two teachers were from a minority group, and both were
Korean (see Table 7). Neither of these teachers commanded fluency in Korean. All the teachers
I observed held full-time assignments at the time of the observations, apart from two teachers,
who taught on a half-time basis. Each teacher had at least one Latino or Latina PEBL in their
classes.
Table 6
Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at Oceanside High School
Years of Experience: n Gender: n Ethnicity: n
1 2 Female 11 African American (Not Hispanic) 0
2-10 2 Male 4 Asian (Not Hispanic) 2
11-15 9 Hispanic 0
21+ 2 White (Not Hispanic) 13
Total 15 15 15

Oceanside High School
Demonstrating the lowest percentage of students in PCSD who were categorized by the
State of California (2016-17) as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (15.5%, in comparison to
PCSD’s 37.2%, and the State of California’s 63.5%), Oceanside High School is situated in the
most affluent neighborhood of Maplewood, with many homes in its boundaries afforded
breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean and the metropolitan Los Angeles skyline. At the time
of my study, Oceanside High School had a small population of Latino EBs (20%), yet 86% of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 191
these students were PEBLs. Although disaggregated statistics reflecting the academic
performance of Latino EBs (not to mention PEBLs) are not published by the State of California,
the academic performance of Oceanside’s entire population of Latino students was below the
school average, even as graduation rates were relatively high compared to state averages. For
example, in 2015-16, the graduation rate registered by the entire population of students in the
school was 96.4%, while the population of Latino students was slightly less, at 93.7%.
The academic performance of all students, including Latino students in Oceanside High
School, has been traditionally very high in comparison with district and state levels. Yet a closer
examination suggests that while Latino learners have been graduated from Oceanside at a very
high percentage, they have not registered the same academic performance as peers in meeting the
requirements for entrance to University of California or California State University (known as
the A-G requirements). The percentage of all students at Oceanside High School who met these
requirements in 2015-16 registered at 69.6%; however, in contrast, the population of Latino
learners registered at 55.4%. Both percentages in Oceanside were well above district levels
(55.4% for all students and 38.9% for Latino students, respectively), and both were far above
California State percentages (45.4% and 37.2%). Latino students at Oceanside High may
perform very well in comparison with neighboring schools in the region and state; however,
Latino learners in the school have not matched the academic performance of their peer groups.
Located next to the Pacific Ocean, Oceanside’s sprawling campus was very well
maintained at the time of my observations. Over half of a century old, recent renovations to the
facility had made the school functional, if somewhat dated. Innovations such as options for
classroom technology as well as space that would encourage interaction between and among
faculty members and students remained absent in rooms that were built to accommodate more
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 192
traditional forms of instruction. One feature that stood out during my observation was the
distance from the main office (at the front of the campus) to most of the English department
classrooms (which were situated at a far end of the campus). Moreover, several new temporary
classrooms had been placed on the blacktop, suggesting an increase in enrollment in the past,
which the school was not able to accommodate. The campus had mature trees and bushes
throughout, contributing to a pastoral, almost idyllic image of a campus immediately adjacent to
the Pacific Ocean.
Situated in an affluent segment of Maplewood, the trappings of poverty were difficult to
identify on the campus of Oceanside. Instead, parents dropped off students from luxury cars.
Students were equipped with the very latest in technology and in fashion styles. Students
congregated in different areas, and while there was some racial heterogeneity in the composition
of a few of these groups, most groups were homogeneous, comprised of large groups of either
White students or Asian students. Teachers roamed the campus practically indistinguishable
from the students, as teacher attire was very casual, including teachers who wore flip-flop
sandals and shorts as well as teachers who were comfortable in stained cotton sweatpants and
distressed t-shirts. During my observation, I did not see any administrators in their offices or on
the campus. I did see several security guards in golf carts roaming the campus, for the most part
sipping coffee, relaxing, and talking with students as the guards drove select students from one
area of the campus to the other. The best way to describe the culture of the campus would be to
say that it was very relaxed and casual.
Classrooms were constructed mostly in the same style: brick, augmented with cement
canopies, with wooden interior walls that had been painted off-white. There were some
differences in structures that appeared to have been built at different times. Some classes in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 193
double-story buildings were larger than those in the single-story buildings. Still other rooms in
temporary-style, climate-controlled mobile homes were roomy, albeit with lower ceilings than
the rest of the rooms on the campus. Interestingly, in all the rooms I observed, teacher’s desks
were situated at the front of the room, to one side or another, with lecterns of different forms at
the front and center of the rooms. Although some rooms had seating arrangements that would
encourage student interaction and collaboration, the overwhelming majority of rooms had desks
arranged in traditional rows, facing the front of the room. All rooms had computer projectors,
document scanners, with some rooms featuring them more prominently than others.
Even as I gained considerable insight into the dispositions of teachers by reflecting on
their production in the form of their descriptions of the student language development of Latino
PEBLs as reflected in biannual benchmark evaluations during the first tier of my data collection,
I did not completely understand how these dispositions were situated within the process of the
completion of the benchmark evaluations. I could discern the product of the teachers in the form
of the evaluation; however, I could not detect how the teachers arrived at their decisions that
made this product. Observing each of the secondary English teachers (n=15) at Oceanside High
School as they completed their biannual benchmark evaluations provided considerable insight
into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that shaped the processes of these
teachers. I watched the teachers as they completed the evaluations, and drew connections to
what I had read in teacher descriptions of the language development of Latino PEBLs in the first
tier of my data collection. I did not interview teachers during this, the second tier of my data
collection, choosing instead to focus my observation on the behaviors of teachers. During my
observation, teachers did ask me questions as well as engage me in dialogue as they finished
their evaluations. I have broadly included those comments. I did not at any time inquire about
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 194
secondary English teacher’s perspectives of the evaluation instrument, or of their decisions. In
this stage of the data collection, I wanted to observe the actions of secondary English teachers as
they completed the biannual benchmark evaluation so that I could see how knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors influenced the completion of the evaluations.
My observation of teachers as they completed their biannual benchmarks revealed gaps in
the knowledge and motivation of teachers as well as organizational forces that vivified for me
the potential influences for inaccuracies in the completion of these evaluations by secondary
English teachers at Oceanside High School. My detailed observation of the benchmarking
procedure of Oceanside’s English teachers of Latino PEBLs revealed considerably deeper
degrees of insight into how teacher’s dispositions inclined them to evaluate this specific
population of learners. To explain the depth of my understanding of these teacher’s dispositions,
I will categorize my findings into emergent codes, followed by an evaluation of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences I have identified that contributed to secondary English
teachers’ benchmark evaluations of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Observation of Biannual Benchmark Evaluations
Following the completion of my observation of secondary English teachers at Oceanside
High School, I reviewed my general observation notes, as well as my detailed notes of a sample
of teachers. I then engaged in data analysis, initiating a cycle of open coding from all my
observations. After recognizing multiple emergent codes, I engaged in a second cycle of
analysis, during which time I applied thematic codes (Merriam, 2009) drawn from the
relationships that emerged from the initial cycle of coding of my observation notes. I then
evaluated the thematic codes to ensure that I had not engaged in any insertion of perspectives
that were not connected to only my observation notes. If I found a point of saturation that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 195
validated a previous code discovered during the first tier of my data collection, I made a note not
to focus on that code during this tier of data collection, but to include it in my synthesis of
findings at the end of the chapter. Finally, I created a visual representation so that I could cross-
check my codes with the codes I established during the first tier of my data collection and
analysis of the corpus of data of teacher benchmark observations. Following my coding of the
responses of the secondary English teachers as reflected in their biannual benchmark evaluations,
five codes emerged as prominent: (a) No time, (b) Not the best, (c) Bureaucratic necessity, (d)
Annoyance with the interface, and (e) What does this one mean?
No time. Based on my interviews and observations of English teachers, I have defined
this code as: Behavior reflecting that teachers were overwhelmed by time restrictions, and that
completion of the biannual benchmark observation represented yet another overwhelming
element. The imposition of completing a lengthy evaluation for up to two dozen students clearly
stretched the teacher’s already limited schedules, even as it stretched their patience. At the time
of my study, secondary teachers in PCSD were provided with a 54-minute preparation period
each day to complete any administrative necessities, as well as to plan for lessons and to address
any other elements of their work processes; however, no additional time was provided to English
teachers for completion of the detailed benchmark evaluation forms. In my observations at
Oceanside, English teachers recognized that they could process the evaluations by just clicking
buttons that closely approximated what the teachers perceived as the language development
levels of their Latino PEBLs. This was a temptation that each teacher I observed could not
resist, apart from Miss Naber, who was willing to spend as much time as necessary to complete
her evaluations. Another of the teachers, Mrs. Coehlo, did not demonstrate any frustration with
the added imposition of time on her daily schedule, but instead processed through the forms as
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 196
rapidly as possible, reconciling herself to completion of the form instead of detailed
considerations of the language development capabilities of each of the Latino PEBLs in her
class. Several teachers asked how much time it would take, such as Mr. Traynor who had to
ready himself for his team’s upcoming practice. Mrs. Kelly, who taught an English class
devoted to twenty EBs, remarked that it would be difficult to fit the evaluation into her schedule,
until I reminded her that the district’s due date required completion by the end of the week I
observed her. She resigned herself to completion, and clicked her way through the screens with
haste.
Not the best. I define this code as the likelihood of teachers completing the benchmark
evaluation of Latino PEBLs to avoid the radio button that represented the highest rating possible
(Bridging Exit), instead choosing to move to the left of the scale to the radio button that
represented the next highest rating possible (Bridging Entrance). As I observed teacher after
teacher rapidly clicking buttons as they slid their mouse cursors from left to right, I recognized
that teachers were very reluctant to click the highest possible rating. The brief amount of time
that they spent in completing the evaluation (which amounted to fifteen to thirty seconds) made
it impossible for the teachers to read the detailed proficiency level descriptors, let alone consider
student capability in meeting those levels. Teachers instead moved just to the left of the highest
rating possible and clicked a radio button. I recognized that teachers were not inclined to
provide the highest ratings for Latino PEBLs, but during my observation I chose not to discover
the reasons for this tendency. It was possible that the students simply did not demonstrate high
enough language skills to merit the highest ranking, but it was certainly interesting that teachers
appeared to work from a fixed point (Bridging Exit) and then scale their evaluation back from
that point. Mrs. Kelly consistently would make a selection only to replace it with a lower
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 197
selection by changing her mouse click. Ms. Naber would dwell between two descriptors,
typically selecting the lower evaluation. Given the graphic user interface, it remained difficult to
determine if the teachers were using the highest-level descriptor as an anchor from which they
adjusted their evaluations to lower level descriptors, or if the teachers were reluctant to give the
highest evaluation to Latino PEBLs because of other unidentified reasons.
Bureaucratic necessity. Another very strong code that emerged from my observations
of teachers as they completed their benchmark evaluations considered the way that teachers
responded as they completed their evaluations. Based on the persistent responses of teachers
that the only reason they were completing the evaluations was to satisfy an expectation of
external accountability, I have defined this code as: The tendency for teachers to make certain
that their evaluations were completed, even if this meant that the teachers had to sacrifice
precision in their responses. Exemplifying this, teachers demonstrated a greater focus in
completing the online forms than they did in considering student performance by examining
student work or by looking at student achievement on specific formative classroom assessments.
Save one teacher (Miss Naber), each of the teachers at Bayside raced through their evaluations to
meet the deadline imposed on them by the district. Some teachers expressed frustration for
having to complete the evaluations, but all sped through the online forms without adding any
specific commentary of their choices, even though each online evaluation clearly requested that
teachers add notes about the performance of students. Instead, with rare exception, the teachers
were very clearly completing the forms simply because they were expected to complete them.
One teacher, Mr. Traynor, treated the online form like some kind of a video game requiring
completion before a timer expired. This teacher rapidly clicked selections, in some cases taking
less than a second to click each of the radio buttons embedded in the online form.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 198
Several teachers were exasperated as they began to work on the evaluations, and
whenever a technological difficulty emerged, they became even more frustrated. For example,
after gasping about having to complete the evaluations, Mrs. Kelly launched into a tirade about
having to complete something that no teacher would ever use. She did not understand why a
class grade was not sufficient information, because as she explained, she was a high school
teacher getting students ready for college. The goal for the overwhelming majority of teachers
that I observed was to complete all the screens required and click submit before their lunch or
preparation period was over. The teachers knew that the evaluations needed to be completed, but
they did not demonstrate a great concern of the quality with which the evaluations were
completed.
Annoyance with the interface. Although the teachers I observed had different degrees
of comfort with technology, all were irritated with an interface requiring navigation and data
entry into three redundant screens required for completion of each student’s benchmark
evaluation. I have defined this code as: An observable level of frustration in the navigation of
the preliminary screens of the benchmark evaluation online form. The online form required that
the teacher would need to begin an entirely new sequence of online forms starting with the
beginning screen for the teacher to complete an evaluation of a student. More specifically, the
teachers needed to complete site information, teacher information, and class information before
they could even get to the evaluation of a specific student’s language development. This served
as a considerable annoyance for teachers, who were already pressed for time to complete the
evaluations before the deadline. Some of the teachers who commanded lesser skills in
technology (such as Mrs. Kelly) displayed emotional outbursts at having to always return to a
home screen to add the date of the evaluation and the name of the school. For Mrs. Kelly, who
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 199
was very suspicious of how the district administrators could use this information as part of her
evaluation, taking time to complain about the technological demands the district had placed upon
her took precedence over her examination of student work.
What does this one mean? Frequently as I observed teachers while they completed their
biannual benchmark evaluations of their EBs, I was asked to simplify the proficiency level
descriptors. Terms such as “metalinguistic awareness” of language development baffled
teachers, and they consistently asked me to help them understand how terms like this connected
with their evaluation of the language development of their EBs. Many teachers asked me to
clarify what forms productive language took in the classroom, as well as the forms of receptive
language. It was not as though the teachers did not understand the concepts reflected by the
terms; instead, it was how these specific terms connected to teacher’s evaluations of EBs. For
example, Mrs. Coehlo wanted to know if I could give an example of how a student created
productive language in her classroom, and I obliged her by describing that a written assignment
would be one way to gauge student language production. Similarly, Ms. Naber wanted to know
if by collaborative language, the proficiency descriptors were referring to work that was
completed in groups, or if it had to do with how well the teacher felt the student communicated
within the group. Teachers may have had a basic understanding of the terminology in the
proficiency descriptors; however, they lacked self-efficacy in applying those terms to evaluate
the language development of their EBs.
Core Findings: Observation of Biannual Benchmark Evaluations
My detailed observation of Oceanside’s teacher benchmark evaluations for Latino PEBLs
demonstrated to me the degree of knowledge of these teachers of the evaluation of the language
development and academic performance of these learners, as well as the degree of motivation
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 200
these teachers had in completing the online forms. I also developed an understanding of how the
organizational influences in PCSD shaped teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. My second tier
of data collection and analysis provided me with considerable insight into how knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences reacted, interacted, and counteracted in the
organizational environment as teachers completed their benchmark evaluations of Latino PEBLs
for RFEP. The codes that emerged from my observations of teachers at Oceanside High revealed
that: (a) teachers were overwhelmed by time restrictions, and that completing the biannual
benchmark overwhelmed the teachers to an even more pronounced degree; (b) teachers were
very reluctant to provide Latino PEBLs with the highest possible rating; (c) teachers perceived
the form as merely a bureaucratic necessity, or yet another hoop through which they had to jump;
(d) teachers experienced a pronounced annoyance with the technological interface; and (e)
teachers had a clear lack of knowledge of the language proficiency descriptors required for
completion of the online form. These discoveries demonstrated to me how the influences of
knowledge and motivation reacted, interacted, and counteracted within the organizational
environment to shape the language and content area evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary
English teachers in PCSD. I have categorized these findings that I have drawn from observation
of teachers at Oceanside as they completed their Fall, 2015 biannual benchmark evaluations into
knowledge, motivation, and organizational categories that allowed me to explore the interrelated
influences of forces that resulted in secondary English teacher’s evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
These discoveries interact with each other, and thus my evaluation of these discoveries considers
the interactions of the knowledge and motivation of teachers within PCSD.
Knowledge. Completing the online biannual benchmarks for EBs required secondary
English teachers to have a basic procedural knowledge of technology to input the necessary data.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 201
In my first tier of data collection and analysis, I discovered that secondary English teachers
provided incomplete and error-ridden evaluations of their Latino PEBLs. In my observation, I
realized the incomplete and inaccurate benchmark evaluations were more likely due to a
considerable lack of declarative knowledge of the California English Language Development
Standards. Secondary teacher declarative knowledge of the various levels of language
development listed in the online benchmark forms reflecting the language levels established by
the State of California (Emerging, Advancing, and Bridging) appeared to me to be very limited,
as each of the teachers asked me to explain to them what each level meant, and to clarify for
them the three modes of language and two dimensions of knowledge. It was very clear that the
teachers I observed had limited exposure to the expectations placed upon them by the biannual
benchmark evaluation.
Beyond the lack of declarative knowledge of ELD standards and levels of language
development, secondary English teachers I observed at Oceanside High School did not
understand the proficiency level descriptors required for these teachers to evaluate their Latino
PEBLs. Moreover, teachers did not understand the difference between the consequences of a
relevelling decision from a reclassification decision. I had identified this in my first tier of data
collection, and my observations validated that finding. Other influences of knowledge were not
identifiable solely from my observation of these teachers, although some of the teacher reactions
while they completed the benchmark evaluations provided me with potential points to explore
during my third tier of data collection and analysis.
Motivation. During greetings that prefaced the observations, teachers displayed
geniality. Teachers may have reflected a positive affect during our greeting, but as they began to
complete their benchmarks, this changed. It became very clear that the teachers were tired, and
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 202
all were easily distracted by various activities, including students asking questions, and teacher
engagement with personal social media as they completed their benchmark observations.
Teachers were also distracted by fellow teachers stopping by and discussing babysitting duties,
vacation plans, and fantasy football results. In every observation, these teachers confided in me
that filling out the biannual benchmarks was a bureaucratic necessity, and it did not appear as
though secondary English teachers spent a considerable amount of time or effort evaluating the
development of their Latino PEBLs.
Each of the teachers were exasperated by having to complete the benchmark evaluations,
and each teacher rushed through the online forms, consistently asking questions about the
meaning of the various proficiency level descriptors and language levels. During my
observation, none of the teachers reflected a high degree of value in completing the benchmarks,
nor did any exhibit a high degree of self-interest. None of the teachers exhibited self-efficacy in
the completion of the biannual benchmarks, or for that matter of the elements of knowledge
required to process them (apart from some teachers who commanded considerable self-efficacy
in rapidly clicking the buttons necessary to complete the benchmark evaluation). Each of the
teachers (save Mrs. Kelly) commanded effective technology skills; however, each teacher was
frustrated in gaining online access to the form, a process that required that they follow a
sequence of links and field entries that in many cases were redundant. None of the teachers
referred to any actual written work of their students as they completed their benchmark
evaluations, choosing instead to trust their memories of classroom experiences with the students.
As the site-level administration arranged for my observation, my presence appeared to
have an impact on motivating teacher completion of the biannual benchmark evaluations at
Oceanside High School. Teachers may not have been intrinsically motivated to reflect detailed
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 203
responses of their students in the evaluations, but with my presence (which perhaps represented
the potential possibility of more detailed external accountability) the teachers at Oceanside High
School were motivated to at least complete the evaluations by cursorily clicking the radio buttons
and submitting the evaluations. It was difficult to determine the influence of my presence on the
teacher evaluations, but it is worth noting that the school I observed demonstrated a 100%
completion rate which stood in contrast to other secondary schools in PCSD. In fact, Oceanside
represented the only secondary school in the district meeting the expectation of 100%
completion of the biannual benchmarks by the deadline.
Organizational. PCSD’s English Language Development and Language Assessment
Center established the online benchmark form to collect data from secondary English teachers,
and provided each secondary English teacher a brief web-based guide to aid the teacher in
completing the biannual benchmark evaluation. In my observations, all teachers found difficulty
in navigating the online form, which required that they access a dedicated portal, enter student
information, click radio buttons to designate language levels of EB, make a reclassification
decision, and make a recommendation or denial for RFEP. The problem with the online access
was that once teachers completed the evaluation of one student, they needed to complete the
entire process from the beginning. This necessitated several additional mouse clicks, which
clearly frustrated the teachers. Additionally, the online directions for completion of the form
were unclear, and each of the teachers asked me for assistance in accessing and completing their
online forms. Teacher’s computers functioned effectively, as did the online access to the
evaluation platform. Teachers also would have had sufficient time to complete the required
forms during their preparation periods, if they would have been able to plan for the necessary
time to complete the benchmark evaluations. Online access to the Proficiency Level Descriptors
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 204
was provided to teachers in the form of link in the evaluation directions; however, none of the
teachers I observed took the additional time to click the links enabling access to those websites.
Experienced secondary teachers (five years or more) at Oceanside High School explained
that the only preparation they were provided to help them understand the rich Proficiency Level
Descriptors and the modes of language and the dimensions of knowledge was a lunchtime
information session provided in 2012 that did not require attendance of all teachers. The three
teachers who had worked at Oceanside for fewer than five years had never been provided with
any preparation to meet the knowledge demands required of the biannual benchmarks.
Tier Three: Interviews with Secondary English Teachers
In this, the third and final tier of my three-tiered data collection, I share my discoveries
gained from semi-structured interviews with secondary English teachers in PCSD. First, I
describe my selection of the sample population of teachers, followed by a brief description of the
questioning, observation, and transcription methods I used. I then describe each of the
environments in which I conducted my interviews, including detailed descriptions of the school
sites in which I conducted my interviews. Finally, I describe my discoveries that emerged from
the data through an open to axial coding procedure.
In this, the final tier of my data collection, I have sought to gain from the secondary
English teachers I interviewed direct insight into the dynamic influences of knowledge and
motivation as they reacted, interacted, and counteracted with organizational influences in
shaping these secondary English teacher’s language development and academic performance
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. I asked each teacher questions during a semi-structured interview,
and encouraged them to share with me their experiences in working with EBs in general, and
with Latino PEBLs in particular. I interviewed eight teachers drawn from a maximum variation
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 205
purposive sample. Seeking to gain the widest range of perspectives possible, I selected four
teachers from Bayside High School (PCSD’s secondary school with the smallest percentage of
Latino PEBLs) and four teachers from City High School (the school with the highest number of
Latino PEBLs). At each school, I interviewed two teachers with more than ten years of
experience, and two teachers with fewer than five years of experience teaching Latino PEBLs in
grade level English classes in PCSD secondary schools.
Sample Population: Bayside High School
My interviews at Bayside included experienced teachers (n=2) who had more than ten
years of classroom experience, and teachers with fewer than five years of experience as a
secondary English teacher in PCSD (n=2). Even though each teacher may have taught at
different grade levels and different types of English classes, each teacher I interviewed was a
full-time teacher at the time of my study, and each teacher had Latino PEBLs in their English
classes, requiring that each teacher complete a biannual benchmark evaluation for each of these
learners. Most of Bayside’s secondary English teachers had over a decade of classroom
experience at the school. Many had over two decades of experience. Collectively, secondary
English teachers at the site educated students who were primarily Asian (36%) and White (27%),
and a minority population of Latinos (19%). The population of secondary English teachers at
Bayside was homogeneous, with a majority of White females (See Table 7).
Table 7
Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at Bayside High School
Years of Experience: n Gender: n Ethnicity: N
1 0 Female 13 African American (Not Hispanic) 0
2-10 6 Male 4 Asian (Not Hispanic) 3
11-15 6 Hispanic 0
21+ 5 White (Not Hispanic) 14
Total 17 17 17
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 206
Bayside High School
By most measures, Bayside has traditionally been the second-best performing school in
PCSD next to Oceanside when measured by Advanced Placement test scores as well as SAT and
ACT scores; however, Bayside’s 10
th
grade standardized science scores were superior to
Oceanside in 2016, and Bayside’s 2016 CAASPP 11
th
grade literacy scores were almost identical
to the slightly-higher performing Oceanside High. Bayside had the smallest population of Latino
EBs (15.4%), as well as well as the smallest population of Latino PEBLs, which nevertheless
comprised 85% of PEBLs at the school. The graduation rate of Latino learners at Bayside was
the highest in PCSD (97%). As at Oceanside, Bayside’s Latino graduates were less likely to
meet requirements (A-G) that qualified students for entrance to University of California or
California State University, with only 49% of Latino students in Bayside meeting these critical
requirements that pave the way to post-secondary success. The academic performance of Latino
students at Bayside was higher than district and state levels; however, this performance remained
well below peer groups.
The newest of PCSD’s secondary schools, Bayside High is situated in an affluent
neighborhood of Maplewood, and on clear days, many homes are afforded panoramic views of
downtown Los Angeles and the striking backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains. Houses in the
subdivisions adjacent to Bayside were constructed in the early to mid-1960s, following a market
boom in the region associated with the growth in the aerospace industry as it began to expand
into telecommunications (Westwick, 2012). Cul-de-sacs and sweeping curves throughout the
affluent hill region of west Maplewood border Bayside High, giving way to major thoroughfares
dotted by vast apartment building complexes, duplexes, and multiplexes on the easternmost side
of the neighborhood boundary of the school. The campus is sprawling, with interaction among
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 207
faculty members and students influenced by the satellite-like structure of the campus and the
considerable distance between the various buildings on the campus. Technology capacity at the
school was complicated by structures that were built over a half-century ago—structures that
invited more traditional forms of education. At the time of my study, after a half-century of use,
PCSD had scheduled a modernization of the campus during the subsequent summer.
During a clear-skied, early spring day, I parked my car in a distant lot and walked
through Bayside’s tree-bordered front gates. As I walked into the main office area following a
rigorous security check, I passed through a hallway lined with pictures of Bayside’s sports teams
and activities. I entered the main campus during a passing period, and I recognized greater
heterogeneity of student grouping in comparison to my observation of Oceanside High School.
Teachers did not maneuver through the campus with the same regularity as at Oceanside, likely
due to the greater distance between classrooms and the main office. I noticed that the security
staff of Bayside was a much more well-run unit than at Oceanside, and instead of the loafing
behaviors that typified the actions of the security guards at Bayside, Oceanside’s security staff
was highly active, and much more aggressive in their disciplinary stance as reflected by their
posting at each of the school’s gates.
I interviewed two teachers in their classrooms, and interviewed two teachers upon their
request in a conference room next to the main office building. I was unable to observe many
different classrooms; however, during the time I was on the campus, I noticed students were very
rarely late to classes, and the general impression that I gained was that Bayside’s students were
largely cooperative and focused on learning.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 208
Sample Population: City High School
My interviews with the teachers at City High included experienced teachers (n=2) who
had more than ten years of classroom experience, and newer teachers (n=2) who had fewer than
five years of experience as a secondary English teacher in PCSD. During the time of my study,
each of the teachers I interviewed was a full-time teacher, assigned solely to English classes.
Each teacher had Latino PEBLs in their English classes, and was familiar with the biannual
benchmark evaluations, having completed at least one evaluation for a Latino PEBL in the last
six months. A less-experienced staff when taken collectively in comparison to Oceanside and
Bayside, the population of secondary English teachers at City High was almost entirely White
(See Table 8).
Table 8
Characteristics of Secondary English Teachers at City High School
Years of Experience: n Gender: n Ethnicity: n
1 2 Female 12 African American (Not Hispanic) 0
2-10 8 Male 6 Asian (Not Hispanic) 0
11-15 6 Hispanic 1
21+ 2 White (Not Hispanic) 17
Total 18 18 18

City High School
Comprised of PCSD’s largest percentage of Latino students (39%), as well as the largest
population of Latino PEBLs (95% of the PEBLs in the school), City High School has
traditionally been the lowest performing secondary school in the district when weighing
Advanced Placement test scores as well as SAT and ACT scores. The school also has the
smallest RFEP percentage of EBs, with a mere 4.6% advancing to English fluency. Of critical
importance, City High’s population of Latino learners registered the lowest rate (39%) among
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 209
PCSD secondary schools (2016) in meeting the requirements (A-G) for entrance to the
University of California or the California State University.
City High School is the oldest of PCSD’s secondary schools, and is situated in what is
known as the Old Town region of Maplewood. The immediate neighborhood surrounding the
school contains many large mansions that are over a century old. Many of these homes were
worth well over a million dollars in the marketplace (2017). The school also serves students
from affluent families who live in homes in the affluent Granite subdivision, which was
constructed in the early 1960s. At the same time, City High School provides education to
students from some of the poorest families in Maplewood who live in convenience apartments on
the boundaries of the city. Fully 38% (in comparison to PCSD’s average of 29%) of students in
City High School qualified for Free or Reduced Price Meals (FARM), a measurement typically
used by schools to indicate the socioeconomic status of students. Notably, the century-old La
Rana neighborhood, “developed as a segregated Hispanic industrial community with low-cost
homes built close to industry, with a reliance on the use of Mexican immigrants for cheap labor”
(Sicotte, 2016) is within City High School’s boundaries.
The City High School campus, if sprawling due to multiple expansions over the century
of its existence, is stunning in its outward appearance. Mature pine trees surrounded buildings
on the campus including five that are on the National Register of Historic Places as definitive
examples of architectural styles such as the Main Building, Senior Patio, and Home Economics
Building (Mediterranean Revival style, 1917), the Annex (Renaissance Revival style, 1923) and
the auditorium (Streamline Moderne style, 1937). The school has been praised by the
Architectural Digest in its “Most Beautiful Public High School in Every State in America”
(Waldek, 2017), and has been used as the setting for numerous popular motion pictures and
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 210
television shows. While the campus of City High School is certainly stunning, it is also very
large, with buildings on the campus up to one acre apart from each other. The campus also has
faced considerable damage over the century it has served students in Maplewood; however, at
the time of my interviews with teachers, a recent renovation retained the impeccable architecture
of the facility while also providing more modern offerings, particularly in the form of classroom
technology.
On a cool, overcast day when I visited City High School, I walked to the campus from
the immediately-adjacent main administration building for PCSD. As I traipsed through forested
pathways and glanced at parents dropping students off for classes, the contrast of financial
resources of the parents of City High School’s with those of Oceanside and Bayside was stark.
The luxury automobiles that had dropped off students at Oceanside and Bayside were much more
infrequent in the streets surrounding City High, replaced by older model cars. Moreover, the
largely White and Asian populations of students that typified Oceanside and Bayside were
replaced by a clear majority of Latino students at City High. The campus was very clean, and the
architecture of the main buildings made it possible for me to enjoy the wonderful vistas of the
distant San Gabriel Mountains, as well as to view the playing fields of City High.
After clearing a security check, I was escorted from the main office area, which was very
spare in its decorations. Newly painted following a recent refurbishment, large glass windows
and white paint on the walls drew attention to the architecture of the main office building. I saw
a mix of students who appeared to be focused on getting to classes, and although I did not see
any security guards on the campus, the students moved orderly throughout the campus. I did not
see any teachers as I walked through the open-air hallways during passing periods.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 211
I interviewed each of the teachers in their classrooms during their preparation periods. I
glanced at other classrooms as I walked to the locations for my interviews, and in contrast to
Bayside High, I observed far greater examples of direct instruction in comparison to
collaborative instruction. In fact, throughout my interviews, I could hear the booming voices of
several teachers who lectured for the duration of the period in the rooms adjacent to where I was
situated. All of the rooms that I glanced at were devoted to English instruction, and were
traditionally structured with lecterns at the front of the class, and teacher’s desks immediately
adjacent to the lecterns. Desks were in rows in all classes, and while it is very possible that I
simply did not have a chance to observe collaborative learning activities during my time on
campus, if such activities were to have been integrated by teachers, it would have required
considerable changes in the seating arrangements. Students were for the most part attentive,
although covert cell phone use by the students was fairly frequent while their teachers lectured.
Interviews with Teachers
Comprised overwhelmingly of White females, the secondary English teachers at Bayside
High School and City High School consistently spoke of differentiation for all learners, as well
as of the “collaborative cultures” that they believed were effective in meeting the needs of all
learners, including Latino PEBLs. While teachers like “Ms. Middlestadt” did not adhere to the
majority view of effectiveness in meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs, each of the other teachers
was largely unaware of the needs of this population of learners, or deferred any discussion about
their needs to site-level specialists who provided teachers with the necessary support.
Broad generalities in their description of the forms of evaluation utilized in their
classrooms governed the pitch and tenor of words of the secondary English teachers I
interviewed at Bayside and City High Schools. Pressed for details of the way they differentiated
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 212
formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic performance of
Latino PEBLs, none of the teachers I interviewed could shape even the most rudimentary of
responses. Instead, secondary English teachers cited their collective institutional effectiveness
precipitated by the “collaborative culture” as several teachers explained, or insisted that they
differentiated for all learners, or that they had so few (if any) Latino PEBLs, that they could not
speak about methodological or praxeological considerations in the evaluations teachers gave to
these learners. This, despite the fact that in each of the classrooms of the teachers I interviewed,
teachers had Latino PEBLs on their rosters.
Beyond the posturing of effectiveness, and beyond the generalities of instruction or
evaluation (since teachers were largely unable to discern differentiation of evaluation from
differentiation of instruction), the secondary English teachers in Bayside and City could not
describe to me rudimentary elements of additive (or for that matter integrative language
development) that would suit the unique language development needs of Latino PEBLs. Absent
the knowledge to evaluate Latino PEBLs with greater skill, it was not surprising to discover that
the secondary English teachers I interviewed at Bayside High and City High could not command
authentic degrees of self-efficacy in their formative and summative evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Similarly, it was not surprising to
find that these teachers could not recognize value in developing more effective evaluation
practices. After all, the teachers I interviewed fully believed that they were meeting the needs of
all learners, and Latino PEBLs were most certainly included in that group. What was surprising
to me was the deeply-held deficit paradigms that these teachers projected upon their Latino
students, including their Latino PEBLs. When I provided them with performance indicators for
Latino PEBLs in PCSD, each teacher confidently (and immediately, without careful
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 213
consideration) explained why these students did not perform as highly as their peer groups. Pat
answers couched in racist views of Latinos as lazy and deficient, with parents who did not (or
could not) hold their children accountable were stunningly, if frequently delivered to me by
teachers who were entirely unaware of the discriminatory content of their descriptions of Latino
PEBLs.
I applied thematic codes that emerged from the totality of my data collection gained
during my interviews with teachers at Bayside High and City High. I utilized a visual
representation of my codes, making it possible for me to cross-check the codes I established
during the first and second tiers of my data collection with those that emerged in the third tier of
data collection. If I found a point of saturation that validated a previous code found during the
first or second tiers of my data collection and analysis, I made a note not to focus on that code
during the third tier of data collection, but to include it in my synthesis of findings at the end of
the chapter. Following my coding of the responses of the secondary English teachers I
interviewed at Bayside and City, five codes emerged as prominent: (a) the illusion of
differentiation, (b) proficiency (personal and institutional), (c) the collaborative culture of
inequity, (d) the deferral of responsibility, and (e) the lack of involvement in decision making.
The illusion of differentiation. Most interestingly, each of the secondary English
teachers I spoke with at Bayside High and City High worked very diligently in impressing upon
me that they and their colleagues met the needs of Latino PEBLs in their differentiation in
formative and summative evaluations, although when pressed, none could describe any specific
forms of differentiated assessment (or for that matter, instruction) that they provided to Latino
PEBLs. Differentiation, a buzzword that teachers utilized to position themselves as experts, was
either too difficult for teachers to explain to me, or simply not integrated into the practices of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 214
these teachers. Based on my observations and interview, it is most likely the latter. For
example, Ms. Bloch declared with certainty that she used “a variety of assessment tools, so you
know it depends on what I'm assessing,” but when pressed to reveal what those tools were, or
how she differentiated based on the diverse needs of learners, she deferred to her colleagues who
worked to create common assessments. Ms. Kopitar asserted with confidence that telling
students how to check for what she called “verbal tics” by simultaneously pressing the “ctrl” and
“f” buttons on the computer keyboard to find their repetitive use of vocabulary represented a
form of differentiated evaluation. Miss Halima simply diverted my follow up question pressing
her about how she differentiated in evaluations, as she confidently (if incongruously) agreed with
me saying, “Right. Assessment and repeat.”
For the teachers I interviewed, it was of critical importance to establish with me that they
differentiated; however, for them this assertion seemed sufficient, leading me to believe that
differentiation of evaluations for EBs (and for Latino PEBLs in particular) were simply not
performed by the teachers I interviewed. They were more concerned with impressing upon me
the illusion of differentiation in evaluation. Others, like Ms. Carlson rerouted the interview into
entirely different dimensions, delivering to me a monologue littered with considerable examples
of how many Latino PEBLs had undiagnosed learning disabilities, which seemed to her to be
more important than detailing to me how she differentiated her evaluations.
More candid were teachers like Ms. Middlestadt who told me that while she “provide[d]
differentiation for all my students across the board,” that she “[couldn’t] say specifically what I
provide.” Perhaps the most honest, and the most accurate response was delivered by Miss
Kendall who simply told me “I can’t answer that question because I haven’t done it enough.” It
is my belief based on my comprehensive inquiry including the interviews with a maximum
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 215
variation sample of teachers that were the teachers to be truly honest, their capabilities in
differentiating in formative and summative evaluations of Latino PEBLs were very limited. Yet
what represented the most interesting finding to me was how diligently the teachers tried to
assert that they did in fact differentiate in their evaluation of Latino PEBLs.
Proficiency. Related to the previous code, I discovered that the teachers I observed and
interviewed diligently asserted themselves as proficient in their practices with Latino PEBLs,
even though performance data (as well as the teachers own inability to describe how they
evaluated these learners) indicated that they were far from proficient. Whether it was Ms.
Kopitar’s insistence that she did not face any challenges in working with Latino PEBLs, or even
Miss Kendall’s prideful declaration that both of her Latino PEBLs had “fepped out” (or had been
designated as RFEP), each of the teachers I interviewed were very determined to position their
professional practices as highly proficient. Interestingly, when pressed, none could describe any
methods they used, or how they evaluated the language development or academic performance
of Latino PEBLs, yet each teacher was fain to explain that they needed assistance, or that they
could do a better job of meeting the needs of these learners. I determined that each teacher was
not confident about their abilities in their evaluation practices with Latino PEBLs, and that these
teachers overcompensated for their actual inadequacies by occupying poses of proficiency.
Positioning themselves as proficient was not restricted to teacher declarations of their
practices with Latino PEBLs. This positioning extended to laudatory descriptions of the English
department at each of the two campuses within which I interviewed teachers. These
departments, as teachers universally refrained, were comprised of skilled educators who
collaborated in meeting the needs of their students. Yet when pressed, no teacher could detail
how these departments worked together to improve their demonstrably ineffective practices in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 216
evaluating the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. It seemed to
me that this was a symptom of institutional insecurity, in that no teacher wanted to admit that
their school was not meeting performance expectations. It was as though somehow the very
identities of the teachers I interviewed depended upon their individual and collective success in
meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs. I determined that in many ways, this may have been the
case, as the teachers I interviewed wanted very desperately to be perceived as excellent educators
who worked for excellent schools.
The collaborative culture of inequity. Taking into account the adage “No todo lo que
brilla es oro,” the frequently cited “collaborative culture” within which the secondary English
teachers I interviewed at Bayside and City High School operated only gleamed for certain
students. Teachers at these schools did not have the impetus to collaborate to the explicit benefit
of Latino PEBLs. Instead, teacher collaboration was focused on homogenizing instruction and
creating unified assessments for all classes in the English departments at each of the two schools.
Differentiation of evaluation and the development of more culturally responsive forms of
evaluation—so critical in facilitating positive learning trajectories of Latino PEBLs—were
entirely avoided by the “collaborative cultures” at Bayside and City. Seemingly invisible to
these English department cultures, Latino PEBLs were influenced more strongly by what I have
labelled a “culture of inequity.”
At Bayside High School as well as City High School, Latinos PEBLs were largely
invisible to teachers. If they were visible to teachers, it was only seen through a lens of pity or
masked disdain. With the exception of Ms. Middlestadt, the teachers I interviewed did not speak
favorably of these Latino PEBLs. The teachers did not recognize the considerable assets of these
learners, choosing instead to paint Latino PEBLs as either destined for lower career expectations,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 217
as Ms. Bloch determined when she revealed that Latino students “ethnically aren't inclined to
succeed,” or as beset with problems that needed to be “fixed” as Ms. Carlson explained. The
culture of collaboration that teachers spoke so highly of at Bayside High and City High simply
did not extend into the marginalized group of Latino PEBLs, who would presumably be swept
into the culture of collaboration in each school, which according to Ms. Kopitar would be more
likely if these students “changed their names from Jose to Joe, or from Jorge to George.”
The deferral of responsibility. In all cases, meeting the needs of a group of learners
who were not maximizing their individual capabilities was perceived by the English teachers I
interviewed in PCSD as not part of their professional responsibilities. The teachers I interviewed
did not take responsibility for the diminished language development and academic performance
of Latino PEBLs. Instead, these teachers laid responsibility for all things pertaining to these
learners at the feet of the site-level ELD coordinators, or at the feet of the parents of Latino
PEBLs, who, as the teachers described to me, were ineffective in making sure their students were
completing their assigned homework. It was remarkable to me that English teachers did not take
responsibility for improving the English language capabilities of their students, but nevertheless,
this was the reality I found based on my experiences with the teachers I interviewed at Bayside
High and City High.
Lack of involvement in decision making. Although secondary English teachers may
not have revealed to me the necessary command of knowledge to be confident in differentiating
evaluations for Latino PEBLs, many of these teachers wished that they had the opportunity to
contribute to both site-level and district-wide decisions concerning the allocation of resources as
well as the instructional choices for EBs, not to mention Latino PEBLs. Ms. Simon found that
the interview with me was the “first time anyone has ever heard me” regarding the instruction of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 218
EBs, echoing the sentiments of many others. Some were more demonstrative of the tendency for
PCSD to institute programs without taking into account the perspectives of teachers, such as Ms.
Carlson, who felt that the district office consistently treated her with a “lack of respect.” She felt
that she was powerless to make any decisions of the selection of her curriculum and
methodology “because of what's getting pushed down—whatever agenda is getting pushed from
top down.” The secondary English teachers I interviewed did not even feel that their views were
valued by administrators at the site-level, never mind the district-level. Instead, decisions were
made that teachers were expected to follow, even if site-level and district-level leaders did not
provide any relevant professional learning opportunities that could have potentially increased the
capacity of these teachers to better serve the needs of their Latino PEBLs.
Ms. Carlson may have had been the most overtly critical of district management, but
teachers like Ms. Middlestadt shared this sentiment, if not matching Ms. Carlson’s degree of
demonstrated disenchantment. Ms. Middlestadt honestly explained: “Do we specifically talk
about our Long-terms in terms of what we can do for them? I mean like this conversation I had
with you today, is that happening across the table? Absolutely not. No, it's not.” When I asked
her why, she told me after softening her tone: “I think there's a lot of people who have jobs based
on, you know, I just…I mean, you know.” At a certain point, as if it had become a conditioned
response, she stopped her reply, as if questioning leadership would lead to some kind of
retaliatory response.
I found from Ms. Simon that retaliation was a frequent tactic of site-level administrators
in PCSD to make sure that teacher followed directives “from the top.” She had voiced her
concern about the Guided Reading program to district leadership, thinking that the program did
not effectively align with the needs of her secondary EBs. The response was that she was
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 219
reassigned to classes that were not dedicated to EBs. In a careful manner, Mr. Charleston
revealed that his views, which may not have been aligned with the programmatic decisions made
by district leadership, had been silenced: “I've been strongly encouraged to ‘behave
professionally.’ And that—that is coloring my responses today.” From his piercing eyes and
sardonic grin that he punctuated with a broad chuckle, I took his meaning to be that dissention
about instructional choices was not tolerated, and when I followed up by asking him if leadership
had ever sought his views, he arduously (as if he were beings interrogated by a grand jury) told
me: “First, I want to make sure to express what I was offered. My opinion—my opinion might
(emphasis added) have been solicited; however, legitimately, I don't remember my opinion ever
being solicited.” He let me know with very careful wording that he was certainly not an equal
partner in making decisions about instructional choices in PCSD.
Secondary English teachers who questioned the judgment of district leadership’s
decisions to institute programs like Guided Reading were eventually given different teaching
responsibilities. Ms. Simon told me that three of the ELD coordinators in PCSD’s four main
secondary schools had in fact questioned the Guided Reading decision, imploring site-level and
district-level leadership to provide secondary English teachers with the freedom to work on more
rigorous explorations of literature than “I Like Bugs.” Each of those coordinators ended up
resigning their leadership positions after being notified that the teacher’s views would not change
the choice of program, and that the teachers would be expected to administer two Guided
Reading lessons to each learner weekly. Teachers perceived that they did not have a voice in the
any of the professional development or instructional choices related to EBs offered by PCSD,
and many feared potential retaliations by site-level leadership. The end result was that the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 220
teachers I interviewed felt disenfranchised, leading to a level of disillusionment with the
programs that they were being forced to use.
Core Findings: Interviews with Secondary English Teachers
My semi-structured interviews with a purposive maximum variation sample of secondary
English teachers at two of PCSD’s secondary schools provided me with the ability to discover
directly from teachers how they evaluated Latino PEBLs. Through my discussions with these
teachers, I was also able to learn how PCSD had prepared the teachers to meet the needs of
Latino PEBLs by discovering from these teachers the quality and quantity of the forms of
training and professional development that teachers had been presented by district leadership in
recent years. Moreover, I learned of the deeper dispositions of these teachers that drove their
actions, including the influence of the organizational cultures of PCSD and at each school.
A central finding was the cultural reproduction of parallel forms of marginalization by
district leadership at the expense of teachers, and by secondary English teachers at the expense of
Latino PEBLs. The organizational culture in PCSD had long marginalized the contribution of
teachers in curricular and methodological decision, while at the same time marginalizing Latino
PEBLs through the formation of bureaucratic obstacles that reinforced the deficit-oriented
dispositions of the teachers I interviewed. In addition, I learned that teachers engaged in the
illusion of differentiation that was asserted by each teacher in the form of their poses of
proficiency (personal and institutional) within an organization that had reproduced (albeit
silently) a collaborative culture of inequity. I learned that the secondary English teachers I
interviewed lacked basic knowledge of the principles of language development and
differentiation in methods of evaluation, which caused the teachers to engage in a deferral of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 221
responsibility that was encouraged through the decided lack of involvement by teachers in site-
level and district-level decision making.
The words of the teachers and my subsequent data analysis granted me keen insight into
how the influences of knowledge and motivation reacted, interacted, and counteracted within the
organizational environment to shape the language and content area evaluations of Latino PEBLs
by secondary English teachers in PCSD. As in the previous two tiers of my results, I have
categorized my findings into knowledge, motivation, and organizational groupings that
dynamically interact, facilitating understanding of the reasons for the gaps between the existing
capacities of the secondary English teachers in PCSD to meet the organizational goals for the
district’s population of Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge. Secondary English teachers in PCSD were incapable of explaining to me
the most rudimentary practices of differentiating evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs. This indicated to me that the teachers did not have
declarative command of foundational principles of language development in support of
differentiated evaluation for Latino PEBLs. It also indicated to me that teachers did not have
declarative command of the application of ELD standards in relationship to the academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. Additionally, my interviews with a purposive maximum
variation sample of secondary English teachers indicated that teachers did not have sufficient
knowledge of the RFEP process.
Motivation. Secondary English teachers in PCSD were not able to reflect to me in their
words that they commanded high degrees of self-efficacy in evaluating Latino PEBLs, nor did
these teachers indicate that they valued the development of new practices that would enable them
to command higher degrees of self-efficacy in evaluating Latino PEBLs. These teachers were
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 222
very eager to present to me their various “poses of proficiency,” yet none had the self-efficacy to
reflect to me a basic understanding of differentiation or accommodation in evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Teachers did not reflect to
me a great value in developing this self-efficacy in this critical area, nor did they reflect to me
that the cost of engaging in the necessary learning to gain new insight into the formative and
summative evaluations of a minority group of learners like Latino PEBLs would be worthwhile.
Organizational. PCSD’s English Language Development department had developed
and perpetuated a culture in which secondary English teachers did not perceive that this district
department valued the contributions of teachers, and consequently they were not eager to engage
in the admittedly ineffective forms of professional learning that the district leadership offered to
secondary English teachers regarding the improved instruction and evaluation of EBs. PCSD’s
leadership did not provide any specific learning opportunities to teachers that addressed the
needs of Latino PEBLs, and consequently the lack of teacher declarative and procedural
knowledge of these learners had led to the reproduction of institutional discrimination of Latino
PEBLs. Teachers experienced considerable organizational obstacles in the form of the lack of
effective, targeted professional learning opportunities that would be required to meet the needs of
Latino PEBLs, and these organizational obstacles created considerable tension among many
teachers, as well as deferral of responsibility for the diminished language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Synthesis of Findings
In each of my three tiers of data collection, I have examined the data and identified
emergent codes that have provided me with a context of understanding the totality of influences
that contributed to PCSD’s performance gaps in the formative and summative evaluations by
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 223
secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs. In each section, I have also broadly discussed the
various knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that I have identified in each tier of
my data collection and analysis. In this section, I have organized the totality of my discoveries
from the three tiers of data collection into specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational
considerations that I have identified as most pertinent in forging a lasting solution to the
institutionalized inequity that has contributed to the diminished language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Knowledge Influences
Secondary English teachers at PCSD do not have the sufficient knowledge of language
development to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs. Consequently, it is not surprising that these
learners languished in PCSD, demonstrating consistently diminished language development and
academic performance outcomes in comparison to peer groups. Although the dynamic
interactions of knowledge influences reacted, interacted, and counteracted with motivation and
organizational influences, I have used my discoveries of these rich interactions to define specific
knowledge influences into declarative, procedural, and metacognitive categories that follow.
Declarative. Based on my comprehensive inquiry, I can confidently assert that
secondary English teachers in PCSD, while knowledgeable in many other critical components of
the instruction of most secondary learners, were entirely deficient in their declarative knowledge
of critical considerations that are vital in the effective evaluation of the English language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Differences between asset-based and deficit-based paradigms. Time and again in my
interviews and observations, I found evidence that revealed to me that secondary English
teacher’s dispositions were built on deficit-based paradigms. Teachers largely saw Latino
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 224
PEBLs as deficient, and in need of “fixing” as Ms. Carlson unfortunately explained. The
existing assets of these learners, which could have been leveraged to gain insight into the
language development and academic needs through culturally responsive evaluations, were
instead discarded by teachers who felt that it was more important that these learners exchange
their existing assets for what teachers considered to be superior assets of the majoritarian White
culture. For example, Ms. Kopitar found that Latinos who maintained their birth names were
deficient in comparison to other students who willingly exchanged their names to adhere to the
expectations of the “American” culture. For her, students like Jorge could perform more
effectively at Bayside High by changing their names, as in Jorge’s case to George, or in Jose’s
case to Jose. At no time during my inquiry did I find teachers who marveled at learners who
could command more than one language, nor did I find teachers who perceived that Latino
parents or for that matter these students held high academic expectations. Instead, teachers
consistently disparaged the existing assets of Latino learners, expecting them to change and meet
the teacher’s expectations, rather than those teachers changing their practices to align with the
existing assets of these learners.
Principles of language development. Beyond the occasional cursory declaration of
BICS and CALP that a small handful of teachers could provide, the secondary English teachers
in PCSD did not have even the most rudimentary understanding of the principles of additive or
integrative language development. From Ms. Carlson who confided with me about teachers who
simply “guessed” on their benchmark evaluations because they did not understand the most basic
terminology present in those evaluations, to Miss Kendall who admitted to me that she had been
scarcely prepared by her teacher certification program for even the most generalized instruction
of EBs (never mind that she had had absolutely no preparation for PEBLs), with rare exceptions,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 225
teachers in PCSD were simply unknowledgeable of the principles of additive or integrative
language development. Despite what I have labelled as a desire to position themselves as
proficient, these teachers did not demonstrate in their biannual benchmark evaluations, during
my observations, or during my interviews that they even had a superficial awareness of the
phonological, lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse principles undergirding
additive or integrative language development. In many ways, this was not entirely unexpected,
as many researchers have previously demonstrated (McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993; Street,
1984, 1995; Valdés, 1999; and Zamel & Spack, 2012). I learned that secondary English teachers
in PCSD may have been experts at delivering content, and in rare cases, providing collaborative
opportunities for learning; however, these teachers did not command declarative knowledge in
pivotal principles of language development that could have made it possible for teachers to
evaluate their Latino PEBLs with greater accuracy and consistency regarding their respective
diverse trajectories of language development and academic performance.
Influences of cultural factors on language development. Beyond their general disregard
for the existing assets of Latino PEBLs, secondary English teachers in PCSD were not aware of
the importance of cultural factors in language development. Despite hours upon hours of
observations and interviews, I never witnessed, nor was I told of the importance in employing
culturally responsive forms of instruction, let alone culturally responsive forms of evaluation.
Instead, I discovered teachers who felt it was their job to deliver content, not be aware of how
diverse cultural factors could change expectations of learners. I discovered teachers who
demonstrated in their words and actions that the learner’s role was to accommodate the culture of
the organization, or the proprietary expectations of the teacher. As Ms. Kelly reminded me, her
job was to prepare students for college, a perspective held by a colleague of hers I observed who
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 226
had structured his curriculum to prepare students to score highly on standardized assessments
such as the SAT and ACT. I observed and learned from the words of teachers that they had
many different versions of what their functions were, but throughout my three-tiered study, I did
not find one teacher who recognized the importance of aligning their expectations with the
cultural attributes of Latino PEBLs.
Principles of accommodation in formative and summative assessments. At no time in
my study did I observe, or did any teacher explain to me their practices of accommodations
(despite my continued questioning) in their formative and summative evaluations of the language
development or academic performance of Latino PEBLs, with the exception of Miss Halima
whose idea of accommodation was to lessen her rigor in grading the written work of these
students. Even as some of the Latino PEBLs may have been designated with special needs that
ensured accommodation in instruction and evaluation, teachers at PCSD were unable to
articulate to me or to demonstrate to me the critical practice of accommodation in their formative
and summative evaluations of the language development and academic proficiency of Latino
PEBLs.
Fundamental principles of motivation in additive language development. Maximizing
the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs requires that teachers
understand the importance of motivation in language development. The only motivation
harnessed by secondary English teachers in the development of student language development
that I discovered during my inquiry was the use of grades. The teachers may have been very
knowledgeable of the principles of stimulus and response; however, they were not able to
understand how to develop the intrinsic motivation of Latino PEBLs, and in my estimation, this
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 227
was because the teachers did not have knowledge of the importance of motivation in additive or
integrative language development.
California ELD standards. With the exception of Ms. Carlson who, in general terms
touched on the existing ELD standards, none of the teachers in my study had knowledge of these
standards. Most teachers were satisfied with what I have labelled a “deferral of responsibility,”
finding that “some ELL component during any back to school stuff,” as Ms. Bloch explained to
me, was sufficient for secondary English teachers to meet the needs of EBs. Interestingly,
teachers universally detailed PCSD’s insistence on standards-based instruction using the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS); however, none revealed a commensurate attention to the
ELD standards. Teachers may have worked assiduously in their various PLCs to align
instruction and evaluation with the CCSS; however, any development of the knowledge of
teachers of the California ELD standards was restricted to one lunchtime meeting in 2012 at one
school during which time an ELD coordinator provided the teachers who attended with
laminated menus that presented the new standards.
Language proficiency descriptors. Like my discovery of the lack of knowledge by
secondary English teachers in PCSD of ELD standards, I learned that these teachers had very
limited knowledge of the existing levels of language development—even though teachers were
required to use those levels to establish the language development of EBs in the biannual
benchmark evaluation. Ms. Carlson, who had spent over a decade as ELD coordinator at her
site, was able to use her knowledge of the new language proficiency descriptors in her
communication with me, but none of the other teachers demonstrated the same knowledge.
During my observations as teachers completed the biannual benchmark evaluations, this lack of
knowledge of language proficiency descriptors was evident as more teachers than not asked me
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 228
to explain the differences in these descriptors. In my estimation, the lack of knowledge by
teachers in this critical area reflected a considerable misalignment of the capacity of teachers
with expectations of external accountability by PCSD and the CDE.
Evaluation criteria in the biannual benchmarking instrument. District leadership, in
providing secondary English teachers with an online data collection form to gather the required
data in the benchmark, had obviated the accuracy of the evaluation by not ensuring that those
teachers even had the most cursory awareness of what the evaluation criteria considered.
Especially during my observation, when teacher after teacher requested that I define for them
what the evaluation criteria meant in terms that they could understand, it was very evident that
teachers did not have a declarative knowledge of critical terminology including the difference
between productive and receptive language, nor did they have declarative knowledge of more
refined aspects of the criteria, such as meta-linguistic awareness. It is not altogether equitable to
hold the teachers accountable for their lack of knowledge, for as in the case with the ELD
standards and the proficiency level descriptors, the only professional learning opportunity
provided to the teachers was at one school (Bayside), where teachers volunteered to watch a brief
presentation at lunch during the month of December in 2012.
16
Understandably, secondary
English teachers in PCSD were not able to reflect to me knowledge of the evaluation criteria they
were required to use as they evaluated Latino PEBLs for RFEP.

16
PCSD has dedicated its professional learning opportunities to developing capacity of teachers through site-level
PLCs. The district has no plans for any additional opportunities to increase secondary English teacher knowledge
of ELD standards, beyond any information that site-level ELD coordinators share with members of their site level
PLCs. The RTI model, nested within the PLCs at each site have been selected by district leaders as the method
for the identification of remediation of instructional needs. Latino PEBLs or EBs are not presently addressed
specifically in the district’s plans for addressing performance problems of the district, or for that matter, at each
secondary school in PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 229
Process leading to RFEP of EBs. Even Ms. Carlson, who had the greatest knowledge of
matters pertaining to EBs, could not fully articulate to me the process of RFEP. She knew that
students were evaluated in many areas, but did not know that parental consultation was a
requirement of the process established by PCSD in satisfaction of California Education Code §
313. Based on my inquiry, I could find no other teacher who had even a cursory knowledge of
the RFEP process, and in fact most of the teachers in the study did not even know the purpose of
the benchmark evaluation that they were completing that resulted in RFEP for Latino PEBLs.
With rare exception, such as Ms. Carlson and Ms. Middlestadt, secondary English teachers did
not know that their benchmark evaluations were strong contributors in determining the academic
trajectories of Latino PEBLs. Most were unaware that teachers were even formally involved in
determining the English fluency of Latino PEBLs. The teachers perceived the benchmark
evaluation as a bureaucratic hoop that they needed to jump through, and they did not discern the
critical importance of the ramifications of their evaluations on the lives of the Latino PEBLs in
their classrooms.
Procedural. Given the considerable lack of declarative knowledge of critical elements
germane to the evaluation of Latino PEBLs, it is not surprising to report that secondary English
teachers in PCSD did not command procedural knowledge in their evaluations of these students.
Although I did not have sufficient opportunity to view the entirety of procedural knowledge
influences on the practices of secondary English teachers, from the observations and interviews
that I employed in my three-tiered inquiry, it is certain that these teachers were not able to
demonstrate command in the areas of procedural knowledge that follow.
Command of more than one language. Only one teacher of the dozens that I
interviewed and observed spoke more than one language. Sacchi may have famously explained
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 230
that he never knew that “in order to become a jockey you have to have been a horse first”
(Anderson & Sally, 2013, p. 271); yet I found it very interesting that all but one of the teachers I
investigated was monolingual. Nevertheless, this was the reality I discovered among secondary
English teachers in PCSD. Flores (2001) detailed the value of the dispositions of bilingual
teachers in facilitating additive language development, and Arce (2004) found that bilingual
teachers were better able to implement culturally responsive pedagogies in classes with Latino
learners. My research found that the considerable lack of personal insight of additive and
integrative language development by secondary English teachers negatively influenced their
abilities in understanding the needs of Latino PEBLs, and underscored the lack of organizational
attention in providing these students with bilingual or multilingual teachers who were capable of
commanding their own personal experiences of developing academic fluency in an additional
language as they provided instruction to Latino PEBLs.
Employing asset-based paradigms in their evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Without the
declarative knowledge of the premise of asset-based vs. deficit-based paradigms, let alone a
capability to demonstrate declarative knowledge of their influences, it is not unexpected that
secondary English teachers were unable to command procedural knowledge that would have led
to more culturally responsive evaluations for Latino PEBLs.
Creating and administrating effective standards-based evaluations. As I discovered,
secondary English teachers devoted considerable effort to creating evaluations that were aligned
with the CCSS; however, I did not observe any evidence that these teachers’ efforts were
directed toward creating or administering culturally responsive formative and summative
evaluations of the language development of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers, nor
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 231
did I see any evidence of content-area evaluations that were designed to meet the unique needs of
Latino PEBLs.
Applying accommodations in evaluation. Despite my specific requests of teachers to
explain to me their methods of accommodation in their evaluations of Latino PEBLs, not a single
teacher was able to explain to me how they did this. Most asserted that they consistently
differentiated, but they seemed to conflate instruction with evaluation. Although I did not have
the opportunity to observe teachers in their classrooms as they evaluated Latino PEBLs, given
the concerted lack of knowledge of secondary English teachers in PCSD of the very premise of
accommodations in evaluation, it is unlikely that these teachers would be able to apply
accommodations in evaluation without being able to identify or explain them.
Applying culturally responsive evaluations. Teachers did not have the ability to
recognize and subsequently shift evaluation practices based on a learner’s existing diverse
cultural factors that undeniably influence language development. Teachers did not have the
declarative knowledge of this pivotal facet of effective evaluations, and as expected, teachers
were not able to explain to me, nor were they able to demonstrate to me that they even
understood what culturally responsive evaluations were. Given this lack of declarative
knowledge, it remains unlikely that teachers would be able to implement culturally responsive
evaluations for Latino PEBLs in designated or integrated classroom settings.
Metacognitive. As they lacked knowledge of conceptual and procedural knowledge in
multiple critical areas of the evaluation of Latino PEBLs, secondary English teachers could not
engage in effective forms of metacognition of their degree of effectiveness (or ineffectiveness)
that would have made it possible for them to improve their practices. As the Spanish adage
reminds, “No le pidas peras al olmo” (do not ask for pears from an elm), and regarding the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 232
development of metacognitive knowledge of teachers in their evaluation practices of Latino
PEBLs, it is worth noting that any expectation of the practice of effective metacognition by
secondary English teachers leading to more effective formative and summative evaluations of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs would be specious, given
that teachers cannot be expected to think about processes of which they do not have existing
knowledge.
Motivation Influences
Secondary English teachers in PCSD may have been very knowledgeable in many areas
of their instructional practices. They may have commanded considerable acumen in establishing
formative and summative evaluations in their classrooms. Yet their respective declarative and
procedural knowledge did not extend into effective practices for Latino PEBLs. Similarly, these
teachers may have commanded considerable motivation to employ and develop professional
practices in many areas; however, this motivation did not extend into effective practices required
to provide Latino PEBLs with effective evaluations of their language development and academic
performance. Largely, teachers lacked self-efficacy in evaluation practices critical to the success
of Latino PEBLs, as well as a disconcerting (if understandable given the lack of diversity in the
organization) lack of value in developing these more effective practices. Given the lack of
consideration by the organization to the needs of Latino PEBLs, it would be very surprising if
teachers in PCSD were to gain a perspective of value in expending the energy to engage in
groundbreaking changes in their professional practices because of the needs of Latino PEBLs.
Self-efficacy. In many areas of their professional practices, secondary English teachers
in PCSD commanded considerably high levels of self-efficacy. My experiences revealed to me
that some teachers displayed remarkable self-efficacy in creating vocabulary tests, or in using
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 233
biographical critical approaches to literature to describe how the teen years of an author
contributed to her or his writing style. Yet none could provide to me the most basic description
of how they differentiated evaluations for Latino PEBLs. Regarding the critical components of
their practices that would lead to improved evaluations of Latino PEBLs, secondary English
teachers commanded very little self-efficacy.
Creating effective forms of evaluation. Teachers did not reflect in the data they
provided in their benchmark evaluations, nor did they demonstrate to me in my observation, nor
reveal to me during interviews that they had high degrees of self-efficacy in creating accurate
formative and summative evaluations that would enable them to understand the level of language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. In fact, save Ms. Carlson and Ms.
Middlestadt, none of the teachers could articulate or demonstrate to me that they were even
cognizant of the need for differentiated instruction of language development for Latino PEBLs,
never mind methods of evaluation that could be utilized to provide learners with feedback that
would improve their trajectories of language development. This lack of self-efficacy extended to
content-area mastery, as none of the teachers could detail how they created differentiated forms
of evaluation of academic content that aligned with the needs of Latino PEBLs.
Effective administration and analysis of results from differentiated evaluations.
Secondary English teachers were incapable of demonstrating to me that they commanded self-
efficacy in effectively administering differentiated formative and summative language
development evaluations of their populations of EBs, never mind Latino PEBLs. The buzzword
of differentiation was frequently used by teachers during our discussions; however, I did not see
any evidence of these differentiations in evaluation, and when pressed, not a single teacher could
describe how they administered differentiated evaluations designed to assist teachers in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 234
improving language development or content-area knowledge of Latino PEBLs. The “illusions of
differentiation” that I was able to identify included teachers who felt that they were
differentiating by giving singular directives to their classes of how to find repetitive use of
vocabulary, or through diminished expectations of rigor in grading. Yet the “illusion of
differentiation” was more deleterious to the development of actual forms of differentiated
evaluation, because teachers already believed that they were differentiating in their evaluations
of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Aligned practices of meta-cognition with effective practices. Secondary English
teachers in PCSD did not demonstrate or satisfactorily explain to me that they had self-efficacy
in productive forms of metacognitive thinking that could potentially improve the development of
new practices in meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs. Instead, the secondary English teachers in
PCSD demonstrated to me a positioning of proficiency that very likely would complicate the
process of applying meta-cognition to moderate their motivation in discovering more effective
forms of evaluation.
Attainment value. Secondary English teachers at PCSD were a group that revealed to
me that they were overwhelmed by external expectations of accountability held by district and
site-level leadership. They were hard workers who cared about their students; however, the very
idea of having to meet the expectations of yet another top-down approach to organizational
learning was not valued by these teachers. It was difficult to ascertain if it was the delivery of
the learning opportunities or the connotation of changes in practices that were implied that
engendered the lack of value; yet given the responses teachers detailed to me in their interviews,
and given the relative lack of interest in discovering the necessary knowledge of language
development and ELD standards to evaluate Latino PEBLs more effectively, it is very unlikely
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 235
that most secondary English teachers in PCSD found value in attaining improved evaluation
practices of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLS.
Alignment of moderation of reactions to the development of new practices. Secondary
English teachers did not indicate to me that they were motivated to moderate affective reactions
to stimulus regarding the development of improved evaluation practices for Latino PEBLs,
resulting in diminished self-efficacy in developing these new practices. I found that the teachers
were much more concerned with asserting to me that they were skilled practitioners, even as I
discovered from their words and actions that this was simply an attempt by teachers to position
themselves as proficient. Additionally, as several teachers detailed to me their disappointment in
Response to Intervention (RTI) efforts, I would be very surprised if these teachers held the
capacity to moderate affective responses as they developed entirely new practices of evaluations
for what could amount to only a few students in their classrooms.
Perception of value in developing effective evaluations for Latino PEBLs. Focused on
their development of homogenized evaluations designed to determine the academic achievement
of their students considering CCSS, secondary English teachers did not perceive attainment
value in their development of new practices designed to meet the specific evaluation needs of
Latino PEBLs. None of the teachers I observed or interviewed were even cognizant of the need
for different evaluations that could be used to facilitate improved language development and
academic performance of these students, and via the introduction of an RTI model in PCSD’s
secondary schools that focused on homogenizing instruction and evaluations, the minority voices
of secondary English teachers who might have at one time seen value in new, more effective
forms of evaluation for Latino PEBLs had instead been silenced.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 236
Intrinsic value. It was difficult to determine with certainty the degree of intrinsic value
that secondary English teachers held for developing new forms of evaluation that would be more
responsive to the needs of Latino PEBLs; however, based on my discoveries of the deficit-
paradigms that shaped the dispositions of secondary English teachers in PCSD, the diminished
expectations these teachers had of the academic trajectories of these learners and of the
involvement of parents, it would be very unlikely that secondary English teachers I investigated
in my three-tiered study intrinsically valued their development of new evaluation practices
designed solely for Latino PEBLs.
Utility value. Given that no teachers were even aware of the importance of culturally
responsive evaluations in facilitating improved language development of Latino PEBLs, it is
very unlikely that these teachers would place a great value in expending the energy and time to
shift practices. Beyond internal systems of accountability that shaped their own dispositions, and
given that secondary English teachers in PCSD were largely overwhelmed by increasing
professional demands placed upon them by district leadership in the form of the new RTI model
that each of the secondary schools began instituting in 2016, it is very unlikely that any of these
teachers perceived utility value in developing improved evaluations practices for Latino PEBLs.
Moreover, as several teachers held less than flattering views of the professional development
opportunities that the district had provided to them in the past, it is more likely than not that
secondary English teachers in PCSD would not perceive utility value in developing new
evaluation practices devoted to the needs of a minority population of learners.
Cost. For the most part, the teachers I interviewed and observed did not have the time to
devote to cultivating any shifts in practices, let alone whole-cloth changes to their evaluation
practices for a minority population of learners. A few of the secondary English teachers I
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 237
studied may have been skilled time managers in their classrooms; however, managing new
expectations from district and site-level administration, as well as managing new forms of
external accountability (in the form of the CAASPP results that could be used to evaluate teacher
effectiveness) had left secondary English teachers with a lasting disdain for expectations of
district leadership to add even one more task to the teachers’ already jam-packed schedules.
It is possible that some teachers may have perceived that the hours of inquiry and trial
and error that would be required to develop effective evaluation practices for Latino PEBLs
would be worth the cost. Yet given the degree of ignorance of the needs of Latino PEBLs, and
of the diminished views of the capabilities of these students that many teachers revealed to me, it
is very unlikely that secondary English teachers would be able to rationalize the cost required to
develop effective evaluation practices for this particular minority population of learners.
Organizational Influences
Although PCSD had a considerable performance problem that had led to an inequitable
percentage of Latino PEBLs who did not meet yearly expectations for language development and
academic performance, the organization had not allocated appropriate or sufficient resources to
remedy this problem. Coupled with an organizational culture that reflected a century of
discriminatory practices against Latinos in the Maplewood community, the evaluation practices
of secondary English teachers had been shaped by organizational influences that did not promote
the development of effective, culturally responsive evaluations of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Inconsistent practices of benchmarking procedures of Latino PEBLs. Bereft of any
concrete expectations for their accurate benchmarking of the language development of Latino
PEBLs, secondary English teachers did not demonstrate consistency in their benchmark
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 238
evaluations of these learners. Training had been very limited, and teachers were simply expected
to complete the evaluations—not to complete them with accuracy. Teachers “guessed” which
button to push to indicate the language development of EBs as Ms. Carlson admitted, and while
some teachers took great care to ensure fidelity in all of their responses, such as Miss Naber,
these teachers were the exception based on my observations and interviews.
Inconsistent evaluations of the academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Classroom
summative and formative evaluations by secondary English teachers of the academic
performance of their Latino PEBLs differed from site to site and from teacher to teacher.
Tangentially associated with CCSS standards, and largely disassociated from ELD standards,
secondary English teachers judged the academic performance of their Latino PEBLs by
attendance, attitude, and attentiveness to the teacher.
Inconsistent evaluations of the language development of Latino PEBLs. In reality, as
I discovered in my research, very seldom were secondary English teachers in PCSD concerned
with evaluating the language development of Latino PEBLs, apart from cursory completion of
the previously mentioned benchmark evaluations. Teachers were ignorant of the ELD standards,
and consequently could not apply those standards into evaluations that they could then use to
facilitate improved language development of these learners. As far as language development
was concerned, many teachers did not feel that it was their responsibility to focus on the
language development of EBs in mainstream classes, engaging in what I have labelled a
“deferral of responsibility” to ELD coordinators.
Lack of formal evaluations of the ability of teachers to accurately evaluate EBs.
Quite simply, if secondary English teachers evaluated EBs expertly or negligently, it had no
bearing on continued employment. The biennial formal evaluation used by PCSD as a condition
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 239
for further employment contained some mention of differentiated instruction, but did not specify
any criteria that considered evaluation of EBs. Instead, the formal evaluation avoided
consideration of teacher evaluation of minority populations of learners in favor of generalized
descriptions of these capabilities for the entirety of students in PCSD.
Lack of directed collaborative and reflective practices by teachers. Collaboration, a
new dimension in the practices of secondary English teachers that had been introduced with the
RTI model in PCSD’s secondary schools in 2016, did not extend to the development of more
effective formative and summative evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Instead, secondary English
teachers were more concerned with curricular alignment, as many teachers at different sites
explained. Evaluation of skills reflected in the CCSS were being touched upon at some schools
(Bayside and Oceanside) and intervention models without articulated evaluations had been
introduced at other schools (City High). Yet in no way were any of these practices targeted for
Latino PEBLs. Instead, schools had homogenized evaluation processes, lumping the needs of
marginalized groups of students with the needs of all other students. Teachers did not
collaborate in the formation of evaluations for the language development or academic
performance of Latino PEBLs, and as such, did not have the opportunity to reflect on practices
that had yet to be integrated.
Culture of implicit bias. Discrimination against Latino students by secondary English
teachers was clearly evident at each of the secondary schools in PCSD. This was not an overt
practice of discrimination; instead, it was more covert, and based on my observations and
interviews, I do not think that teachers were even aware of their discriminatory practices. I
attributed this to the larger culture of discrimination in PCSD and Maplewood; however, teachers
are responsible for their own actions, and consequently I must hold them accountable for their
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 240
discriminatory practices, even if the teachers may have been entirely unaware of them. Whether
it was Ms. O’Brien who evinced disdain for “those type of students” or Mr. Traynor who mused
about the likelihood of a Latino’s father being a drug dealer, I found that secondary English
teachers adhered to the tired tropes of Latinos as lazy, or simply not destined for academic
success. Diminished expectations of the capabilities of Latinos and a refusal to recognize their
diverse assets had ossified into a perspective held by all but one secondary English teacher (Ms.
Middlestadt) I interviewed that somehow Latinos were inferior, as Ms. Bloch explained when
she told me that “My Hispanics—I hate to do this, but…ethnically, they aren't inclined to
succeed,” or, as Ms. Kopitar told me in explaining why success in school was not vital for
Latinos, because as she saw it, “the mastery of language—you know, isn't as important to them.
As long as they…work, you know? Can work. Get a job.” Other teachers viewed Latino PEBLs
as “broken,” and needed to be, as Ms. Carlson explained, “fixed.” It was not alarming to make
these discoveries; what was alarming was the degree of the lack of awareness by secondary
English teachers of their participation in the perpetuation of what had become institutional
inequalities.
Lack of appropriate evaluation materials for PEBLs. Secondary English teachers did
not have any specified evaluation materials that would make it possible for them to evaluate the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs more expertly. Evaluations
that had been provided by the district were designed to meet the needs of students in
kindergarten to 8
th
grade, and these were simply not applicable in determining with refinement
the academic language development needs of Latino PEBLs. Complicating things further,
teachers did not have the skills required for them to create differentiated formative and
summative evaluations of the academic content they provided to students. The result was that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 241
teachers were left to proprietary evaluation methods that were very inconsistent, and were
altogether misaligned with the language development and academic needs of Latino PEBLs.
Lack of site-level performance goals for the RFEP of Latino PEBLs. Although I
learned from secondary English teachers that none of the schools I studied had established site-
level performance goals for Latino PEBLs, the fact that teachers were not even aware of the
district-level goals for the performance of EBs indicated to me that goal setting was not a
commonly held practice of teachers regarding the performance of their EBs. For that matter, the
very notion of performance goals, so vital in evaluating organizational performance, had only
been recently introduced to secondary schools as part of the district-wide RTI model. Seeking to
improve the overall practices of teachers, the nonexistent, or meager (e.g., a .5% improvement in
passing rate of students in math courses at Oceanside) initial performance goals at each of the
sites did not specifically consider the performance of EBs, not to mention Latino PEBLs.
Summary
During my inquiry, I have engaged in a critical evaluation of the evaluation practices of
secondary English teachers in PCSD. I discovered that these teachers did not have the necessary
knowledge to evaluate Latino PEBLs effectively, or the motivation to drive the development of
new, more effective practices. I also discovered that the organizational influences did not
provide these teachers with the required cultural responsiveness to mitigate the existing implicit
biases of teachers towards Latino students. It is worth noting that the lens of my inquiry
represented its own form of a “kaleidoskop” (Köckeis-Stangl, 1982, p. 363) that reflected the
multiple colors of teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. These colors shaded decidedly
towards forming an image of secondary English teachers as ineffective teachers who ignored the
needs of a marginalized group of learners. This is not the case. The teachers may have been
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 242
highly effective in many areas of their instruction and evaluation for most of their learners;
however, these teachers had not developed the necessary capabilities to meet the specific needs
of Latino PEBLs, as reflected in the decidedly diminished RFEP rates of these learners in PCSD.
It is of critical importance to consider that my inquiry focused only on the evaluation
practices of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers, and did not investigate other avenues
of the practices of these teachers. It is very likely that in many areas of their professional
practices, the teachers I observed and interviewed may have been extremely effective. Even as I
focused on their evaluation of Latino PEBLs, I observed teachers who were entirely unskilled in
their evaluation practices of these learners, yet who were highly effective educators in other
areas of their practices, as demonstrated by a host of indicators, including standardized test
performance and graduation rates of many learners. At the time of my study, PCSD and each of
its secondary schools performed at much higher levels in comparison to other schools in the Los
Angeles area; however, regarding the performance of Latino PEBLs, secondary English teachers
had been a critical contributor in what can only be described as a performance problem within
PCSD. Secondary English teachers in PCSD may have been skilled practitioners in many areas;
yet they had yet to develop the necessary professional capabilities to meet the unique needs of
Latino PEBLs.
Each of the teachers I met during my inquiry cared deeply about each of their students—
including Latino PEBLs. Yet the data painted a picture of inequitable practices. Almost all
PEBLs in PCSD were Latino (91%). I did not discover that teachers deliberately engaged in
ineffective evaluations of Latino PEBLs that resulted in a performance problem in the district. I
did not discover that teachers willingly engaged in discriminatory practices exacted on Latino
PEBLs. Rather, I did discover that the teachers I observed and interviewed had not yet cultivated
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 243
the necessary culturally responsive dispositions to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs. I did
discover that these teachers lacked command of the necessary skills in differentiation of
evaluation. I did discover that these teachers had not developed the ability to provide Latino
PEBLs with accurate evaluations of their language development and academic performance.
During my inquiry, I learned that most of the teachers I observed and interviewed recognized
that Latino PEBLs had special needs that were not being met, and I learned that most of the
teachers sincerely desired to meet the needs of these learners; however, I learned that these
teachers were not able to meet those needs due to gaps in the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that I have indicated in my findings.
In this chapter, I have detailed findings from my comprehensive three-tiered data
collection. I have explained the importance of these findings on the practices of secondary
English teachers in PCSD, and in recognition of the gap analysis model, I have categorized the
totality of findings into (a) knowledge, (b) motivation, and (c) the organizational influences that
reacted, interacted, and counteracted with organizational influences in these teachers’ evaluations
of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. In the next chapter, I
will apply the identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to frame my
understanding of the dispositions of secondary English teachers in PCSD, and how these
dispositions have contributed to PCSD’s performance gap. Subsequently, I will describe a
comprehensive organizational improvement plan I have established that will facilitate the
development of improved evaluation practices coupled with asset-based dispositions among
secondary English teachers in PCSD that will minimize the performance gaps in PCSD by
increasing the capacity of secondary English teachers to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 244
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Striving to provide lasting solutions to long-standing educational inequities exacted upon
Latino EBs in the State of California, I have sought to understand how the influences of
knowledge and motivation reacted, interacted, and counteracted with organizational influences in
the evaluation of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs by
secondary English teachers. In this, the final chapter, I use a reflection of my findings to propel
detailed recommendations coupled with an implementation plan designed to improve secondary
English teacher evaluations of the language development and academic performance of Latino
PEBLs in the Pacific Coast School District (PCSD), a suburban Los Angeles school district.
17

This chapter has four sections: In the first section, I share the influences that contributed
to ineffective evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers in PCSD. I then
establish the foundational support for my solution plan designed to address PCSD’s performance
problem by elaborating on the principles undergirding the mechanism through which secondary
English teachers in PCSD can improve their evaluation practices: Community of Inquiry (CoI).
Subsequently, I detail my rationale for embedding a post-secondary instructional resource expert
in the field of language development within the CoI. I conclude the first section of this chapter
by explaining the principles of Inquiry as Stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), a “habit of
mind” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. viii) I have recommended in my plan as a method to
improve the evaluative practices by secondary English teachers in PCSD. In the second section
of this chapter, I detail my recommendations for PCSD, addressing each of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences I have identified that have contributed to PCSD’s

17
As reflected in biannual benchmark evaluations and English teacher grading in satisfaction of California
Education Code § 313.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 245
performance gap in meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs. In the third section of this chapter, I
provide a comprehensive, integrated plan for implementing the solutions I propose, followed by
an evaluation system that will make it possible for organizational leaders to determine the
effectiveness of the implementation at each stage of the plan. I conclude the chapter with
recommendations for future study that would provide a broader scope of understanding of the
language development and academic performance evaluations by secondary English teachers of
Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to utilize a gap analysis to investigate the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interrelated in shaping secondary English teacher
evaluations of Latino Persistently Emergent Bilingual Learners (PEBLs) for Recommendation as
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).
The study asked:
o How do the dynamic influences of knowledge and motivation react, interact, and
counteract with organizational influences in shaping the language development and
academic evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers?
Discovery of Performance Problems
Employing a qualitative methodology, I discovered that the evaluation practices of
secondary English teachers for Latino PEBLs in PCSD were inaccurate and ineffective,
underscoring a considerable gap between organizational performance expectations and the
capacity of secondary English teachers to meet those performance objectives. Despite increasing
demands of external accountability by the State of California in the form of specific language
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 246
development standards for EBs
18
, secondary English teachers in PCSD (who were already
stretched to the limit in meeting the newly-minted expectations of the recently adopted Common
Core standards) had not been provided with sufficient professional learning opportunities to gain
the necessary declarative and procedural knowledge required to effectively evaluate Latino
PEBLs. At the district level, leaders had established specific expectations of secondary English
teachers of EBs in the form of results on standardized test scores (CAASSP and CELDT
19
); yet
district leaders had not provided those teachers with the necessary professional learning
opportunities to meet the expectations of these more exacting expectations of external
accountability. More pertinently, I discovered that secondary English teachers in PCSD had
never been provided with specific professional development opportunities designed to meet the
needs of Latino EBs, or for that matter, opportunities designed to meet the unique needs of
Latino PEBLs.
During the time that encompassed my study, I recognized a clear lack of alignment in
organizational expectations and teacher capacity in meeting those expectations. Yet the greater
concern that I developed through the course of my inquiry was that the forms of internal
accountability, established by Newmann, King, and Rigdon (1997) as pivotal in developing
institutional capacity, were not aligned with rigorous external expectations imposed upon
teachers by district leadership. Carnoy, Elinore, and Siskin (2003) demonstrated that “high

18
Larger mechanisms of external accountability from the State of California during the course of my study included
the English Language Development Standards (adopted in 2012), and the English Language Arts/ English
Language Development Framework (adopted in 2014).

19
In satisfaction of California Education Code § 313, PCSD included two standardized assessment in its evaluation
of EBs for RFEP: the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and California
English Language Development Test (CELDT). Due to be replaced by the English Language Proficiency
Assessments for California (ELPAC) in 2018, the final administration of the CELDT test was in 2017.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 247
internal accountability is a necessary condition for schools to be successful in responding to the
pressures of external accountability systems” (p. 191), yet during my inquiry I discovered that
English teachers in PCSD’s secondary schools did not command sufficiently robust internal
systems of accountability to facilitate realization of the district’s performance goals for effective
evaluation of the language development and academic performance of EBs, not to mention
Latino PEBLs.
In my observations of and interviews with secondary English teachers in PCSD, I
recognized that far too many of these teacher’s systems of internal accountability were forged by
deficit-oriented paradigms built on submerged prejudices of Latino learners. These perspectives
of teachers manifest in discriminatory evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. As I spoke with secondary English teachers in PCSD, I came to
realize that they were largely not conscious of the dispositions that had perpetuated inequitable
evaluations of Latino PEBLs, ultimately leading to diminished educational opportunities for
these learners. I learned that the deficit-oriented perspectives of the teachers represented a larger
part of the cultural fabric of the organization, and the larger community of Maplewood.
Although clear patterns of discrimination against EBs by secondary English teachers emerged
during my investigation, Latino PEBLs were the primary target of inequity in comparison to
other ethnic groups. As secondary English teachers revealed to me, other EBs with different
ethnic origins were high achievers, driven by parents who were obsessed in ensuring the
academic success of their children. Yet all too consistently, secondary English teachers used
traditional racist tropes in their description of Latino PEBLs as lazy and unmotivated for success.
Moreover, the teachers I studied perceived that, in contrast to other ethnic groups, Latino PEBLs
did not have satisfactory support of parents who did not take active roles in contributing to the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 248
academic success of their children.
Culturally responsive practices that reflected Green’s (1999) “deep democracy”, or the
“realistically imaginative philosophical expansion of the implications of the democratic ideal
into habits of the heart and a shared way of life” (p. xiv), were not embedded within the various
secondary-level English departments I studied in PCSD. Instead, I noticed teachers who were
more likely to respond to and participate in the cultural reproduction of “difference-making
structures and the particular differences they have created” (Green, 1999, p. 58). Even as I
recognized these structures and differences, I could not lay opprobrium solely at the feet of the
teachers, for I recognized that their dispositions were the result of larger, long-standing social
and institutional systems that had reproduced inequalities in California for over 150 years.
These systems that silently reproduced inequality did not only include each school’s
educational community. In fact, the systems of inequity permeated throughout the larger district-
level organizational culture, and the larger culture of Maplewood, the suburban Los Angeles city
in which I completed my study. Indeed, as Pulido, Sidowi, and Vos (1996) demonstrated,
Maplewood was established by discriminatory social difference-making structures exacted upon
Latino populations through zoning decisions leading to large industries in Latino neighborhoods,
with the byproduct of industrial pollution that had “a disproportionate impact on the city’s Latino
community that persists today” (p. 421). These researchers described “how a planned industrial
suburb created a racialized division of labor that was expressed both in a racist planning
discourse and in extreme residential segregation” (Pulido, Sidowi, & Vos, 1996, p. 421). The
long-standing environmental discrimination against Latino citizens in Maplewood was only one
form of prejudice they have endured. In 1993, the city was found by the United States
Department of Justice to be liable for racist practices, and forced to pay a multi-million-dollar
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 249
fine (Slater, 1995). Given the powerful (if all too frequently hidden) structures of inequality
encompassing Maplewood, the reproduction of inequality in PCSD’s schools would be more
likely than not.
Even as I recognized the larger dimensions of the inequalities that had been levied on
Latino PEBLs in PCSD, I realized that altering the perpetuation of generational inequalities
would require a comprehensive shift in the dispositions of the agents in PCSD who established
and enacted the performance objectives of the organization. Although I comprehended that
larger, organizational solutions needed to be instituted to meet these performance objectives, as
my study focused on secondary English teachers, I confined my discoveries as well as my
solutions to those influences associated directly with secondary English teachers.
As I gained insight into the way that knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences interacted, reacted, and counteracted in shaping teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs,
I realized that solving the existing performance problems of the organization that had led to
inequitable academic outcomes for this population of traditionally marginalized students would
not be simple. I realized that rejiggering expectations, or providing various and sundry
professional training opportunities that were designed to increase teacher’s capability in
completing evaluations would not be a satisfactory solution, as the culture that produced and
evaluated the performance of its agents was more inclined to engage in the familiar reproduction
of social inequalities, rather than confront them. I realized that secondary English teachers
within PCSD would need to recognize their own contributions to the intractability of what
Cochran-Smith (2000) labelled as the “white theory, white practice” (p. 175) that has permeated
American teacher development endeavors. I realized that secondary English teachers in PCSD
would need to begin an arduous journey in their collective cultivation of culturally responsive
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 250
practices through a comprehensive critical evaluation of their existing practices of inequity, even
as these teachers developed the necessary knowledge and skills to fulfill PCSD’s mission in
ensuring “that each and every student is educated and prepared to succeed in life” (Mission,
2015).
Solutions to Institutional Inequities
Dewey (1927) prescribed that “the cure for the ailments of democracy is more
democracy” (p. 327), and I have applied this cogent analysis into forming my solution to the
performance problem of the ineffective language and academic evaluations of Latino PEBLs by
secondary English teachers in PCSD. Through my comprehensive research, I eventually brought
to light that the dispositions of secondary English teachers were not culturally responsive to the
needs of PCSD’s silent majority of EBs: Latino PEBLs. Given what I perceived as the
intractability of those dispositions, I began to understand that unless secondary English teachers
could begin to identify how their collective hidden curriculum of discrimination had become
manifest in their instruction and evaluations of Latino PEBLs, no solution would be lasting. I
visualized that the obstacle preventing realization of the organizational goals could best be
objectified as an iceberg. The tip of the iceberg, or the area that could be easily recognized,
represented the existing practices of secondary English teachers. Clearly, this was an obstacle
that needed to be overcome; however, I also recognized that the area beneath the iceberg
symbolizing the larger socio-cultural influences that had perpetuated systemic discrimination
against Latino PEBLs represented a much greater obstacle, even if it was not as visible. I
realized that to overcome the entire obstacle, my solution would need to address the submerged
area of the iceberg as well as the more visible tip of the iceberg. I recognized that even if
teachers applied Inquiry as Stance in recognizing and even remedying the long-standing patterns
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 251
of inequity, these teachers would still not have the capacity to meet the instructional needs of
Latino PEBLs. Recognition of inequity on the part of the agents of PCSD could be used to
reorient teachers so that they could recognize the assets of their Latino PEBLs, but it would not
provide teachers with the opportunity to develop the necessary declarative and procedural
knowledge to aid teachers as they navigated their journeys toward culturally responsive
evaluation practices that met the totality of the needs of Latino PEBLs. Secondary English
teachers would also need to develop their skills in differentiated evaluation, knowledge of
language development, and even of the terminology germane to the biannual benchmark
evaluation if these teachers were to be able to meet the organizational performance expectations.
For secondary English teachers in PCSD to provide Latino PEBLs with more effective
evaluations of their language development and academic performance, the only satisfactory
conclusion I could draw was that a comprehensive professional learning effort focusing on the
cultivation of internal systems of accountability would be required. In contrast to a simple
exposure to new information which could be provided through intensive training, my realization
that teacher’s declarative knowledge of second language development would need to solidify
into informed, culturally responsive practices led me to consider a solution that would involve
the ongoing application of knowledge and shifts in dispositions gained by teachers in authentic
classrooms settings. Acknowledging that each teacher would need to develop metacognitive
capabilities that would help them refine their discoveries and solidify them into newer, more
effective evaluation practices presented me with a challenge: How could teachers, who did not
know what they did not know, be expected to evaluate their ability to practice things they did not
understand? I became concerned that the lack of knowledge of language development by the
secondary English teachers in PCSD would likely delay more rapid growth in the necessary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 252
skills required for the effective evaluation of Latino PEBLs, and might mitigate the effectiveness
of any increasing awareness of the value of culturally responsive evaluation practices.
I considered the social-constructive nature of learning that I recognized was in alignment
with the socially-situated practices of secondary English teachers, and realized that these
teachers could benefit considerably by providing them with access to experts in the field who
could act as resources for learning. At the same time, I recognized that inserting mentor teachers
from outside the social context of each school to demonstrate required complex skills would not
necessarily motivate teachers to change practices, a perspective validated by the comprehensive
research of Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009). In my own
experiences in the district, external experts brought in to develop the skills of secondary English
teachers had very seldom been successful in producing lasting changes. In many cases, these
experts fomented a form of resentment among many experienced teachers, who did not
appreciate the externally imposed perspective that teachers were, as Webster-Wright described,
“knowledge-deficient” (p. 713) and at the mercy of solutions offered by the “knowledge-
possessing provider” (p. 713). Faced with these considerable obstacles, I determined that
facilitating the development of teacher’s dispositions that were culturally responsive to the needs
of Latino PEBLs would best be achieved through situating teacher development within a dual-
channel online asynchronous Community of Inquiry (CoI), within which secondary English
teachers could refer to the embedded experts as resources, even as each teacher engaged in
reflection and practitioner inquiry in the development of culturally responsive dispositions
through solidifying Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as Stance.
Community of Inquiry (CoI). Taking advantage of the opportunity for extended
learning made possible through technology, CoI is an online asynchronous learning community
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 253
focusing on three elements (social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence) that
intersect with: (a) the selection of content to be learned, (b) the setting of the climate for
learning, and (c) support of the discourse between and among the participants. Moored to
Dewey’s (1927) principles of reflective inquiry and the social activity of inquiry, CoI
operationalizes social, cognitive, and teaching presences in different ways. Social presence is
described in three dimensions: connection with community members, purposeful communication
developed in a context of trust, and the development of interpersonal relationships (Garrison,
2009). Cognitive presence takes the form of a Practical Inquiry (PI), and is developed through
four phases: the triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution. Completing the
framework of CoI, teaching presence has three dimensions: design, facilitation, and direction that
makes it possible for the teacher to facilitate the development of all participants (See Figure 8).

Figure 8. Community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 158).
The situated local context provided by the CoI makes it possible for the members of each
site-level CoI to develop culturally responsive evaluative practices, gradually contributing to an
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 254
increase in self-efficacy and value through identification with the developing skills of peers in
the site-level CoI. Each site in PCSD has its own unique culture which will contribute to the
learning environment within which secondary English teachers at each site will develop their
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge of effective forms of evaluation of Latino
PEBLs. Through site-level CoIs, teachers at each site will have the autonomy to pursue lines of
inquiry that align most closely with their unique needs.
Even as site-level CoIs can provide differentiated professional learning for all teachers in
PCSD based on the unique local characteristics and needs, a second channel of a district-wide
CoI will make it possible for all secondary English teachers in the district to increase the depth of
their understanding of effectively established and expertly administered culturally responsive
content area and language development evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Through this dual-channel
CoI, secondary English teachers can work with peers in their own localized community while
also having the opportunity to work with other English teachers on a district-wide level as they
collaborate in developing greater organizational understanding of the needs of Latino PEBLs,
even as the teachers cultivate more culturally responsive evaluation practices.
One of the strengths of the online asynchronous learning management system is that
learners are not bound by the temporal restrictions that can exact strong influences on
professional development efforts. Time is a frequently a commodity in short supply in
educational organizations, and the tendency for leaders is often to flood teachers with
transmission models of professional training designed to maximize productivity. Yet from
experience as a recipient as well as deliverer of these efforts, I have realized that participation in
“yet another high-quality district training” (as one of the secondary English teachers sardonically
described it) would not provide the gains required for secondary English teachers to nurture new
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 255
ways of understanding their own practices. Instead, I perceived that the medium of technology
would allow secondary English teachers to access content at different paces, suited to their own
individual learning needs. CoI has a demonstrated impact in providing community members
with a highly-productive learning experiences (Swan & Ice, 2010), and through the dual-channel
CoI, secondary English teachers in PCSD would be able to exchange their unique experiences
and needs alongside their peers in online learning modules, of which I will provide details in my
implementation plan later in this chapter.
Embedded expert. Following the principles of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009), I hold
considerable value in providing teachers with the autonomy to establish and pursue their own
lines of inquiry as a critical component in producing the depth of understanding required to shift
professional practices—even if hardened by decades of ineffectiveness. At the same time, in my
professional role as a practitioner as well as professional development leader in PCSD for two
decades, I have found that all too often, when teachers do not have the necessary resources to
make critical discoveries, the greatest likelihood is for teachers to entrench their existing
practices more robustly into practices that are very strong, yet very wrong. I considered the
nature of the dual-channel CoI, and concluded that there would be a great value in embedding a
post-secondary instructional resource expert in the CoI alongside secondary English teachers to
pave the way for entirely new avenues of inquiry for those teachers.
I envisioned an engaging online learning management system, in which the expert could
act as an instructional leader. This expert could act as a resource who could support, direct and
redirect, and ultimately facilitate the self-directed language development inquiry projects
initiated by secondary English teachers. In this virtual environment, secondary English teachers
at each site in PCSD could begin to gain insight into their own dispositions, even as they became
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 256
more knowledgeable about culturally responsive practices, principles of language development,
and differentiated forms of evaluation.
Inquiry as Stance. Rather than adopt transmission models of professional training, my
recommendation for the development of Inquiry as Stance within the dual-channel CoIs instead
considers an enhanced responsibility of the teacher as practitioner and researcher. My
recommendation considers teachers as agents of social change who continually engage in their
own forms of self-directed inquiry as they develop deeper conceptual, methodological, and
praxeological understandings that manifest into more effective culturally responsive professional
practices. The ongoing cycle of Inquiry as Stance proposed by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009)
may not provide immediate objectifiable results; however, its influence would eventually be
much greater in facilitating the development of culturally responsive dispositions among
teachers, even as it improved their declarative and procedural knowledge of evaluating the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Moreover, as secondary
English teachers began to develop greater knowledge of their practices and principles of
language development, their respective degrees of self-efficacy would increase, as would their
value for undertaking the necessary steps towards more equitable evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Inquiry as Stance, established by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) as teacher knowledge
for, in, and of practice, is the process through which teachers can enact and continually refine
their responsiveness in promoting equity to all learners. It is through this process that secondary
English teachers in PCSD can develop culturally responsive dispositions that will lead to more
effective evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) confided that Inquiry as
Stance is a disposition, or:
A way of knowing and being in the world of educational practice that carries across
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 257
educational contexts and various points in one's professional career and that links
individuals to larger groups and social movements intended to challenge the inequities
perpetuated by the educational status quo. (p. viii)
Situating the entirely of my recommendations within the paradigm of teacher learning
established by Inquiry as Stance makes it possible for teachers at PCSD to continue to develop
their capabilities as practitioners and researchers who are better equipped to meet a range of
needs from diverse populations of learners. This is not to suggest that specific declarative,
procedural, or even metacognitive recommendations should be minimized in their respective
degrees of importance, nor is it to suggest that any individual method of improving teacher
motivation should be lessened in its importance. It is to suggest that in applying each of the
potential recommendations within a situated context of teacher Inquiry as Stance as it is
developed within the dual-channel CoIs, secondary English teachers in PCSD will be most
effectively equipped to address the multitude of dynamic demands in academic and language
evaluations of all EBs, with a special attention to the needs of Latino PEBLs.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
In this section, I provide detailed recommendations to address the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational gaps that have produced a performance problem in PCSD leading to
diminished academic and social outcomes for Latino PEBLs. I center my recommendations on a
comprehensive professional development approach that employs a dual-channel Community of
Inquiry (CoI), interactive technology, consistent interaction of educators, and educational
opportunities that are supported by access to job aids (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
comprehensive approach will develop and contextualize the knowledge of teachers, cultivate
improved motivation, and establish specific organizational expectations for the alignment of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 258
systems of internal and external accountability. In turn, the development of keener knowledge
and skills, more effective motivation, and more exact organizational practices will facilitate the
development of new dispositions of secondary English teachers in PCSD that will be culturally
responsive to the needs of Latino PEBLs. My plan includes the implementation of site-level and
extended district-wide online CoIs within which a post-secondary instructional resource expert
acts as a resource in facilitating improved teacher recognition of their ability to employ Cochran-
Smith and Lytle’s (1999) Inquiry as Stance.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD must develop considerable declarative, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge that will dynamically interact in practice for the district to meet its
performance goals. These teachers must also begin to align value and self-efficacy with their
incipient declarative and procedural knowledge. Following the principles of Cochran-Smith and
Lytle (2009), teachers at PCSD can develop the essential culturally responsive dispositions by
engaging continually in the dual-channel CoIs as teachers hone their respective capabilities in
accurately and equitably evaluating the language development and academic performance of
EBs, with special attention to the needs of Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge recommendations. Taking into account the value of Inquiry as Stance, as
well as the vitality of a robust CoI, I have formed context-specific recommendations in each area
of my selected typology of knowledge (declarative, procedural, and metacognitive) that will
make it possible for secondary English teachers in PCSD to develop the knowledge and skills
required to become more effective in applying evaluation practices that align more appropriately
with the district’s performance goals for its population of Latino PEBLs. In my
recommendations for each of the types of knowledge that secondary English teachers must
develop to address PCSD’s performance problem, I have included context-specific
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 259
recommendations, as well as any necessary job aids that can assist teachers in developing
improved evaluation practices of the language development and academic performance of Latino
PEBLs.
Declarative knowledge. Effective, accurate, and culturally responsive evaluations of the
language development and the content area knowledge of Latino PEBLs represents a complex
process. Secondary English teachers, who must render instantaneous decisions throughout each
day, are influenced by countless forms of declarative knowledge as the teachers fulfill their
responsibility to their students. More specifically, the influences of knowledge that shape the
evaluation procedures of Latino PEBLs by secondary English teachers represent a considerable
range; however, in my critical analysis, I have identified ten specific declarative knowledge
solutions that will assist PCSD in facilitating more equitable evaluations by secondary English
teachers. I have delineated these declarative knowledge recommendations in the following table
(See Table 9), which briefly describes the identified knowledge influences and the description of
my recommendations for remedying the identified performance gap in PCSD. In addition, I have
provided descriptions of the specific job aids that can be used to augment my recommendation
for a comprehensive education plan situated within an extended CoI that includes direct,
computer-mediated, and cooperative learning of the necessary elements of knowledge that
secondary English teachers require to maximize their capabilities in accurately evaluating the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 260
Table 10
Summary of Declarative Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Declarative Knowledge
Influence:
Context-Specific
Recommendation:
Job Aid:
PCSD Secondary English teachers
cannot demonstrate satisfactory
declarative knowledge of…
Provide education in the
form of an intensive extended
CoI that includes direct,
computer-mediated, and
cooperative learning of the…

Provide teachers with:
The differences between asset-
based and deficit-based paradigms.

Asset-based and deficit-
based paradigms of learning.
Non-pertinent.
The phonological, lexical,
grammatical, sociolinguistic, and
discourse principles of language
development.

Fundamental principles of
additive language
development.

Non-pertinent.
The diverse cultural factors that
influence language development.
Cultural factors that
influence language
development.

Laminated menus that contain
principles of cultural factors and
language development.

The principles of accommodation
in formative and summative
assessments.
Principles of accommodation
in formative and summative
assessments.

High-visibility posters showing how
accommodations can be used during
diverse forms of assessment.

The common phrases in the
languages of the students in their
classrooms.
Common phrases in the
languages of the students in
their classrooms.

High-visibility posters of English-
Target language greetings and
frequently used phrases to encourage
bilingual communication.

The fundamental principles of
motivation in additive language
development.
Principles of motivation in
additive language
development.

High-visibility posters with effective
motivational statements to encourage
language development of EBs.

The California ELD Standards. California ELD Standards. High-visibility matrix-charts that
summarize of California ELD
standards.

The three levels of language
development.
Three levels of language
development (emergent,
bridging, and expanding; exit
and entry levels).

High-visibility matrix-charts of three
language levels.
The evaluation criteria present in
the ELD Standards utilized in the
biannual benchmarking
instrument.

Evaluation criteria used in
biannual benchmarking.

High-visibility matrix-charts of the
evaluation criteria.

The process that leads to RFEP of
EBs.
Process that leads to RFEP of
EBs.
High-visibility matrix-charts of the
RFEP process.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 261
Asset-based and deficit-based paradigms. Based on my research, PCSD Secondary
English teachers cannot demonstrate satisfactory declarative knowledge of the differences
between asset-based and deficit-based paradigms. One of the most pivotal contributors to the
improvement in practices required of secondary English teachers in PCSD is in shifting from a
deficit-based paradigm of student deficiencies in comparison to an asset-based paradigm of
student capabilities. While this will require considerable shifts in dispositions of secondary
English teachers, few have a command of these paradigms; even fewer have command of how
these paradigms influence evaluation practices of marginalized populations of learners.
Focusing on the existing funds of knowledge of marginalized learners provides teachers
with the opportunity to engage in more equitable forms of evaluation (Pappamihiel & Walser,
2009). Establishing discernment between deficit-based and asset-based paradigms held by
secondary English teachers in PCSD can be best developed through the ongoing interaction of
teachers in an intensive extended CoI that includes direct, computer-mediated, and cooperative
learning of declarative principles of asset-based principles of language development. Far from
an exercise in the collection of gratuitous facts, knowledge of these critical contributing factors
shaping involvement of students in marginalized populations will need to be curated by
embedded experts and developed by teachers within the extended CoI. As secondary English
teachers begin to explore and reflect on the consequences of deficit and asset paradigms in the
equitable evaluation of EBs, these teachers will begin to assemble productive dispositions that
will align with the needs of all EBs, particularly Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge of principles of language development. PCSD Secondary English teachers
cannot demonstrate satisfactory declarative knowledge of phonological, lexical, grammatical,
sociolinguistic, and discourse principles of language development. Facing challenges in meeting
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 262
the stated goals of PCSD in meeting the needs of all EBs, teachers struggle as a consequence of
the lack of declarative knowledge of fundamental principles and practices of target language
development. Notably absent in the knowledge stores of teachers in PCSD who are entrusted
with accurate evaluation of EBs at the secondary level are basic principles of language
development (McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993; Street, 1984, 1995; Valdés, 1999; and Zamel &
Spack, 2012). Even as an in-depth, engaged process of inquiry and reflection will be required to
provide teachers in PCSD with the continual development that will be required to meet the
unique needs of Latino PEBLs, through the CoI, embedded experts acting as resources can
initiate site-level language inquiry projects by secondary English teachers that can facilitate the
development of declarative knowledge of language development principles.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that the development of complex systems of
understanding are best addressed by educational systems, because these systems demonstrate the
greatest degree of utility in the complex development of “conceptual and analytical knowledge”
(p. 63). Other performance gaps can be addressed by more direct application of job aids within
the extended CoI, including online visualizations of processes, or representations of the realia of
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008); however, the rich context of the understanding of language
development requires a more cohesive recommendation that can be better satisfied through the
gradual identification, intervention, and developed practice of educators within the extended CoI.
Preparing teachers in PCSD to develop understanding of the principles of language
development will require education in the form of extensive, ongoing language inquiry projects
rooted in the Inquiry as Stance model at each school, including an embedded post-secondary
instructional resource experts acting as instructional guides for teachers in their development of
greater aptitude in evaluating Latino PEBLs via participation in the extended CoI. Cochran-
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 263
Smith and Lytle (2009) detailed the successes of building an extended CoI through technology,
and the contribution that higher education educational experts can provide PCSD’s secondary
English teachers as they work together in defining problems of practice and seeking solutions
will enrich the potential for these teachers to develop more effective and more culturally
responsive methods of evaluation.
As my research revealed, secondary English teachers in PCSD frequently held deficit
paradigms of Latino PEBLs, and Inquiry as Stance will provide teachers with the opportunity to
examine their own biases, which previously may have been invisible to them. Providing teachers
with evaluation training is insufficient in addressing the underlying influences that presently
inhibit those teachers from producing more equitable evaluations. Through Inquiry as Stance,
teachers can begin to situate their evaluation practices within a larger context of social
responsibility. Teachers who engage in rigorous inquiry can (with the guidance of an expert
resource) gain deeper insight into larger educational inequities that may have been perpetuated
by reliance on external accountability measures such as standardized test scores, or even grades.
While the conventional model of mentor teachers at secondary sites in PCSD usually describes
those teachers appointed to bureaucratic leadership positions by site-level administrators, the
Inquiry as Stance model embraces the possibility of local university faculty members acting as
resources for teachers at each of the secondary schools in PCSD. Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(2009) admit that there is limited research of the potentially vibrant contributions forged by these
types of mentors, yet by enriching connections with skilled researchers and theorists, secondary
level teachers can begin to develop robustly-informed reflective practices that will enable them
to develop dispositions that serve, rather than retard the development of Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 264
Inquiry as Stance provides teachers with greater autonomy in understanding the deeper,
underlying principles of internal accountability that have shaped each teacher’s dispositions.
Teachers begin to develop a deeper understanding of what Sernak (2008) explained as the “need
to question the answers, not answer the questions” (p. 120). By engaging in a community in
which inquiry of new dispositions rooted in Freire’s (1974) “critical consciousness” (p. 33)
become the norm, each CoI member’s developing knowledge of the principles of language
development will not exist in isolation. Instead, CoI members will recognize how those
principles can result in more equitable evaluations by each teacher, even as they begin to develop
deeper understanding of their own agency in the process of education. Teachers will begin to
develop understanding of language development and academic evaluations—not as tools in
satisfaction of the expectations of external accountability, but as engineers of more equitable
educational outcomes for all learners.
Culturally responsive methods of evaluation. PCSD Secondary English teachers do not
have specific knowledge of the diverse cultural factors that influence language development.
Echevarria and Short (2005), Merino (2007), and Nieto (1996) demonstrated that understanding
the unique cultural needs of EBs is of critical importance in effective education and evaluation
for this population of learners. In addressing performance gaps, Clark and Estes (2008)
determined that properly aligned with the needs of workers, job aids can encourage people to
apply their existing knowledge in new areas by decreasing their uncertainty of the vital
components necessary to the achievement of performance goals. Considerable improvements in
teacher practices can be realized at PCSD through a job aid in the form of a laminated menu that
contains principles of cultural factors and language development, as well as an interactive
asynchronous computer application in the extended CoI that secondary English teachers can refer
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 265
to consistently as they engage in CoI interactions and reflect upon their new practices.
In contrast to their diminished understanding of the principles of language development, I
discovered that teachers at PCSD commanded a high-degree of self-efficacy in working within
their existing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in developing effective forms of
collaboration in vaguely-detailed forms. Yet as I discovered, the teachers I observed and
interviewed had extremely limited knowledge of cultural influences on diverse forms of
evaluation, nor did they command a high-degree of self-efficacy in effective instructional
questioning and follow-up responses that align with the cultural needs of Latino PEBLs. A
laminated menu job aid, as well as an interactive flow chart provided in an asynchronous online
extended CoI that includes frequently used culturally responsive methods of communication can
make it possible for teachers to discern and begin to develop more culturally responsive
communication that ultimately will contribute to the improved evaluation of Latino PEBLs.
Accommodation in formative and summative assessment. PCSD Secondary English
teachers cannot demonstrate satisfactory declarative knowledge of principles of accommodation
in formative and summative assessments. Secondary English teachers at PCSD may have been
provided with education in understanding principles of accommodation in assessment as they
gained certification through teacher education programs at public and private colleges. Yet these
teachers are not aware of effective ways to apply those principles in evaluating EBs—especially
Latino PEBLs. Accommodations are essential in effective evaluation of EBs, as they can
engender greater measures of accuracy (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2001; Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter,
& Baker, 2000; Abedi, Lord, Kim-Boscardin, & Miyoshi, 2000; Ortiz, 2002). Providing teachers
with high-visibility flow chart posters of how principles of accommodation can be applied to
formative and summative assessment of PEBLs will provide teachers with the knowledge that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 266
will allow them to modify existing processes in a way that will assist them in creating and
administrating more effective evaluations in of PEBLs. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that
job aids provide people with the capability to improve practices by giving them critical
information that they can use to help themselves as they integrate adjustments to existing
practices. Secondary English teachers at PCSD can also benefit by extending the
accommodation job aid used in classrooms to the asynchronous extended online CoI in the form
of interactive applications of how to apply accommodations in the classroom.
The secondary English teachers in PCSD may not command initial procedural mastery of
the principles of accommodations in formative and summative assessments. Yet by providing
teachers with these job aids, teachers can begin to integrate principles of accommodation into
more effective, more equitable evaluation practices, ultimately solidifying in teachers a more
precise understanding of their EBs’ levels of knowledge and language development.
Common phrases in students’ home languages. PCSD Secondary English teachers
cannot demonstrate satisfactory declarative knowledge of common phrases in the languages of
the students in their classrooms. In the same way that job aids can provide teachers at PCSD with
an increased awareness of the principles of accommodation, teachers can begin to develop
deeper understanding of the cultural dimensions of language development through the placement
of high-visibility posters that contain common phrases, statements, and questions in the various
languages of their students. In addition, teachers can continue to develop their familiarity with
the languages of the students through interactive applications provided on the asynchronous CoI.
This will considerably assist teachers in understanding the challenges of learning a target
language, as they negotiate meaning alongside their students. Moreover, it will increase the
ability of all participants in the learning community to discern a heightened sense of the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 267
development of language. The increased linguistic awareness will serve to assist teachers as they
evaluate Latino PEBLs, especially if the teacher’s development of declarative knowledge is
within the larger scope of Inquiry as Stance.
The development of fluency in an additional language by secondary teachers in PCSD
may not be practical, or even possible. Yet the provision of job aids in the form of high-visibility
posters and interactive applications on an asynchronous CoI with frequently used greetings and
phrases in the languages of students (coupled with adjacent English translations of each phrase)
would make it possible for teachers to engage in more connected communication with students,
adding deeper degrees of understanding of student needs. This would increase teacher
capabilities in meeting the needs of EBs. Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, and Shields (2009) confided
that when teachers had the capability to engage in more robust communication facilitated by
multiple languages, they became more effective in meeting the language development needs of
EBs. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that job aids served as a vital support for people who have
task demands that simply need conscious adjustment, and which do not require significant
modeling or training. At present, secondary teachers in PCSD do not command the ability to use
common phrases in the languages of the students in their classroom, and this may be depriving
teachers of a critical tool in demonstrating an understanding of the existing cultures of EBs,
including Latino PEBLs.
Principles of motivation. PCSD Secondary English teachers cannot demonstrate a
declarative knowledge of the fundamental principles of motivation in additive language
development. Through providing them with job aids in the form of laminated posters that contain
principles of motivation coupled with motivational sentence frame statements, secondary English
teachers at PCSD can begin to integrate critical information about the influence of motivation on
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 268
target language development. One of the strongest contributors to target language development
is learner motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). By placing high-visibility posters in
classrooms, and by establishing online interactive applications within the extended CoI that
consider motivation and learning, teachers at PCSD can very rapidly develop declarative
knowledge of motivational principles in a way that is integrated with their instructional and
evaluative practices. Clark and Estes (2008) maintained that job aids can be very effective in
shaping mental models of sequences of action that will facilitate application of existing
knowledge in new contexts, and by providing secondary English teachers with a job aid that
includes motivational principles and sentence frames statements, teachers can begin to apply
their developing knowledge of learner motivation, resulting in more authentic, more purposeful
evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Knowledge of ELD standards. PCSD Secondary English teachers cannot demonstrate
satisfactory declarative knowledge of English Language Development Standards as established
by the State of California. In the same way that job aids can assist teachers in developing
improved knowledge of motivational principles for language development, secondary English
teachers can be initiated to the existing ELD standards, increasing the impact of future
professional learning opportunities delivered through the site-level and extended CoIs. Through
this sequential approach in providing teachers with graduated understanding of the ELD
standards, secondary English teachers can gain deeper insight into the interrelated nature of those
standards. A high-visibility matrix-chart summarizing ELD standards in a miniature form can be
placed in every English teacher’s room on campus, and on the asynchronous CoI.
Improved teacher knowledge of standards has been demonstrated to improve instruction
(Marzano, 2001), and as Dye (2000); Guri-Rosenblit (1989); Kauffman & Kiewra (2010)
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 269
demonstrated, graphic organizers can provide considerably more robust academic support than
linear lists of items. Clark et al. (2008) established that providing people with improved access
to forms of declarative knowledge significantly improved their ability to apply knowledge
procedurally. Through consistent reference and reflection of implementation of standards both
in the site-level CoI and the extended CoI, teachers will begin to reinforce and solidify their
initial familiarity of the ELD standards.
Knowledge of levels of language development. PCSD Secondary English teachers cannot
demonstrate command of the three levels of language development (Emerging,
Expanding, and Bridging—each of which has an early and exit stage) established by the State of
California in its English Language Development Standards. On the biannual benchmarks that
PCSD uses to evaluate EBs, secondary English teachers are asked to evaluate EBs based on the
three levels of language development; however, PCSD secondary English teacher’s lack of
awareness of these levels complicated accurate evaluation of the language development and
academic performance of EBs, including Latino PEBLS.
Declarative knowledge of the levels of language development is the precursor to making
evaluation decisions based on those levels; yet de Jong and Harper (2005) revealed that teachers
do not have knowledge of the diverse language needs of different levels of EBs. Clark et al.
(2008) established that abstractions can be more clearly understood and applied procedurally
when schema-based representations were provided, and Rueda (2011) reinforced that factual
knowledge is the precursor to the accurate application of that knowledge. By introducing a job
aid in the form of an interactive application provided on an asynchronous CoI as well as a high-
visibility matrix-charts of the California ELD language levels in their classrooms, secondary
English teachers can consistently refer to the levels of language development and begin to
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 270
assemble discernment of the different levels that will then allow for more accurate evaluation of
the language development of all EBs.
Evaluation criteria. PCSD Secondary English teachers cannot demonstrate satisfactory
declarative knowledge of the evaluation criteria present in the ELD Standards utilized in the
biannual benchmarking instrument. PCSD has chosen to meet the teacher evaluation criterion
for RFEP as established by California Education Code § 313 through teacher completion of a
biannual benchmark evaluation of the language development of EBs. The benchmark requires
that secondary English teachers determine the language development of these learners in three
modes of language: (a) Collaborative, (b) Interpretive, and (c) Productive; as well as two
dimensions of knowledge: (a) Meta-linguistic awareness, and (b) Accuracy of production.
Teachers use the three levels of language development (Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging—
each with early and exit stage) to evaluate their population of EBs. My observations revealed
that secondary English teachers in PCSD do not understand the evaluation criteria that are used
to evaluate the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
The criteria that the State of California has established for the evaluation of the state’s
population of EBs is considerably detailed. While secondary English teachers may understand
principles of pronunciation, grammar, and writing conventions, these teacher’s appreciation of
metalinguistic awareness and discourse settings were not aligned with teacher capabilities during
my observations. Lacking declarative knowledge of the fundamental principles and terminology
present in the biannual evaluation, secondary English teachers in PCSD produced inaccurate
evaluations of EBs. Understanding the criteria remains fundamentally vital in focusing teachers
in more effective, more accurate evaluations of this population of learners. Hill, Weston, and
Hayes (2014) found that many teachers and even school districts in California considered
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 271
“student attendance, behavior, participation, and discipline” (p. 27) as critical elements in RFEP,
even though the State of California has established specific language development criteria and
content area standards that should be used in the evaluation of EBs for RFEP. Based on my
research, teachers at PCSD more frequently applied their analysis of the attendance, behavior,
and participation of EBs in evaluating students for RFEP, reflecting a complete lack of
understanding of the principles presented by the benchmark evaluation. Although some
secondary English teachers in PCSD may be vaguely aware of the objective criteria evaluated for
biannual benchmarks, they did not command declarative knowledge of these critical factors in
the RFEP process.
Harless (1970) established that job aids are a cost-effective method to performance
problems when people do not have access to critical information that could assist them. Even as
secondary English teachers engage in site-level and extended CoIs via the online asynchronous
learning system, they will need access to the criteria for the evaluation of RFEP. By providing
secondary English teachers with online interactive job aids and by placing high-visibility posters
in classrooms that detail the RFEP process, PCSD will assist these teachers as they begin to work
within their CoIs in developing more effective evaluation processes for their Latino PEBLs.
The RFEP process. PCSD Secondary English teachers cannot demonstrate satisfactory
declarative knowledge of the process that leads to RFEP of EBs. As established by California
Education Code § 313, evaluation of a learner’s English fluency requires that a district utilize: (a)
assessment or language proficiency using an objective assessment
20
, (b) teacher evaluation
including but not limited to content area mastery, (c) parental consultation, (d) evaluation of

20
At the time of publication of the present study, the State of California utilizes the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) in satisfaction of Education Code § 313. On July 1, 2018, LEA in the State of
California will begin to use the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 272
basic skills on California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress CAASPP. PCSD
added that EBs must pass all classes with grades of C or higher in order to qualify for RFEP,
coupling this expectation under the review of the student’s curriculum mastery. In order to be
reclassified as fluent in English, EBs in PCSD must meet benchmark expectations in each of
these areas.
Mencken and Atunez (2001) found that teachers of EBs do not have declarative
command of the process of language development, nor do they understand the unique
instructional and evaluation needs of students at different levels of language development.
Providing secondary English teachers with a job aid in the form of an interactive applications
provided on the site-level and extended CoIs, in addition to a high-visibility matrix-charts of the
RFEP process in all English classrooms will provide teachers with the clearer understanding of
the very clear, sequenced (if not always faithfully applied) process of RFEP. Clark et al. (2008)
determined that when people have existing knowledge that is not being applied to new functions,
a job aid can be sufficient support to help them achieve organizational goals. In addition, Rossett
and Schaefer (2012) explained that job aids can expedite the convergence of learning,
information, and new expectations for work. Helping secondary English teachers understand the
process leading to RFEP will make it possible for them to provide Latino PEBLs with more
accurate evaluations of their levels of language development and content area understanding.
Procedural knowledge. The procedural knowledge commanded by secondary English
teachers can best be developed through education within site-level and extended CoIs that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 273
include a post-secondary instructional resource expert
21
who works in a supportive, rather than
supervisory manner with teachers as they begin to apply Inquiry as Stance in their evaluation
practices of Latino PEBLs (See Table 11).
Table 11
Summary of Procedural Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

21
Scherer (1999) related the value of the interaction between and among new teachers and college professors, and
Hanson and Moir (2008) demonstrated the considerable value that mentoring relationships can provide
experienced teachers; however, to my knowledge, the embedded post-secondary educator acting as an
instructional resource within a CoI that specifically focuses on the development of Inquiry as Stance in the
secondary environment has not been demonstrated.
Procedural Knowledge Influence: Context-Specific Recommendation:
The majority of PCSD Secondary English teachers
cannot demonstrate satisfactory procedural
knowledge in…
Provide education in the form of an intensive dual-
channel CoI facilitated by post-secondary instructional
resource experts in the direct, computer-mediated, and
cooperative learning of…

Speaking more than one language.

How to increase capability in speaking in the target
language(s) of their predominant populations of
students.

Employing asset-based paradigms in their evaluations
of EBs.
How to manifest asset-based paradigms in language arts
classrooms, and the consequences of these
manifestations.

Creating and administrating effective formative and
summative assessments to evaluate EBs in language
development or content area achievement.

How to establish and develop language development
inquiry projects at each site that address the application
of effective formative and summative assessments of
language development and content area knowledge of
EBs.

Aligning formative evaluations of student
performance with content and language development
standards.

How to facilitate improvement of student performance
through alignment of content and language development
standards with formative evaluations of student
performance.

Applying accommodations in evaluation.

How to establish and apply accommodation to
accurately evaluate content achievement and language
development of students.

Recognizing and subsequently shifting evaluation
practices based on learner’s existing diverse cultural
factors that influence language development.
How to employ effective culturally conscious evaluation
practices for teachers, as teachers consistently engage in
a situated process of Inquiry as Stance.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 274
Significantly, expert instructional resources who can describe application of instructional
practices may provide teachers with exceptional ideas for mimicry; however, as Bandura (1997)
reflected, the learner does not merely learn from the modelled target behavior by an expert;
rather, the learner makes discoveries by recognition of a range of abilities that are then
personalized and applied individually. Specifically, Gorrell and Capron (1990) discovered that
through modelling of specific cognitive processes, the ability for teachers to provide effective
literacy instruction was significantly improved. Developing Inquiry as Stance through the site-
level and extended CoIs will facilitate the development of principled inquiry by teachers.
Moreover, as teachers engage in the production of new dimensions of understanding guided by
experts who act as instructional resources, the improved personalization of procedural skills will
provide teachers with the capability to integrate more lasting application of target behavior, such
as improved benchmark evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Within the developed practices of teachers through Inquiry as Stance (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2009), secondary English teachers at PCSD can effectively apply discoveries facilitated by
post-secondary instructional resource experts who can guide teachers in developing an
understanding of value of more effective evaluations of EBs. Creer and Miklich, (1970) as well
as Schunk and Hanson (1985) demonstrated that learners can develop self-efficacy given ideal
circumstances that allow engagement in a process of self-evaluation, and by changing
subsequent behaviors based on reflection. Through a rich system of education (See Table 9),
PCSD can gradually facilitate the development of the skills of secondary teachers in meeting
their procedural knowledge needs for more effective evaluation of Latino PEBLs.
Developing teacher’s language skills. The overwhelming majority of PCSD Secondary
English teachers do not command knowledge of more than one language. Maxwell-Jolly,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 275
Gándara, and Shields (2009) detailed that bilingual or multilingual teachers of EBs are more
likely to build rapport with students. Gaining fluency in a target language is a complex process,
and Clark and Estes (2008) determined that rich, conceptual job functions require education.
While it is unlikely that teachers will gain fluency in a language in a short period of time, it is
very likely that their pursuit of a new language will engender deeper understanding of the
process that their students are experiencing, and lend authenticity to teacher’s evaluations.
Flores (2001) concluded that bilingual teachers command a more congruent disposition that
facilitates the development of language through their own experiences in learning a language.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD may take years to develop fluency in a target language.
Yet as they begin to gain direct insight into the process of language development, their abilities
to meet the needs of EBs will be significantly improved. Providing secondary English teachers
with education in the form of an intensive site-level as well as an extended online CoI that
includes interactive resources for teachers with L2 education in the target language(s) of their
predominant populations of students will considerably increase teacher credibility in evaluations
of their populations of EBs, and establish an enhanced understanding of the importance of
accommodation in language evaluations, as well as content area academic performance
evaluations.
Application of asset-based paradigms. Secondary English teachers in PCSD do not apply
asset-based paradigms in their evaluations of EBs. Aganza et al. (2015) discovered that the
application of asset-based paradigms in assessment considerably increased accuracy in
evaluations of Latino EBs. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that highly demanding cognitive
processes are best served by education programs. López (2017) demonstrated that teachers who
hold asset-based paradigms engendered improved expectancies of Latino EBs, resulting in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 276
reading achievement gains and improved identity development among these students. Secondary
English teachers in PCSD can begin to apply their declarative knowledge of asset-based
paradigms by participating in intensive site-level and extended online CoIs that include
interactive resources for teachers targeted on the manifestation of asset-based paradigms in
evaluations of EBs.
Establishing effective forms of summative evaluation. PCSD Secondary English teachers
do not use summative assessments accurately in their evaluations of the language development
or content area achievement of Latino PEBLs. Largely, teacher application of principles of
effective assessment in both language development and content area knowledge is ineffective,
restricting student development (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2001; Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, &
Baker, 2000; Abedi, Lord, Kim-Boscardin, & Miyoshi, 2000; Ortiz, 2002). Credible behaviors
that are aligned with the attributes of learners and that have strong applicability to existing needs
of learners are more likely to be integrated into practice (Denler et al., 2009). Conclusively,
Clark et al. (2008) asserted that education in the form of the modeling of procedural knowledge
by peers facilitated higher performance through improved knowledge transfer. PCSD can assist
teachers in developing more effective forms of evaluation by providing them with education in
the form of site-level and extended online CoIs that focus on language inquiry projects at each
site for English teachers who are engaged in Inquiry as Stance. This will enhance teacher’s
capacity in employing effective summative assessments of the language development and
content area knowledge of EBs. Moreover, embedding post-secondary instructional resource
experts within the dual-channel CoI will make it possible for these mentors to facilitate research
by secondary English teachers, as well as provide these teachers with effective methods of
inquiry that will develop their respective capabilities in creating and administering effective
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 277
summative evaluations of EBs.
Alignment of formative evaluations with standards. PCSD Secondary English teachers
do not know how to align evaluation of student performance with content and language
development expectations in each of the required criteria of language development required by
the State of California to satisfy RFEP. Hakuta (2014) determined that formative assessments
aligned with standards created and administered by teachers enhanced language development,
and Bailey and Heritage (2008) as well as Heritage (2013) articulated that formative assessments
that are aligned with differentiated expectations can significantly improve language development
instruction. While providing secondary English teachers in PCSD with the declarative
knowledge of the importance of aligning their formative assessments with instructional standards
is a critical first step, it is in the effective application of this knowledge that PCSD’s population
of secondary English teachers can improve the language development trajectories of their EBs.
Indeed, Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, and Shields (2009) determined that even when teachers of EBs
had declarative knowledge, they lacked the capability to integrate their knowledge into practice.
Modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted if the model is credible, is similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate), and has functional value (Denler et al., 2009), and Schraw, Veldt, and
Olafson (2009) determined that scaffolding can produce cohesive schemata that assists learners
in assembling effective contexts of declarative knowledge. Moreover, Tuckman (2009) found
that effective environmental factors can encourage target behaviors. Finally, Clark and Estes
(2008) detailed that when job-related problems contain unexpected elements, the most effective
solution is a rigorous, applicable system of education. To develop secondary English teacher’s
ability to create, administer, and evaluate formative evaluations that are aligned with content and
language development standards, PCSD can provide secondary English teachers with education
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 278
in the form of an intensive site-level and extended CoI including post-secondary instructional
resource experts with whom they can model effective formative practices of EBs. Nested within
Inquiry as Stance, this specific form of education will provide secondary English teachers with
the necessary practical feedback and goal-setting capability to engender new, effective
evaluation processes.
Application of accommodations in evaluation. Secondary English teachers in PCSD
cannot apply effective differentiation and accommodation practices in formative and summative
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Abedi, Heckman, and Herman (2010) demonstrated the value in
accommodations for EBs in content area classes, and Wolf, et al. (2008) determined that
accommodations can add greater accuracy in evaluations of EBs. Providing secondary English
teachers with declarative knowledge of accommodation acts as a first step in producing
procedural knowledge of the application of accommodations in classrooms. Denler et al. (2009)
determined that new behaviors are developed most effectively through modeling and
demonstration of the target behavior. Clark and Estes (2008) determined that education makes it
possible to apply principles effectively in the vital processes necessary to an organization. The
ability to modify evaluations of the language development and content area achievement of EBs
based on the unique needs of each learner requires a considerable procedural ability on the part
of the teacher. By engaging teachers in the extended CoI, in which they can apply their
developing understanding through Inquiry as Stance, secondary English teachers at PCSD can
begin to integrate important principles of language development and assessment
accommodations into their respective practices.
Application of culturally relevant evaluations. The majority of PCSD Secondary English
teachers cannot demonstrate satisfactory procedural knowledge in recognizing and subsequently
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 279
shifting practices based on the existing diverse cultural factors that influence the language
development of EBs. A shift from controlled, competitive evaluations to informal, non-
competitive evaluations has been demonstrated as more effective in meeting the needs of diverse
learners including EBs (Deci, et al., 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995),
while Gay (2010, 2013) asserted that culturally aligned assessments led to considerable
improvements in teacher instruction. Cultural awareness is an important facet in the instruction
of EBs by secondary English teachers in PCSD. Applying this awareness requires the
development of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge. Denler et al. (2009) were
able to demonstrate that new practices can be facilitated most effectively by modeling and clear
demonstration of the desired behavior, and Clark and Estes (2008) determined that a rigorous,
aligned system of education can help learners develop deep understanding of principles as well
as assist them in applying those principles effectively into practice. Site-level and extended CoIs
represent effective methods to engage secondary English teachers in a situated process of Inquiry
as Stance that will enrich the capacity of teachers in PCSD to meet the needs of EBs, and (albeit,
eventually instead of immediately) make it possible for the organization to close its existing
performance gap for Latino PEBLs.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. For teachers at PCSD who lack declarative
knowledge of critical elements of language development and evaluation of EBs, applying
metacognitive expectations is unlikely to improve practices, as a consequence of the teachers’
lack of a verdant context in which they could accurately and purposefully evaluate the
effectiveness of their actions. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) reductively
described that “metacognitive training aids academic learning” (p. 1219), and while Bandura
(1997) recognized that it was not necessarily the act of metacognition itself but rather the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 280
purposeful application of metacognition that steered the person into deeper understanding, he
revealed perhaps a greater purpose of metacognition in that it positively altered “people’s beliefs
concerning their agentive power for self-change rather than from skill commonalities, cognitive
structuring of similarities, temporal co-development or strategy transfer” (p. 53). Within the
dual-channel CoI, post-secondary instructional resource experts can lead secondary English
teachers to understanding their effective application of metacognition explicitly, as well as
systematically through establishing practices of reflection and goal setting in order to facilitate
the development of target behaviors (See Table 12).
Table 12
Summary of Metacognitive Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Motivation recommendations. Motivation plays a critical role in the development of
knowledge (Midgely, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 2004; and Wentzl, 1996). Yet
even as researchers have demonstrated the contribution of teacher professional development to
improved practices and student achievement (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore
& Burney, 1997; Little, 1993; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007), and even though
specific professional development aimed to address the literacy needs of marginalized
populations has proven to facilitate language development (Fisher, Frey, & Nelson, 2012; Lara-
Alecio, Tong, Irby, & Mathes, 2009; Lee & Buxton, 2013; Tong, Luo, Irby, Lara-Alecio, &
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence: Context-Specific Recommendation:
The majority of PCSD Secondary English teachers
cannot engage in satisfactory metacognition…
Provide education in the form of an intensive extended
CoI including post-secondary instructional resource
experts who facilitate direct, computer-mediated, and
cooperative learning of…

Of their relative degree of conceptual and procedural
knowledge in multiple critical areas of the evaluation
of EBs, making it difficult for teachers to evaluate
their relative degree of effectiveness or lack of
effectiveness in operational capabilities regarding
evaluation and recommendation of Latino PEBLs.
Metacognitive methods for teachers, as they engage
with fellow teachers in a CoI in which they are
consistently and purposefully reflecting on their
operational capabilities in meeting the needs of Latino
PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 281
Rivera, 2015), rarely do professional development programs for teachers consider the
motivational factors involved in learning (Scheib & Karabenick, 2011; Tittle, 2006).
Motivational factors have been identified as essential to comprehensive professional
development (Boyd, Banilower, Pasley, & Weiss, 2003); however, teacher professional
development programs most frequently are devoted to the development of procedural
knowledge. Motivation is essential in contributing to the development of improved practices, to
the extent that Clark and Estes (2008) detailed that “many of the gaps between current
performance and the levels required to achieve business goals are caused by the lack of
motivation, not a lack of knowledge and skills (p. 100). In my research, and through the course
of twenty years of experience in the district, PCSD never included motivational improvement in
its professional development, focusing instead on the traditional mix of declarative and
procedural knowledge while trusting that practitioners would all share high degrees of
motivation to apply those discoveries in their own practices.
Motivation solutions. Secondary English teachers at PCSD who are tasked by the State
of California to provide accurate evaluations of Latino PEBLs demonstrated diminished
motivation owing to a lack of self-efficacy in critical work processes, as well as a significant lack
of moderation of affective stimulus that did not promote the perception of attainment value in
taking on new, more effective practices directed to the language development and academic
performance needs of Latino PEBLs. Solving these problems requires the acknowledgement that
motivation and knowledge do not operate independently of one another; instead, they
dynamically interact together. Bandura (1993) held that the development of motivation (with
close attention to self-efficacy and value) was a critical contributor to “cognitive functioning” (p.
118), and was critical in the development of persistence, particularly as people began to improve
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 282
their capacity in applying their “self-diagnostic function” (Bandura, 1991, p. 250). The
development of motivation by secondary English teacher in PCSD to learn new perspectives and
practices represents a critical facet of an admittedly multi-faceted solution. Effectively
integrating motivation development into the practices of secondary English teachers can initiate
positive cycles of motivation and learning that will enable these teachers to improve their
practices in meeting the needs of Latino PEBLs (See Table 13).
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivational Influence: Context-Specific Recommendation:
The majority of PCSD Secondary English
teachers do not command…
Provide education in the form of an intensive extended CoI
including post-secondary instructional resource experts who
facilitate direct, computer-mediated, and cooperative learning
including…
Self-efficacy in creating accurate formative
and summative evaluation that would enable
them to understand the level of language
development of Latino PEBLs.

Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in creating effective
formative and summative language development evaluations as
teachers engage in developing Cochrane-Smith and Lytle’s
(2009) Inquiry as Stance.

Self-efficacy in effectively administering
differentiated formative and summative
language development evaluations of their
populations of EBs.

Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in administering
effective formative and summative language development
evaluations as teachers engage in developing Cochrane-Smith
and Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as Stance.
Self-efficacy in evaluating the results of
language development evaluations of their
populations of EBs.
Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in evaluating results of
formative and summative language development evaluations as
teachers engage in developing Cochrane-Smith and Lytle’s
(2009) Inquiry as Stance.

Self-efficacy in productive forms of
metacognitive thinking that would improve
the development of new practices.
Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in applying
metacognition to evaluating capabilities in applying new
practices as teachers engage in developing Cochrane-Smith and
Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as Stance.

Effective moderation of affective reactions to
stimulus, resulting in diminished self-
efficacy in developing new practices.

Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in applying
moderation to their developing self-efficacy in applying new
practices as teachers engage in developing Cochrane-Smith and
Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as Stance.

Perception of attainment value in their
development of new practices to meet the
specific evaluation needs of Latino PEBLs.
Opportunities for guided enactive mastery in recognizing
attainment value of their new practices as teachers engage in
developing Cochrane-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as
Stance.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 283
Developing self-efficacy in creating effective evaluations of language development.
Secondary English Teachers at PCSD do not command self-efficacy in creating accurate
formative and summative evaluation that would enable them to understand the level of language
development of Latino PEBLs. In my research, I observed teachers who were not motivated to
rigorously evaluate these learners via the benchmark evaluation. For example, the teachers did
not have the evidence from their classroom assessments to productively and accurately evaluate
the language development of the Latino PEBLs in their classrooms. Bandura elucidated that
“difficulties provide opportunities to learn how to turn failure into success by honing one's
capabilities to exercises better control over events” (1997, p. 80), and within the site-level and
extended online CoIs, embedded post-secondary instructional resource experts can provide
secondary English teachers in PCSD opportunities for “guided enactive mastery” (1997, p. 80).
Of critical importance, through this process the learner does more than learn content; she (or he)
develops increased self-efficacy that will promote perseverance when encountering obstacles.
Cochrane-Smith and Lytle (1993) determined that teachers who engage in a culture of Inquiry of
Stance become “increasingly conscious of their own efficacy as individual teachers” (p. 80).
While it is certain that PCSD must develop the self-efficacy of secondary English teachers in
accurately evaluating the language development of Latino PEBLs, as well as all EBs, without
explicit modeling of effective practices determined by Pajeres (2006) to be critical in developing
self-efficacy, teachers may demonstrate a self-efficacy in performing practices that are
ineffective. PCSD can provide secondary level English teachers with opportunities for guided
enactive mastery in a CoI, within which teachers engage in Cochrane-Smith and Lytle’s (2009)
Inquiry as Stance, gradually but surely increasing the capacity of teachers to command higher
levels of self-efficacy in their formative and summative evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 284
Effective administration of differentiated evaluations. Secondary English teachers in
PCSD do not have self-efficacy in effectively administering language development evaluations
of their populations of Latino PEBLs. In fact, very few teachers I observed and interviewed even
considered administering differentiated formative and summative assessments that focused on
the language development of Latino PEBLs. Utilizing post-secondary instructional resource
experts to help teachers develop effective models of the administration of formative and
summative assessments in evaluating Latino PEBLs will improve self-efficacy among secondary
English teachers in PCSD. It will do this by establishing a culture of inquiry in which Inquiry as
Stance consistently undergirds each teacher’s beliefs of their capabilities for, in, and of their
respective professional practices. Bandura (1997) asserted that learners are able to maximize the
development of new ideas and practices through “referential comparisons with others” (p. 87).
For teachers to develop the complex knowledge necessary to administrate effective formative
and summative assessments for the language development of Latino PEBLs, it will be necessary
for these teachers to observe social equals to develop greater confidence. Secondary English
teachers in PCSD can learn to administrate congruent differentiated evaluations of Latino PEBLs
in their classrooms by observing effective practices via modeling of those practices by fellow
teachers. Moreover, the concretized practice of the development of self-efficacy in the
application of formative and summative assessments can be encouraged by having teachers work
alongside peers in the site-level and extended online CoIs.
Effectively evaluating results from evaluations. Secondary English teachers in PCSD do
not have self-efficacy in evaluating the results of language development evaluations of their
populations of EBs. Based on the findings gained during my comprehensive inquiry, only a very
small minority of secondary English teachers had a command in understanding the components
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 285
of the benchmark evaluation (language proficiency descriptors, modes of communication, and
the knowledge of language) used by PCSD to evaluate the language development of EBs. While
introducing teachers to the terminology and developing the declarative knowledge of teachers is
certainly important, it is in each teacher’s ability to engage in accurate decision-making using the
terminology that will provide greater fidelity in evaluations of the language development of all
EBs, including Latino PEBLs. Bandura (1987) described that the perception of success by social
equals strongly improves an individual’s perception of her or his abilities, and by establishing
site-level and extended online CoIs within which post-secondary instructional resource experts
can help teachers develop models for the effective application of evaluation terminology,
secondary English teachers in PCSD can develop greater capabilities in accurately evaluating the
language development of Latino PEBLs.
Self-efficacy in metacognition of effective practices. Secondary English teachers in
PCSD do not command self-efficacy in productive forms of metacognitive thinking that would
improve the development of new practices. Drawn from my extensive inquiry, the lack of
declarative and procedural knowledge of critical language development evaluation processes
rendered secondary English teacher’s application of metacognition infructuous. Without self-
efficacy in practicing effective methods of metacognition, teachers are not able to meet the
continuing dynamic changes that will be presented to them as they begin to develop and apply
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Effective application of metacognition, or “the ability to know
how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is
likely to be in error” (Kruger & Dunning, 1999, p. 1121) has been established to be strongly
correlated with the higher degrees of self-efficacy (Cera, Mancini, & Antonietti, 2013).
Specifically, Gorrell and Capron (1990) found that modelling of cognitive practices in specific
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 286
literacy instruction resulted in improved self-efficacy in teachers, and by having post-secondary
instructional resource experts assisting teachers in their ability to establish more productive
models for their cognitive journeys as they evaluate Latino PEBLs, and by also having teachers
engage in discussion of those cognitive journeys via the online extended CoI, secondary English
teachers in PCSD will be better able to develop effective methods of metacognition that will in
turn promote higher degrees of self-efficacy in their evaluation and assessment of Latino PEBLs.
Schellenberg, Negishi, and Eggen (2011) and Schraw (1998) demonstrated that guided
practice can significantly improve metacognitive proficiency, and Stewart, Cooper, and
Moulding (2007) showed that teachers develop improved metacognitive practices through
experience. The development of improved evaluation practices by secondary English teachers in
PCSD will benefit from a targeted motivation intervention that focuses on the development of
self-efficacy through guided mastery modeling of ongoing classroom evaluation methods
produced by teachers facilitated by post-secondary instructional resource experts. In addition,
the guided practice will enhance more effective and enabling peer interaction within a culture of
inquiry in which teachers are adhering to the paradigm established by Cochrane-Smith and
Lytle’s (2009) Inquiry as Stance.
Productive moderation of affective states to stimulus. Secondary English teachers at
PCSD do not engage in moderation of affective reactions to stimulus, resulting in diminished
self-efficacy in developing new practices. De Corte, Greer, and Verschaffel (1996) as well as
Hargreaves (1998) indicated that affective processes contributed strongly to teacher’s practices.
Teachers who develop enabling responses to stimulus are more capable at increasing self-
efficacy as they engage in improving existing practices, and through their participation in site-
level CoI, during which time post-secondary instructional resource experts can help teachers
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 287
develop models for productive moderations of affective reactions to stimulus, these teachers can
begin to apply moderation that will expedite the development of new, more informed practices.
Similarly, teachers will improve their motivation as they reflect and engage with each other in
the extended CoI about their own developments in how they moderate affective responses to the
often-complicated stimuli that emerge in classroom settings.
Compeau, Higgins, and Huff (1999) maintained that affective factors considerably
influenced teacher’s self-efficacy, and by post-secondary instructional resource experts
encouraging teachers to develop model examples of how they can favorably contextualize the
various affective responses through positive moderation, secondary English teachers can develop
improved self-efficacy. The classroom environment is rife with diverse stimuli, and in order for
teachers to begin to develop self-efficacy in applying newer, more effective practices within this
complex context, teachers will need to develop the capability to moderate affective reactions.
Bandura and Jourden (1991) maintained that regulation of affective reactions was critical in the
development of performance goal realization, and situating the capability for moderating
affective stimulus within a culture of inquiry will contribute to the gradual yet certain
development of more effective evaluation practices by secondary English teachers in PCSD of
the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Attainment value. Secondary English teachers at PCSD do not perceive attainment value
in their development of new practices to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs. This inability to
perceive attainment value in their development of new practices to meet the needs of Latino
PEBLs represents a considerable roadblock in realizing organizational goals for PCSD’s
population of EBs. As Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) explained, dispositions that increase
interest and confidence to set goals significantly influence motivation. Providing secondary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 288
English teachers with the opportunity to engage with peers as they collectively discover value in
their improved evaluation and assessment practices of EBs represents a critical contribution to
improving the directed motivation of secondary English teachers at PCSD. Having these
teachers also engage in the extended online CoI about their gradual attainment of skills as they
develop their Inquiry as Stance within a culture of inquiry will ultimately contribute to improved
evaluation practices for Latino PEBLs.
Seeking to explain the multiple intrinsic factors while also integrating extrinsic ones,
Wigfield and Eccles (1992) elaborated on the modern expectancy-value theoretical model,
because it encompassed the motivation of the individual based on “achievement performance,
persistence, and choice most directly to individuals’ expectancy-related and task-value beliefs”
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 118). The affective states of teachers as they interact with EBs
command significant influence on the perception of value by teachers in motivating their
development and application of improved evaluation practices for EBs. By facilitating favorable
moderation of affective responses to stimulus through collaborating within the site-level and
extended online CoIs, PCSD can precipitate an upward spiral of motivation and the development
of learning among secondary English teachers, improving collective capability in meeting
organizational goals for the performance of EBs, with special attention to Latino PEBLs.
Organizational recommendations. Although a wide range of organizational influences
shape the educational outcomes of Latino PEBLs, from the perspective of the teacher stakeholder
group in PCSD, misalignment of organizational goals, misarticulated policies, inconsistent work
processes, misapplied material resources, and a culture that silently reproduces discriminatory
practices significantly hamper effective reclassification processes performed by secondary
English teachers. Taken individually as well as collectively, these negative influences ultimately
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 289
contribute to diminished educational outcomes for Latino PEBLs. While PCSD has ample
resources to support teachers in developing improved practices in their evaluations of Latino
PEBLs, those resources have not been aligned with the needs of secondary English teachers who
must engage in the production of more precise differentiated formative and summative
assessments of the language development and academic performance of these learners.
Organizational solutions. Although external forms of accountability in the form of
performance goals certainly represent important organizational influences that can shift the
practices of secondary English teachers in PCSD, my inquiry led me to understand that any
external forms of accountability that had already been placed upon teachers had not produced
effective evaluation practices. PCSD established performance goals for its population of EBs, as
well as its population of PEBLs in its LCAP; however, as teachers lacked the knowledge and
motivation to maximize the organizational influence that the goals represented, any external
expectations on secondary English teachers—at least in reference to PCSD’s treatment of Latino
PEBLs—did not align with teacher capacity for creating, administering, and evaluating effective
formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic performance of
Latino PEBLs.
A comprehensive solution to PCSD’s performance problem requires that secondary
English teachers develop considerably enriched knowledge and motivation to meet
organizational expectations. To remedy PCSD’s existing organizational influences that
contribute to the organization’s performance problem of accurate secondary English teacher
evaluations of Latino PEBLs, I have focused on solutions that address the development of new
dispositions in teachers that will eventually increase their respective capacities to meet
organizational goals. I have identified five specific solutions to improve the policies and
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 290
practices of teachers. Additionally, I have identified one solution that addresses a culture of
inequity that has silently been reproduced by teachers in PCSD through their evaluations of
Latino PEBLs. Finally, I have identified one solution that addresses the misallocation of teacher
resources by leaders in PCSD (See Table 14).
Table 14
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations:

Organizational Influence: Context-Specific Recommendation:
Secondary English teachers in PCSD… District leadership will coordinate with site-level administrators in:
Do not share consistent practices of
evaluation and benchmarking
procedures of Latino PEBLs.

Establishing concrete evaluation procedures of all EBs, with special
attention to the evaluation of Latino PEBLs.

Do not share consistently effective
practices in their evaluations of the
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
Evaluating the effectiveness of site-level and extended online CoIs,
ensuring that teachers develop and apply accurate evaluations of the
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.

Do not share consistently effective
practices in their evaluation of the
language development of Latino PEBLs.
Evaluating the effectiveness of site-level and extended online CoIs,
ensuring that teachers develop and apply accurate evaluations of the
language development of Latino PEBLs through modification of
assessments.

Do not receive formal evaluations of
their ability to complete accurate
evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Evaluating teachers’ effectiveness in their assessment of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs as part of
the semi-annual teacher evaluation.

Do not consistently engage in
collaborative and reflective teaching
practices, critical contributors in the
development of best practices of
teachers of Latino PEBLs.

Evaluating the collaborative and reflective capabilities of teachers as
part of the semi-annual teacher evaluation.

Do not evaluate the academic
performance and language development
of Latino PEBLs without applying
racially prejudice.

Evaluating the effectiveness of teachers to recognize existing
prejudices as they work collaboratively in site-level and extended
online CoIs in developing Inquiry as Stance, ensuring that teachers
develop culturally-responsive evaluation methods.

Do not have consistent access to
materials that could provide more
accuracy in evaluating Latino PEBLs.
Providing teachers of Latino PEBLs with grade-level, relevant
textbooks and literature, as well as proven evaluation instruments that
can be administered in classes. Teachers will work in CoIs to develop
and accurate formative and summative assessments.

Do not have site-level performance
goals for Latino PEBLs.
Ensure that teachers develop the ability to form productive, feasible
site-level performance goals for the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 291
Inconsistent processes of evaluation. Secondary English teachers in PCSD do not share
consistent practices of evaluation and benchmarking procedures of Latino PEBLs. The work
processes of the majority of teachers of EBs in the State of California “lack clarity” (Parrish, et
al., 2002, p. ix), rendering evaluations by teachers as less than effective. Moreover, those
processes lack alignment with foundational principles of second language acquisition (Reeves,
2004; Walqui, 2000). Clark and Estes (2008) maintained that coordinating critical work
processes contributed to more effective organizational performance, and finding greater
alignment of goals and practices is at the core of establishing consistent processes of evaluation
by secondary English teachers in PCSD. At present, PCSD’s teachers of Latino PEBLs do not
operate within an existing organizational structure that promotes consistency in the formative
and summative evaluations of the language development and academic performance of these
learners. For secondary English teachers in PCSD to develop the necessary clarity that would
improve educational and language development of Latino PEBLs, district leaders will need to
institute a comprehensive professional learning program situated within a Culture of Inquiry in
which Inquiry as Stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) can be cultivated and actualized by
teachers.
Clarity of work processes by secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs in PCSD
requires an organizational commitment that extends beyond a convenient professional
development session detailing evaluation procedures. Instead, as Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(2009) detailed, integrated change in PCSD will require a paradigm shift by teachers. As I
discovered in my research, teachers were engaged in evaluation procedures that they did not
know were ineffective, owing to their considerable lack of knowledge of the process of additive
language development. Clark and Estes (2008) held that changing expectations of work
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 292
processes can complicate organizational practices, and for teachers in PCSD who lack
knowledge of language development, the changing expectations may entrench existing practices
instead of inviting new, more effective practices of evaluation. To avoid this potential pitfall,
PCSD must institute a system within which teachers have the support to consistently develop
accurate forms of evaluations.
Unsatisfactory training in the evaluation of academic development of EBs. Secondary
English teachers in PCSD do not evaluate the academic development of Latino PEBLs
effectively. Although many of these teachers may have sufficient preparation to provide
effective, accurate formative and summative academic content-area assessments for the general
population of students, these same teachers have had scant preparation (either in teacher
preparation programs or through specific district-level professional learning opportunities) to
evaluate the distinctly different language development and academic performance needs of
Latino PEBLs. Rumberger and Gándara (2004) explained that one of the reasons EBs do not
demonstrate similar educational outcomes in comparison with peer groups is that existing
evaluation systems are “of little value for monitoring their academic progress” (p. 2041). In
order for PCSD’s population of secondary English teachers to evaluate Latino PEBLs with the
necessary precision that will promote academic and language development and thereby narrow
the gap between organizational expectations and performance, PCSD will be best served by
providing dual-channel CoIs including post-secondary instructional resource experts who can
facilitate secondary English teacher development of effective evaluations of the academic
performance of all EBs, including specific forms of differentiation for Latino PEBLs.
Unsatisfactory training in the evaluation of language development. Secondary English
teachers in PCSD do not evaluate the language development of Latino PEBLs effectively.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 293
Lacking the necessary declarative and procedural knowledge to evaluate the academic
development of these students effectively, it is not surprising that much more exacting evaluation
practices of the language development of Latino PEBLs by English teachers in PCSD remain
scattershot, at best. Abedi and Gándara (2006) demonstrated that issues surrounding evaluation
“must be addressed to help close the performance gap” (p. 37); however, PCSSD does not
provide teachers with specific education to teachers in modifying evaluation methods of Latino
PEBLs. In order for stakeholders to develop new work processes, they must be provided with
specific support to enable those processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). For secondary English teachers
in PCSD to develop the required storehouse of knowledge to engage in effective language
development evaluation of Latino PEBLs, these teachers will need to be provided with more than
just examples of effective language evaluation practices; they will need to engage in an ongoing
process of reflection of practice, learning, and self-correction best facilitated by the dual-channel
CoI.
Accurate valued feedback from administrators to teachers. Secondary English teachers
in PCSD do not receive formal evaluations of their ability to complete accurate language
development evaluations of EBs. Although providing accurate, actionable feedback to teachers
can result in improved instructional and assessment practices (Duke 1990; Joyce & Showers
2002; Hattie 2009; Showers 1985; Walberg 2011), administrators in PCSD do not provide
teachers with any specific formal feedback of the degree of success of those teachers in their
academic and language evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Clark and Estes (2008) detailed that
“without individual assessment and feedback, team confidence is lower and social loafing tends
to occur” (p. 121). For secondary English teachers in PCSD to develop the critical
improvements in their practices through asset-based dispositions, it will become important for
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 294
administrators to provide teachers with ongoing feedback that will assist them in situating their
evaluation practices within Inquiry as Stance through the site-level and extended CoI. Yet it will
also be of critical importance that teacher capabilities in evaluating Latino PEBLs are included in
the semi-annual evaluation of teachers as a condition for further employment.
Alignment of objectives and practices through teacher collaboration and reflection.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD do not consistently engage in collaborative and reflective
practices that focus on the needs of Latino PEBLs, critical contributors in the development of
best evaluation practices by teachers of these learners. Policies that promote collaboration
provide teachers with the ability to build capacity in their communication with other teachers.
Bell and Stevenson (2006) spelled out the critical importance of the alignment of educational
policies with institutional capacity for practice. By establishing clear policies, organizations are
better able to provide consistent practices through ongoing assessment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Dimmock (2013) maintained that for educational organizations to maximize performance,
policies and processes must demonstrate consistent alignment, and as Clark and Estes (2008)
determined, policies that do not align with processes result in organizational ineffectiveness.
Effective communication between and among individuals in an organization improves
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008), and while leaders of PCSD can establish
policies and procedures, effective implementation of those policies and procedures will require
that all stakeholders are collaborating in support of the realization of these policies and
procedures. By identifying and aligning performance objectives that are aligned with existing
California ELD and ELA content standards, teachers can begin to work within their extended
and site-level CoI in building consistency and in developing more effective systems of internal
accountability to meet the larger expectations of external accountability required by the State of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 295
California and PCSD for Latino PEBLs.
Discriminatory evaluation practices. Secondary English teachers do not evaluate the
academic performance and language development of Latino PEBLs without applying racial
prejudice. These teachers participate in and perpetuate a culture that does not acknowledge the
assets of these learners, instead ascribing deficit-oriented labels in a process of racial
stereotyping. As my research revealed, many teachers held deeply seated, if not overtly
prejudicial racial biases of Latino PEBLs. These biases were not necessarily recognized by
teachers; however, it was very clear from examining the work products of teachers that their
biases influenced viewpoints that resulted in diminished evaluations of academic performance
and language development of these students.
The challenge in solving entrenched practices of inequity is that those who perpetuate
discriminatory practices are frequently unaware of their own biases. Simply notifying people
that they practice discrimination is not a viable solution. Considerable gains have been
demonstrated in facilitating teacher identification of inequitable practices through developing
and consistently applying Inquiry as Stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Secondary teachers
Martell (2013) and Stovall (2006) applied the principles of Inquiry as Stance in their own
practices, and discovered gaps in their own ability to engender equal treatment among their
students, paving the way to improved equitable practices. In fulfillment of Cochran-Smith and
Lytle’s (2009) goals for Inquiry as Stance, teachers who apply this method develop dispositions
that “challenge the inequities perpetuated by the educational status quo” (p. viii). Although it is
not a quick solution, by developing each teacher’s Inquiry as Stance through the dual-channel
CoIs, PCSD can address the larger issue that has produced the performance problem of the
decidedly inequitable evaluations of Latino PEBLs: secondary English teacher practices of racial
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 296
stereotyping.
Misalignment of resources. Secondary English teachers in PCSD do not have consistent
access to materials (language appropriate formative and summative assessments) that could
provide more accuracy in evaluating Latino PEBLs. Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, and
Callahan (2003) affirmed that resources for English learners are lacking in California public
schools, and even in districts that had resources, inequitable distribution of those resources to
classrooms that supported Latino PEBLs resulted in resource gaps for teachers. Clark and Estes
(2008) reminded that inadequacies in materials are “often the cause of barriers to the
achievement of performance goals, even for people with top motivation and exceptional
knowledge and skills” (p. 122), and PCSD, while certainly supplied with ample financial
resources to support its population of Latino PEBLs, does not provide secondary English
teachers with resources to meet the specific needs of these learners. As I discovered during my
inquiry, the lion’s share of resources designed to meet the needs of Latino PEBLs in secondary
classrooms were levelled-reading books designed for K-8 learners. From “Flowers Have
Colors” to “I See Bugs,” secondary English teachers of EBs were well supplied with reading
material. The problem I observed is that the resources provided did not align with the needs of
secondary Latino PEBLs. Evaluation resources matching the K-8 provided texts were in
abundance; lacking were evaluation resources that could effectively determine the development
of academic language, or for that matter, provide Latino PEBLs with improved access to content
area textbooks. PCSD must ensure that its ample existing resources are in alignment with the
needs of secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs by providing these teachers with grade-
level, relevant textbooks and literature, as well as proven evaluation instruments that can be
administered by secondary English teachers in their classes. Additionally, teachers will work
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 297
alongside other teachers and post-secondary instructional resource experts in the dual-channel
CoIs to develop accurate formative assessments, and integrate supplied assessments as needed.
Lack of site-level performance goals for EBs and Latino PEBLs. While I recognize the
importance of developing site-level performance goals (van Yperen, Blaga, & Postmes, 2014), I
caution PCSD in the formation of these goals, simply because the district has not demonstrated
the capability to include a wide-range of stakeholders in forming these goals. Were the district
to have each site establish goals, it is very likely that these goals would be similar in their
formation to the district level performance goals for EBs, and it is certain that the results would
be just as poor. Secondary English teachers will need to work together with students and
parents, as well as site-level administrators and specialists to forge performance goals based on a
deep understanding of the needs of learners, and the capabilities of teachers to meet those needs.
At the time of the study, secondary English teachers in PCSD did not have the declarative or
procedural knowledge to even understand how to evaluate Latino PEBLs with precision, and
were these teachers to establish performance goals before they even knew their capabilities, a
misalignment with external expectations of accountability and internal capacity to meet those
expectations would simply reproduce the inequalities that already exist in PCSD’s secondary
schools. Moreover, given the marked penchant for data discrepancies among district
representatives as well as the incapability of teachers to collect and analyze data with fidelity, the
existing questionable practices of evaluating EBs would simply be perpetuated by the district and
its representatives.
Essential to the development of performance goals that would actually serve to imbue
teachers with greater extrinsic motivation to maximize their own capabilities, teachers must first
develop a deep understanding of how to evaluate Latino PEBLs with skill, and once they have
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 298
developed a high degree of self-efficacy in their evaluative processes, only then should they
work together with stakeholders to establish performance goals.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Forging detailed solutions for PCSD’s established performance problem regarding the
organization’s gap in academic and language development for its population of Latino PEBLs
remains a critical step in shifting organization practices; however, without an effective plan for
implementing those solutions, PCSD will remain ineffective in realizing its mission. Although
the interaction of the dynamic systems that influence teacher evaluations of both the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs may be a complex process situated in
a culture that has silently reproduced inequalities, the solution must remain simple enough that it
can be successfully implemented through consistent evaluative procedures. Through application
of the New World Kirkpatrick model, PCSD can apply its ample financial resources with the
greatest effectiveness, significantly increasing the likelihood of solving its complicated
performance problem of the diminished academic trajectories of Latino PEBLs.
Built off Bloom’s (1956) established hierarchical taxonomy of learning, D.L.
Kirkpatrick’s (1959) original method for evaluating the effectiveness of organizational training
22

considered four levels of training evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. In

22
Within the field of organizational development, as in the field of education, a range of terminology continues to be
used to describe the integration of new declarative and/or procedural knowledge into practice. Within education,
the trend has been to move away from use of the word ‘training’, which connotes a set of practices that can be
imparted upon recipients of the training, to the use of ‘professional learning’, which connotes a larger range of
ongoing development on the part of recipients, as well as a greater degree of autonomy. Kirkpatrick uses the term
‘training’, which is frequently used in the Organizational Development literature alongside learning, and
development. Wilson (2005) elaborated in detail of the rife overlay in the usage of terms, siding with Galavan
(1997) that “education, training, development, and learning are seen as complementary components of the same
process, i.e. the enhancement of human potential or talent” (p. 42). Rather than confuse the issue further, I have
adopted the use of Kirkpatrick’s use of the term ‘training’ when I refer to his implementation plan that I
recommend for PCSD.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 299
recognition of the more complex demands of the contemporary organizational setting, J.D.
Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) enhanced D.L. Kirkpatrick’s (1959) four levels of
training, and labelled it the New World Kirkpatrick Model. This model explicitly draws
attention during planning to the fourth level (results), and considers the advantage that can be
provided in organizational planning by working back to the first level prior to implementing the
professional development efforts. The New World Model asserts the need for consistent
monitoring and adjustment during level three (behavior), at which time managers of change
apply reinforcement and encouragement to participants in training.
While considering the well-supported critiques of Kirkpatrick’s (1989) model (Kaufman
& Keller, 1994; Holton, 1996; Watkins, Leigh, Foshay, & Kaufman 1998; Bates, 2004;
Tharenou, Saks, & Moore, 2007) that described the model as merely a derivational taxonomy,
the complexity of the contemporary organization necessitates the application of a planning
mechanism that will make application of solutions feasible. From this standpoint (with the
acknowledgment of its limitations), I will apply the New World Kirkpatrick Model in the
evaluation and implementation of organizational solutions designed to narrow the organizational
performance gap of PCSD traced to ineffective evaluation methods of secondary English
teachers of their Latino PEBLs.
Organizational purpose, need and expectations. PCSD maintains that the organization
is “dedicated to maximizing individual potential and developing lifelong learners who will be
contributing members in a global society” (Mission, 2015); however, with almost 90% of its
population of Latino EBs not demonstrating measured fluency in English as required for RFEP,
PCSD is not realizing its performance goal in applying California Education Code § 313 for the
academic and language development of EBs. Experts have established that effective educational
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 300
and language development programs for EBs should develop academic fluency in English for
90% of the population within six years (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000), yet PCSD’s performance
is at the opposite metrical representation of what would be considered an effective program. To
narrow the organizational performance gap, PCSD must better prepare its teachers to effectively
evaluate all EBs, with a special attention to Latino PEBLs. Effective evaluation of learners is a
cornerstone of accurate instruction, and as I uncovered in my research, the ineffective language
development and academic performance evaluations of Latino PEBLs by secondary English
teachers in PCSD are preventing realization of the district’s organizational goals. By providing
teachers with the necessary knowledge, skills, motivation, and facilitating the development of
culturally-responsive dispositions among secondary English teachers, PCSD can narrow its
existing performance gap.
For PCSD’s population of teachers, realizing the organizational mission and goal for the
performance of Latino PEBLs means creating and administering accurate formative and
summative evaluations of the language development and academic performance of these learners
that will enable teachers to provide greater measures of equity in educational opportunities.
PCSD’s benchmark performance goals for its population of EBs were that 20% would be RFEP
by 2016, with a 2% increase by 2017. The results were that 10.6% of all students met the
objective, far below performance expectations. Moreover, the district has a stated goal of 47%
of its EBs advancing one or more of the five language levels (Beginning, Early Intermediate,
Intermediate, Early Advanced, Advanced) in 2016, with a 2% increase by 2017.
23
Interestingly,
PCSD abandoned specific level advancements with its 2017-18 organizational goals, choosing

23
As of Spring, 2017, PCSD had not aligned its organizational goals for the performance of EBs with the new
language proficiency levels (Emerging, Developing, and Bridging, with Entry and Exit levels at each).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 301
instead to use the district’s 51.6% CELDT learner proficiency score registered in 2016 as a
baseline, from which 2% annual growth would be expected each year until 2020. Interestingly,
PCSD did not align this measure with the new ELPAC evaluation instrument, instead lacking
insight by declaring that the district would show improvement on an instrument no longer used
in California schools. To realize PCSD’s performance goals, the district’s secondary English
teachers must provide effective, accurate evaluations in order to improve their instruction for
Latino PEBLs, and it is through this important step that the organization’s goals and mission can
be realized. As secondary English teachers in PCSD develop more effective and accurate
evaluations for Latino PEBLs, classroom instruction will better align with learner needs,
narrowing the organization's performance gap for this population of learners.
Level 4: Results and leading indicators. The complex process of learning makes it
difficult to assess with precision the effectiveness of the professional learning of secondary
English teachers in PCSD as the district aims to ameliorate its performance problem of teacher
evaluations of language development and academic performance of the district’s population of
Latino PEBLs. Yet by continual, precise assessment of the performance of the teachers who
have been part of professional learning opportunities, the efforts of the district to narrow and
eventually eliminate its performance gap can be discerned and consistently improved.
Five outcomes (See Table 15) will be used to evaluate program effectiveness: Two
objective external outcomes (a) alignment of teacher evaluation and standards as reflected in
standardized assessment and (b) diminished percentage of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. Additionally,
three internal outcomes will be evaluated. Two of these internal outcomes will measure
Secondary English teacher’s demonstration of satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of: (c)
the principles of language development; and (d) the cultural factors that influence language
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 302
development. The other internal outcome will be measured by an observational checklist used to
determine Secondary English teacher’s demonstration of satisfactory (70%) knowledge of: (e)
the common phrases in the languages of the students in their classes.
Table 15

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
PCSD English teachers will
provide accurate evaluations of
content and language
development that share 75% or
better consistency with CAASP
evaluation of students.
Percentage of Latino PEBLs
evaluation scores that correlate with
CAASP scores.
Quarterly student evaluation forms
completed by secondary English
teachers of EBs; CASSP and interim
CASSP evaluations.
The population of PCSD Latino
PEBLs will diminish from 89%
to 69% in 2018.
Percentage of students RFEP
(California State Section 303).
PCSD ELD department biannual
student evaluation forms completed by
district personnel.
Internal Outcomes
PCSD Secondary English
teachers
will demonstrate satisfactory
(70%) declarative knowledge of
phonological, lexical,
grammatical, sociolinguistic, and
discourse principles of language
development.
Number of secondary English
teachers passing formal QTEL
assessment.

Administration of assessment at the
end of site-level language inquiry
project.
PCSD Secondary English
teachers will demonstrate
satisfactory (70%) knowledge of
the diverse cultural factors that
influence language development.
Number of secondary English
teachers passing formal QTEL
assessment.

Administration of assessment at the
end of site-level language inquiry
project.
PCSD Secondary English
teachers will demonstrate
satisfactory (70%) performance
on observational command of
common phrases in the languages
of the students in their classroom.
Protocol checklist. Observation protocol that reflects
exchange of greetings and common
language interchanges in student
languages.

External outcomes. According to Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy, the external criteria
organizational change agents evaluate in terms of the effectiveness of professional learning
include those criteria which are related to the definitive purpose of the organization’s efforts
(Sims, 2002). In PCSD’s case (regarding its professional learning opportunities designed to
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 303
address the district’s performance gap in teacher evaluation of Latino PEBLs), the external
outcome indicators include teacher language and content area evaluation accuracy as well as the
percentage of this particular population of students who RFEP or who are still designated as
PEBLs.
Alignment of teacher evaluations and content standards. The first external outcome that
will indicate the relative degree of success of PCSD regarding the development by secondary
English teachers of improved evaluations of Latino PEBLs is degree of alignment between
standardized assessments such as the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) with teacher evaluations of language and content development for their
Latino PEBLs. At the time of the study, the district had striven to ensure that instruction and
curriculum was aligned with content standards, and by evaluating the consistency of teacher
evaluations with more valid assessments, PCSD can discover if Latino PEBLs are being
evaluated accurately by secondary English teachers. California Education Code § 313 requires
that districts use standardized assessments as well as teacher grading and language appraisals to
evaluate students for RFEP. PCSD can capitalize on the existing psychometric strengths of
standardized assessments to calibrate teacher evaluation practices. Utilizing annual CAASPP
data as well as interim CAASPP tests, PCSD will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of
targeted professional development directed at improving the accuracy in teacher evaluation of
the language and content area development of Latino PEBLs.
The result that PCSD needs to establish in the performance of teacher evaluations of
Latino PEBLs is not simply a mirror reflection of teacher evaluation with standardized scores;
instead, the district needs to evaluate if teacher grades are the result of more refined
understanding of student performance in meeting established content and language standards, or
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 304
if teachers are instead not accurately evaluating critical performance determinants of Latino
PEBLs. Psychometric evaluation of the correlative values of teacher grades and standardized
assessments would need to be undertaken to determine acceptable differences. While it may be
true that teachers are evaluating different aspects of student performance in comparison to
standardized assessments, teacher instruction should be in line with the Common Core
Standards, and student performance measures in each sphere should demonstrate some
measurable degree of consistency. Evaluating the difference would serve the district well in both
gauging general effectiveness of teacher instruction of CCSS as well as accuracy in teacher
evaluations of the language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLS.
Reduction in the percentage of Latino PEBLs in PCSD. Although the development of the
language and content area skills for Latino PEBLs relies on a complex interaction of a
considerable range of factors, these cannot all be evaluated with precision or with the necessary
currency to assist PCSD’s secondary English teachers in their assessments of these learners.
Alignment of classroom grades and standardized test scores can provide concrete outcomes that
can demonstrate the effectiveness of professional development and training provided by PCSD,
as can observational checklists. Yet the clearest outcome that will reflect implementation of new
practices is in the percentage of Latino PEBLs who continue to be categorized as RFEP in
comparison to those students who continue to remain PEBLs. This outcome may be clear, but it
may be more difficult to determine which specific practices of teachers produce more effective
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. Several factors enter the RFEP determination that are beyond
simple or more complex quantitative evaluations. For example, teacher dispositions that
recognize the existing assets of Latino PEBLs (as opposed to their perceived deficits) contribute
strongly in the effective evaluations of language development (Lindsey, Karns, & Myatt, 2010);
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 305
however, this is an internal outcome that does not lend itself to simple objectification in the form
of external outcomes. Yet a correlation of effective dispositions and effective teacher evaluations
are likely to be reflected in site-level biannual RFEP and PEBL percentages.
Existing measures of the percentage of PEBLs in PCSD indicated that Latino EBs are by
far the largest population of PEBLs. Touching on 90% of total learners in PCSD’s secondary
schools, secondary English teachers have not utilized effective methods of evaluation for Latino
PEBLs, and by biannually evaluating the percentage of these learners who have been
recommended for RFEP, PCSD will be able to determine the effectiveness of its professional
learning opportunities in producing desired outcomes in improving teacher evaluations of Latino
PEBLs. The result that the district will seek is that more accurate teacher evaluations of
language and content area development will reduce the population of Latino PEBLs in PCSD
from 89% to 69% by 2018. PCSD seeks to provide its population of all EBs with effective
instruction and evaluation systems that will promote this population of students to RFEP by the
completion of their fifth year of instruction in the district. Establishing target percentage
outcomes for PCSD’s population of Latino PEBLs will make it possible to determine the degree
of effectiveness in the district’s ongoing efforts in the form of professional learning opportunities
for secondary English teachers.
Internal outcomes. The external outcomes may overtly demonstrate organizational
effectiveness in narrowing its performance gap; however, it is the internal outcomes that may
ultimately resonate more deeply in changing the practices of secondary English teachers as they
evaluate Latino PEBLs. More refined in their consideration, internal outcomes allow
organizational leaders to gain clear insight of the degree to which specific facets of professional
learning have become integrated into teacher practices. The internal outcomes, as Kirkpatrick’s
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 306
(2016) typology describes, are those outcomes that have a direct correlation to the professional
development or training. The process of effective, accurate formative and summative
evaluations is complex, and relies upon the integration of multiple dimensions of teacher
involvement; subsequently the articulation of an effective evaluation of internal outcomes makes
it possible to gain refinement in understanding the effectiveness of each element of the
professional learning opportunities provided to secondary English teachers.
Teacher knowledge of language development principles. One of the crucial elements of
professional learning opportunities provided to teachers of Latino PEBLs will be the increased
awareness by teachers of the fundamental principles of language development. To be certain,
current teacher preparation programs do include curriculum that addresses language
development; however, these programs do not ensure that teachers have the necessary
understanding of language principles that undergird teacher practices (Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara,
& Shields, 2009). In providing secondary English teachers in PCSD with the critical
fundamental knowledge of language development, the district will make it possible for these
teachers to begin to develop more effective work processes that will ultimately lessen the
existing organizational performance gap in meeting the needs of the district’s population of
Latino PEBLs. Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher application of fundamental language
development principles requires that leaders determine the degree to which teachers can
demonstrate a satisfactory declarative knowledge of those principles. Through the
administration of a validated instrument that evaluates the declarative knowledge of
phonological, lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse principles of language
development, PCSD can gain precision in its professional learning opportunities with a particular
focus on the specific development of fundamental language principles. After the conclusion of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 307
the site-level language inquiry project led by post-secondary instructional resource experts
through the dual-channel CoI, PCSD will require that secondary English teachers demonstrate a
satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of language development. Several existing
instruments have demonstrated validity in measuring knowledge in principles of language,
including the Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) teacher knowledge assessment
(Appendix B), and PCSD can use these instruments, or adapt them as needed.
24
Teacher who do
not meet the internal outcome performance expectation will be provided with remediation and
additional assessment until they can meet established expectations.
Teacher knowledge of cultural factors. Even though cultural factors are of critical
importance in understanding language development, teachers very rarely have the capability to
apply knowledge of these factors into effective instruction and evaluation of EBs (Echevarria
and Short, 2005; Merino, 2007; and Nieto, 1996). Preparing teachers to harness this critical
component of language development requires enhanced professional capabilities, but as in the
case of assisting teachers in the demonstration of knowledge in the principles of language
development, PCSD’s efforts for addressing its performance gap will require evaluation of the
internal outcome of the degree to which teachers can demonstrate in their instructional practices
their specific knowledge of the diverse cultural factors that influence language development.
PCSD can gain insight of the degree of effectiveness in cultivating critical knowledge of cultural
factors among its secondary English teachers by administering the QTEL assessment instrument.
Secondary English teachers will need to demonstrate a satisfactory application (70%) of critical

24
The QTEL is an exacting instrument that may represent a challenge that teachers in PCSD are not ready to meet.
It is my recommendation that prior to administering the QTEL, the embedded expert applies accommodation in
evaluation to ensure that the QTEL assists rather than retards the development of secondary English teachers in
PCSD who are developing improved evaluation practices for Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 308
cultural influences on language development as reflected in observational checklist scores.
Should teachers not demonstrate benchmark scores in this area, the district will provide teachers
with additional professional learning opportunities until those teachers can demonstrate
acceptable levels of knowledge in this critical area of language development.
Teacher knowledge of common phrases. Teachers can increase their capability in
building effective learning relationships with EBs by honoring the existing language assets of
these learners in classroom settings (Maxwell-Jolly, Gándara, & Shields; 2009). PCSD can
provide specific learning opportunities that will demonstrate for teachers the ways that they can
integrate common language phrases of their learners in classrooms; however, it is very possible
(if not likely, based on my observations and interviews) that teachers will not apply discoveries
from the learning opportunity without consistent evaluation of the application of these practices
in the teacher’s classrooms.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of learning opportunities that will develop teacher
capacity for their integration of common phrases in the home languages of classroom EBs,
PCSD will engage post-secondary instructional resource experts embedded in the dual-channel
CoI. Using the QTEL Aligned Classroom Observation Instrument as an observational protocol
(Appendix C), these resource experts will determine if secondary English teachers are meeting a
satisfactory (70%) performance in their integration of common language phrases in their
instruction. Although this skill does not directly produce improved evaluation performance by
secondary English teachers, it will increase the capability of teachers to communicate more
effectively with learners, a significant precursor to applying the necessary differentiated forms of
assessment accommodations required for more accurate evaluations of the language development
and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. PCSD needs to demonstrate that its secondary
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 309
English teachers are consistently providing Latino PEBLs with accommodations in their
formative and summative evaluations. The most effective way that the district can evaluate its
effectiveness in developing improved assessment practices by its secondary English teachers is
by ensuring that those teachers are consistently applying the practices in their classrooms.
External evaluations by administrators will not be as effective in developing target behaviors as
will having post-secondary instructional resource experts (who are embedded within the dual-
channel CoI) evaluate the developing practices of secondary English teachers. Teachers will
require time to improve behaviors, and judgments from administrators may perceived by
teachers as evaluative, and will certainly be subject to contract language that does not allow
administrators to constantly observe teachers. Post-secondary instructional resource experts who
are integral parts of the learning community will work alongside teachers more productively,
allowing teachers to develop dispositions that will promote continued application of refinement
in their evaluation practices for all EBs, especially Latino PEBLs.
Level 3: Behavior. Kirkpatrick’s consideration of Level 3 Behaviors focuses on actions
that are “specific, observable, and measurable” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 7.5). This
approach adheres to a behaviorist worldview, in that the Kirkpatrick model shares theoretical
foundations with Skinner’s (1953) views that behavior can be predicted and controlled, and
stands in contrast to a constructivist worldview, that instead considers the rich context of the
individual’s quest for meaning in social contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). To be certain, I have not
entertained the positivist worldview in my inquiry within the present paper, instead embracing
the constructivist worldview. In centering efforts from this perspective, I have sought to
delineate the importance of Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) and the Cultural-Historic Activity
Theory (CHAT) models as more productive in understanding the entirety of factors that
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 310
influence and are influenced by teachers, and not approaches built on causality, such as the
Kirkpatrick New World Model. This seeming schism requires elaboration on my application of
the Kirkpatrick New World Model as a method for applying organizational solutions within
PCSD.
While many activities that teachers engage in during their professional experiences could
potentially be reduced to Kirkpatrick's Level 3 Behaviors (such as using common phrases, or
following procedural flow charts for completing paperwork) the lion’s share of learning
experiences that these teachers will need to adopt into practice defy simple, observable
characterization. In fact, it is the development of culturally responsive dispositions of these
teachers who evaluate Latino PEBLs that are of far greater importance, because even as teachers
may engage in potentially objectifiable processes such as producing accommodations in
formative and summative assessments, those accommodations will be ultimately shaped by the
dispositions of teachers that escape Kirkpatrick’s convenient expectation for behaviors that pass
the “video test” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 7.5). Utilization of the development of
Inquiry as Stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) within the dual-channel CoI is designed to
engage teachers in a social environment in which dispositions can be shaped that recognize the
assets of learners instead of their deficits. This is a considerable strength that must be harnessed,
yet at the same time its development must be evaluated for the successful realization of the goals
of the intervention. Measuring this is very complicated, and does not easily fit within
organizational demands for external accountability. This does not mean that these complicated
processes cannot be observed; however, it does mean that in selecting key behaviors to observe
in the evaluation of whether professional development efforts are being realized or they are not,
organizational leaders may be missing deeper processes that ultimately could mitigate the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 311
effectiveness of those professional development efforts.
I have selected to apply the Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) not because of its
theoretical moorings, but because of its capability in providing the organization with concrete
evidence that it can use to evaluate the effectiveness of its professional learning opportunities in
meeting the needs of its population of Latino PEBLs. To accommodate the practical benefits of
the Kirkpatrick New World Model, I will need to establish a new consideration of Kirkpatrick's
Level 3 Behaviors that will include teacher dispositions. I realize that these are not in line with
Kirkpatrick’s credo of the “video test” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 7.5); however, I also
realize that evaluating externalities will not provide PCSD with the information it needs to
ensure that teachers are applying effective principles of evaluations for Latino PEBLs.
Externalities alone will not provide the feedback to even evaluate the appropriateness or
effectiveness of professional learning opportunities. Yet the organization can capitalize on the
organizational principles of Kirkpatrick’s New World Model in ensuring more effective
professional development and training by using the system in applying more rigorous qualitative
analyses of behaviors that are symbolic of teacher dispositions instead of relying on merely
quantitative data, which will likely not be robust enough or exact enough to prove purposeful.
Undertaken by post-secondary instructional resource experts who are embedded in the dual-
channel CoI, these evaluations can provide considerably more robust evidence in support of the
degree of effectiveness of PCSD’s efforts in narrowing its performance gap for its population of
Latino PEBLs.
Instead of embracing that these behaviors are made malleable by intervention, I accept
that the behaviors are indicative of deeper dispositions that must be developed within the Inquiry
Community using Inquiry as Stance. Yet I also acknowledge that even as teachers are
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 312
developing those dispositions, and even as they develop their abilities for, in, and of their
practices (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009), teachers will produce behaviors that are symbolic of
those deeper dispositions. Dispositions direct social interactions and subsequently shape those
behaviors, and by evaluating the behaviors as reflective of dispositions, PCSD can evaluate the
degree of effectiveness of its learning opportunities provided to secondary English teachers.
Critical behaviors. The focus of the Level 3 Behaviors is on the stakeholder groups in
PCSD that includes only secondary English teachers (See Table 16).
Table 16
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Teachers actualize asset-based
paradigms that drive
instructional and evaluative
applications.

Qualitative
evaluation using
established
parameters by mentor
teachers.

Observation protocol checklist
administered by expert teachers;
reflection by teachers of their recognition
of asset-based paradigms during
reflection sessions within the CoI.
Weekly.
Teachers establish and utilize
effective formative and
summative assessments aligned
with existing content and
language development standards
to evaluate Latino PEBLs.

Qualitative
evaluation using
established
parameters by mentor
teachers.
Observation protocol checklist
administered by expert teachers;
reflection of their own shifts in utilizing
assessment forms that are aligned with
standards as teachers reflect during
sharing sessions in the CoI.
Weekly.
Teachers adjust evaluation
practices based on enriched
understanding of the influence of
cultural factors on language
production and demonstration of
content understanding.
Resource for
Equitable Classroom
Practices Instrument
(Equity Initiatives
Unit, Montgomery
Schools).
Observation protocol checklist
administered by expert teachers.
Weekly.
Teachers demonstrate
differentiation and
accommodation practices in
formative and summative
evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Qualitative
evaluation using
established
parameters
established by expert
resource providers.

Reflection of teacher’s own shifts in
differentiation and accommodation
practices as teachers communicate within
the CoI in mentor teacher led-sharing
sessions.

Quarterly.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 313
The dynamic interaction of the behaviors undertaken by these teachers as previously indicated
cannot be unraveled for convenience of analysis; nevertheless, by viewing symbolic
manifestations of teacher dispositions through the Kirkpatrick New World Model via rigorous
qualitative analysis performed by an expert resource who is embedded within each site’s CoI (as
well as teacher reflections that are documented on PCSD’s extended online CoI) the district can
effectively (if not conveniently) gain rigorous understanding of the success of its performance
improvement efforts.
Asset-based paradigms. The first, and potentially most pivotal disposition reflected by
behavior is that secondary English teachers are operating from asset-based paradigms as they
shape their formative and summative evaluations of the language development and academic
performance of Latino PEBLs. These dispositions cannot be measured by declarative knowledge
tests, because these dispositions are more thoroughly embedded in teacher’s practices to the
extent that they may be entirely invisible to those teachers. The symbolic representations of
asset-based paradigms emerge as behaviors that include verbal phrasings delivered to students,
decisions made in accommodations of assessment, and even affective states that accompany the
administration of standardized assessments. These representations cannot be conveniently
defined, yet post-secondary instructional resource experts can help objectify them through
observation and inquiry using the Resource for Equitable Classroom Practices (Appendix D) and
the Adapted Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Appendix E). These
objectifications in and of themselves are of limited value; however, considerable value can be
engendered by post-secondary instructional resource experts who can then utilize these
objectifications in their discussions with teachers to help them understand how their dispositions
are emerging in actions that are counterproductive to effective evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 314
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) “video test” (p. 7.5) can then surface as relevant in the eyes of the teachers,
who will be able to begin to understand how their dispositions impact their behaviors.
Undergirding this approach to applying Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016) is the
understanding that teachers will need to engage in ongoing processes of the reflection of
behaviors guided by developed understandings before they will be able to even conceive of
actions that are produced by effective asset-based paradigms. Yet with the assistance of a post-
secondary instructional resource experts who can guide teachers in the dual-channel CoI, the
vibrant constructivist principles of discovery within the social environment will encourage the
development of those symbols of the asset-based paradigm, which include the moment to
moment culturally responsive interactions with Latino PEBLs during a wide range of evaluations
that are performed by secondary English teachers.
Alignment of evaluations of with standards. The observable act of teachers completing
evaluations of all kinds can be assessed, but it will not yield the information that will inform
whether teachers are employing effective alignment of CCSS and ELD standards in their
evaluations of Latino PEBLs. The evaluative process of teachers emerges from their
dispositions. In the same manner that post-secondary instructional resource experts embedded in
the dual-channel CoI can utilize observational checklists that consider each teacher’s paradigm
(asset or deficit) to initiate discourse and reflection by teachers in a social context so that they
can thereby begin to develop informed dispositions and subsequent behaviors, these experts can
use similar observational checklists to determine the extent to which teachers are aligning
evaluations with existing language and content standards.
In addition to the observational evaluation and engagement within the dual-channel CoI
about the results of the observation, PCSD can begin to initiate the valuable process of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 315
purposeful, targeted reflection among its professional educators by having those teachers
consider their own evaluation procedures of Latino PEBLs.
Culturally responsive evaluation practices. In addition to the previous two Level 3
Behaviors symbolic of dispositions, PCSD can apply the same evaluation method and initiate the
same process of discovery by secondary English teachers in their capability in adjusting
evaluation practices based on an enriched understanding of the influence of cultural factors on
language production and via demonstration of content understanding. Through administration of
the Resource for Equitable Classroom Practices Instrument (Equity Initiatives Unit, Montgomery
Schools), PCSD can evaluate the effectiveness of its specific professional development leading
to teachers aligning evaluation practices with established principles of responsive cultural
communication.
Application of accommodations in evaluations. The final Level 3 behavior that will be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of PCSD’s professional development and training programs
pertaining to the performance gap demonstrated by secondary English teachers will be the
capability of those teachers to use formative and summative assessment accommodations for
Latino PEBLs. At present, no evaluative methods are used to determine whether teachers are
using accommodations in their formative or summative assessments of language or academic
development of Latino PEBLs. This compromises the capability of leaders to determine the
degree of effectiveness in teacher’s application of accommodations. Providing the most robust
professional development in applying accommodation will not be effective in assisting PCSD in
addressing its performance gap unless the district can evaluate if and how effectively teachers are
applying those accommodations. The most effective way to determine the application of
methods of accommodation in assessment is by enlisting post-secondary instructional resource
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 316
experts skilled in assessment accommodations to observe secondary English teachers in their
classrooms.
For the observational protocol to be productive, post-secondary instructional resource
experts will need to be embedded within the community so that teachers do not simply offer
accommodations on a one-time basis to satisfy expectations of observers. Instead, these experts
can work alongside teachers as they evaluate Latino PEBLs. Using diverse validated
observational protocol checklists (Appendices C, D, & E), resource experts can begin to assist
teachers in how to self-identify accommodation practices in assessment that will eventually lead
to the seamless integration of targeted work processes developed by teachers through the dual-
channel CoI.
Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) detailed that required drivers are
“processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical
behaviors” (p. 2.7). A critical component of a professional development enterprise, required
drivers can assist PCSD in ensuring that its efforts in improving teacher evaluation practices are
realized. As previously detailed, the behaviorist tendencies of the Kirkpatrick model
(particularly the application of external reward systems) relies on an approach that does not
perfectly align with the constructivist approach embraced by my inquiry. Yet through shifting
external drivers, which Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick clearly describe as essential into more
refined intrinsic motivators, PCSD can fuel improved practices of its population of secondary
English teachers as they develop evaluation practices aligned with the needs of the district’s
population of Latino PEBLs.
Deci (1971) found that as extrinsic motivators increased, intrinsic motivation decreased,
and Kohn (1993) held that external motivational efforts are not always conducive to improved
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 317
performance, especially when the performance is complex, in which case enhanced extrinsic
rewards are progressively required to ensure continued development of performance. Yet recent
meta-analysis indicated that taken singly, extrinsic or intrinsic motivation did not provide the
gains that both provided when effectively employed in tandem. As Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford
(2014) detailed, “incentives and intrinsic motivation are not necessarily antagonistic and are best
considered simultaneously” (p. 980). Germane to the particular efforts of PCSD, Gorozidis and
Papaioannou (2014) were able to demonstrate that intrinsic motivations led to increased teacher
application of new practices, and that extrinsic motivators had a controlling effect.
For PCSD to motivate secondary English teachers to apply and refine improved
evaluation practices of Latino PEBLs, the district must cultivate the intrinsic motivation of those
teachers through robust engagement with other teachers within site level CoIs. The district must
also provide external motivators that will help moderate the development of practices within the
community.
Through the skillful application of effective job aids (which Kluge, Grauel, and Burkolter
(2013) demonstrated diminished cognitive load and added to performance by novices), PCSD
can provide teachers with the support they will need as they develop self-efficacy by diminishing
the cognitive load factors that would potentially derail application of new practices. Moreover,
by situating these aids within a CoI in which teachers consistently engage in Inquiry as Stance,
teachers will begin to develop the critical metacognitive awareness of self as learner (Lyons,
2010), critical to the Social Constructivist approach (Akyol, 2013).
The district can actualize improved metacognition among its secondary English teachers
by having them engage with one another as they develop new perceptions of evaluation
practices. Moreover, by embedding post-secondary instructional resource experts within the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 318
dual-channel CoI, shared experiences can be guided into improved understanding of practices.
By extending these critical contributions through the online community within which secondary
teachers of English from all sites in PCSD interact, the district can moderate its drivers through
online placement of job aids that will integrate into a cohesive system, in turn supporting the
development of improved secondary English teacher evaluation practices (See Table 17).
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid: High-visibility poster including implications of asset-based
paradigm as it plays out in classroom interactions.
Ongoing 1
Job Aid: High-visibility poster providing critical standards with
evaluation examples.
Ongoing 2
Job Aid: High-visibility poster including common greetings and
exchanges of student’s home languages.
Ongoing 3
Job Aid: High-visibility online animated video demonstrating the
sequence of the application of effective culturally responsive
evaluation.
Ongoing 3
Job Aid: High-visibility online animated video demonstrating the
sequence of the application of effective evaluation accommodations.
Ongoing 4
CoI meetings in which teachers engage with one another in developing
effective dispositions centered on Inquiry as Stance.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Dual-channel CoI delivered via online platform within which teachers
engage in reflection of evaluation and the development of effective,
aligned dispositions.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Encouraging
Engagement with post-secondary instructional resource experts and
members of the CoI for support as teachers attempt and refine
evaluation practices.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Weekly “Motivational Mondays” when teachers exchange successes
and reflect on focus for their weekly evaluations.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Rewarding
Incentive pay for additional time spent outside of school hours
participating in activities.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
New technology devices to promote increased participation in online
extended CoI.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
New classroom furniture designed to promote more effective
instruction and evaluation.
Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Recognition by PSCD in its annual celebration of critical contributors. Yearly 1,2,3,4

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 319
Reinforcements will take the form of job aids (n=5), which teachers will have reference to in
their classrooms and online; encouragements will take the form of mentor teacher facilitated
meetings (n=2) within the dual channel CoI, and rewards (n=4) designed to develop intrinsic
motivation.
Reinforcing. PCSD will need to reinforce its targeted professional development and
training so that secondary English teachers can gradually progress from novice levels to mastery.
Through integrating high-visibility posters in the classroom, and placing high-energy animated
videos in the online community, teachers can begin to moderate their own practices by seeing
effective application by other teachers. In addition, PCSD can provide reinforcement of target
processes by engaging secondary English teachers in the dual-channel CoI.
A job aid in the form of a high-visibility poster placed in each classroom that
demonstrates how the asset-based paradigm manifests in improved evaluation practices will
reinforce theories and practices that teachers discover in professional development. Rossett and
Schaffer (2012) held that job aids (such as a poster that demonstrates the consequences of asset
based paradigms) can make it possible for expedited development of new processes. Similar
posters that demonstrate how alignment of standards with evaluation, as well as common
greetings and exchanges in student’s home languages will encourage teacher implementation of
these important processes.
Another valuable way that PCSD can extend its professional development is by placing
teacher-created videos in the dual-channel CoI that clearly demonstrate methods that fellow
teachers can use to provide EBs with evaluation accommodations, as well as videos that
demonstrate how teachers can integrate effective culturally responsive evaluation in their
developing practices. PCSD can also provide teachers with ongoing, targeted reinforcement by
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 320
having post-secondary instructional resource experts who are embedded within the dual-channel
CoI facilitate supportive communication during weekly meetings, during which time teachers
discuss how their developing dispositions are becoming manifest in new practices. This form of
reinforcement will allow teachers to gain in reflection and response of the ways that their
evaluation practices are improving through their development of new perspectives in their
evaluation of all EBs, with a focus on Latino PEBLs.
Encouraging. As secondary English teachers in PCSD begin to attempt to adopt new
practices into their instruction and evaluation, they will frequently face obstacles that may
diminish their willingness to try new approaches, even if they recognize them to be successful.
By encouraging those teachers through weekly meetings which will address the challenges and
successes that they have encountered, post-secondary instructional resource experts and
colleagues will serve as valuable supports in encouraging continued effort by teachers to apply
new principles into practice. At the beginning of each week, teachers can focus directly on
motivation, by collaboratively establishing their goals for the week, and reflecting on their
capabilities in meeting their previously established goals.
Rewarding. As previously mentioned, it is the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation that provides the strongest influence on developing new processes. PCSD will
provide extrinsic motivation in the form of additional incentive pay for secondary English
teachers who commit to participation in the dual-channel CoI. Coupled with the aforementioned
extrinsic driver, teachers will be provided with new forms of classroom and personal technology
devices so that they will be more capable in consistently participating in extended
communication available through online platforms. Making their workspaces more comfortable
through providing teachers with classroom furniture that promotes rather than stymies effective
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 321
instruction and evaluation, PCSD can reward secondary English teachers who make the
commitment to improving their practices. Finally, PCSD will recognize the critical contributions
made by secondary English teachers who develop effective evaluation practices during the
district’s annual award ceremony and celebration.
Monitoring. Although the collective impact of the integration of drivers is robust when
continually applied, it is possible that all secondary English teachers in PCSD may demonstrate
varying degrees of commitment in ensuring implementation of new practices. The initial manner
in which PCSD’s leaders can ensure integration of drivers is by assigning key site-level assistant
principals with the responsibility of making certain that high-visibility posters are prominently
placed in each English classroom on each campus. Similarly, post-secondary instructional
resource experts embedded in the dual-channel CoI will validate that each meeting is taking
place, and will facilitate discussion to address targeted areas. These experts will also moderate
online discussions, with special attention to targeted discussions of job aids in the form of
teacher-created videos placed in the dual-channel CoI, which can be used to engage teachers
primarily in shaping new perspectives through self-evaluation of their various degrees of success
in implementation of new evaluation practices. Finally, site-level principles and assistant
principals will engage in weekly walk-throughs of English classrooms to ensure that established
expectations are being realized.
Level 2: Learning. The integrated approach of engaging site-level teacher leaders in the
CoI in which secondary teachers develop improved dispositions for, in, and of practice
(Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009) is a dynamic process in which objectification of outcomes is
secondary to the development of the deeper principles of internal accountability that will be
developed by secondary English teachers in PCSD. Yet without the capability for organizational
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 322
leaders to evaluate the effectiveness of the development of the dispositions of teachers, the
alignment of resources and the targeting of potential interventions will be more complicated than
the identification of knowledge (developmental, procedural, and metacognitive) and motivational
(self-efficacy and value) goals upon which PCSD can focus. To be certain, the overall goal of
improved capability of secondary English teacher in providing Latino PEBLs with culturally
responsive, differentiated forms of evaluation in language development and content
understanding remains a dynamic, rich enterprise that in many ways defies objectification. It is
therefore critical to recognize that in delineating specific goals for improved secondary English
teacher practices and dispositions that these goals are recognized as highly visible, readily
evaluated aspects of a complex system of interaction in which teachers play but a part.
Nevertheless, by identifying and evaluating key indicators and positioning them as goals for the
professional development efforts of PCSD, the organization can better provide its population of
secondary English teachers with the most effective, most congruent professional learning.
Learning goals. Following the initial stage of professional learning during which time
secondary English teachers will begin to develop their new perspectives and practices, and
during which time post-secondary instructional resource experts will consistently engage in
evaluation of the development of new teacher practices, PCSD secondary English teachers will:
1. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the differences between asset-
based and deficit-based paradigms.
2. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of phonological, lexical,
grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse principles of language development.
3. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the specific knowledge of the
diverse cultural factors that influence language development.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 323
4. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of effective accommodations in
both formative and summative assessments for Latino PEBLs that can provide greater
degrees of accuracy in more purposeful forms of evaluation.
5. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of common phrases in the
languages of the students in their classroom, granting teachers a critical tool in
demonstrating an understanding of the existing cultures of EBs.
6. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the fundamental principles of
motivation in additive language development.
7. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of English Language
Development Standards as established by the State of California.
8. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the six levels of language
development as established by the State of California in its English Language
Development Standards.
9. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the evaluation criteria present
in the ELD Standards that are utilized in the biannual benchmarking instrument.
10. Demonstrate satisfactory (70%) declarative knowledge of the criteria that leads to RFEP
of EBs.
11. Demonstrate how consistent manifestations of asset-based paradigms drive enhanced
accuracy in formative and summative evaluations.
12. Demonstrate consistent practices of formative and summative evaluation procedures of
Latino PEBLs that are in alignment (+ or – 10%) with existing language and content
standards as measured by proven standardized instruments.
13. Align evaluations of student language production with benchmark expectations in each of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 324
the required criteria of language development.
14. Adjust evaluation practices based on enriched understanding of the influence of cultural
factors on language production and the demonstration of content understanding.
15. Demonstrate differentiation and accommodation practices in formative and summative
evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
16. Command self-efficacy in learning effective practices for accurate evaluation of the
language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs.
17. Command self-efficacy in enabling forms of metacognitive thinking that improve the
development of new practices.
18. Engage in effective moderation of affective reactions to stimulus, resulting in enhanced
self-efficacy in developing new practices.
19. Perceive attainment value in their development of new practices to meet the needs of
Latino PEBLs.
The program. My detailed, comprehensive plan for establishing a dual-channel CoI in
which teachers can work with one another to develop dispositions that more effectively align
with all EBs (with a particular focus on Latino PEBLs) will ensure that the aforementioned
learning goals are fully realized. All secondary English teachers participating in the dual-
channel CoI will develop more culturally responsive dispositions; moreover, teachers will be
better able to align their formative and summative evaluations with content and language
standards through accommodation and differentiation. The program includes the asynchronous
extended CoI facilitated through web-based technology, as well as the site-level collaborative
communities. The focus of the program will be to encourage the development of Inquiry as
Stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), yet will utilize strategic job aid scaffolds in the form of
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 325
online interactive applications and high visibility classroom posters. Post-secondary
instructional resource experts who are embedded within the extended CoI will work alongside
secondary English teachers, supporting where needed, challenging when required, and
motivating consistently.
The learning goals are objectifiable and measurable; however, it is of critical importance
to recognize that this form of convenient assessment is not to be taken as the satisfaction of the
goals of the program. Instead, it is through the dynamic interaction of learning goals within the
dual-channel CoI and the Inquiry Communities at each site that PCSD will provide secondary
English teachers with the capability in shifting to dispositions that recognize the funds of
marginalized students like Latino PEBLs.
Components of learning. The sequence of the components of learning is of critical
importance to the program. At the initial intensive stage of the program. teachers will progress
through student-paced online lessons that include key principles of language development,
cultural factors, and accommodation and differentiation in formative and summative assessment.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD will need to demonstrate satisfactory declarative
knowledge of these key principles before they begin to engage with one another in an evaluation
of dispositions and practices (Appendices F, G, and H) through the dual-channel CoI.
Existing dispositions of secondary English teachers do not align with accurate
evaluations of Latino PEBLs, and for teachers to develop new, culturally responsive dispositions,
they will need to gain command of the identified fundamental principles of language
development and cultural responsiveness. The development of self-efficacy and value, critical
contributors to the ongoing application of new procedures, will be facilitated via the online
asynchronous platform. Teachers from all schools in the district will begin to explore their value
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 326
and developing degrees of self-efficacy as they more effectively meet the needs of Latino PEBLs
(See Table 18).
Table 18
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Checks of knowledge using constructed
response and multiple-choice questions.
Upon conclusion of each section of intensive training.
Checks of knowledge through online written
responses on message board.
Throughout intensive training prior to inclusion in the dual-
channel CoI.
Checks of knowledge using directed online
activities and drills.
Throughout intensive training prior to inclusion in the dual-
channel CoI.
Checks of knowledge through socially
constructed activities using terminology.
Upon conclusion of each section of intensive training.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Expert teacher metacognitive modeling of
teacher actions as seen in observation.
Weekly following intensive training during Friday productivity
meetings in the dual-channel CoI.
Teacher reflection of metacognitive modeling as
seen in observation.
Weekly following intensive training during Friday productivity
meetings in the dual-channel CoI.
Teacher reflection of successes and failures. Online asynchronous message board throughout intervention and
in the dual-channel CoI.
Feedback from other teachers about practices. Online asynchronous message board throughout intensive and in
the dual-channel CoI.
Ongoing metacognitive journaling daily
reflections.
Online asynchronous message board throughout intervention and
in the dual-channel CoI.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Mentor teacher’s observation of teachers. Ongoing, in the dual-channel CoI.
Reflection discussions of value principles and
application.
Online asynchronous message board throughout intensive and in
the dual-channel CoI.
Pre- and post-test qualitative interviews. Beginning and end of program.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Individual application plan. After intensive training, prior to production in the dual-channel
CoI.
Coaching sessions led by Expert teacher. Ongoing, in the dual-channel CoI.
Teacher description of new practices. Online asynchronous message board after intensive and in the
dual-channel CoI.
Confidence checklists. Daily.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Commitment checklists. Daily.
Individual practice refinement plan. After initial production in the dual-channel CoI.
Discussion of commitment. Online asynchronous message board after intensive and in the
dual-channel CoI.
Pre and Posttest qualitative interview Beginning and end of program.

Reflection, a vital constituent in secondary English teacher’s development of Inquiry as
Stance, will be harnessed through the dual-channel CoI that will allow teachers to consider the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 327
role that improved evaluation practices play in shaping culturally responsive dispositions that in
turn will support the development of even more effective evaluations of Latino PEBLs in PCSD.
Level 1: Reaction. Although Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) have elided over the
details of Level 1 elements of the Kirkpatrick Model, simplifying the description as “the degree
to which participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs” (p. 5.1),
Kirkpatrick's initial description of the goals for training evaluators sheds considerable light on
details that encompass a richer, if more difficult to discern process. Kirkpatrick (1959)
determined that to gauge the reaction by participants, organizational change leaders must
evaluate the degree of effectiveness of the training by clearly articulating standards that include:
(a) what the leader is striving to discover from the reaction evaluation; (b) documentation of
those responses; (c) quantification of the responses; (d) protection of the identity of participants
to engender honesty; and (e) the provision of additional opportunities for participants to
communicate their reactions in writing.
While organizational leaders frequently seek quantitative responses due to the immediacy
and reductive nature of findings, it is of great importance that qualitative data collection
accompanies the reactions of participants in the program designed to improve the evaluation
practices of secondary English teachers in PCSD. This is not to suggest that Kirkpatrick (1959)
did not employ an empirical worldview through which he speculated upon behaviorist lines;
indeed, he preferred the use of control groups and attempts at preserving objectivity in data
collection. Yet it is worth noting that Kirkpatrick also realized the importance of the qualitative
information that could be gathered, even if only in an augmentative fashion.
In their evaluation of the reaction to the initial intensive training for secondary English
teachers, PCSD can utilize the reactions of secondary English teachers to sharpen subsequent
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 328
training and professional development efforts. As detailed in Table 19, these teachers will
provide reaction feedback of the (a) degree of engagement in the intensive training; (b)
perspective of relevance of the training to existing practices; and (c) satisfaction in the methods
and quality in the delivery of the intensive training. Moreover, secondary English teachers will
be offered the opportunity to provide qualitative insight on the challenges they perceive in
applying the intensive training in their eventual evaluation of Latino PEBLs, as well as the
reactions of the capability of teachers to apply the training in practice.
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Quantitative data collection. After each intensive training learning module during intensive
training.
Degree of participation in online reflections. Throughout intensive learning modules, as well as in the dual-
channel CoI.
Observation evaluation by expert teacher. Ongoing during intensive training and in the dual-channel CoI.
Attendance to intervention. End of intervention, and weekly in the dual-channel CoI.
Intervention evaluation. End of intervention, and weekly in the dual-channel CoI.
Interviews with participants. End of intervention, and weekly in the dual-channel CoI.
Relevance
Online survey. After each intensive learning module topic.
Interviews with participants. End of intervention, and weekly in the dual-channel CoI.
Customer Satisfaction
Online survey. After each intensive learning module topic.
Interviews with participants. End of intervention, and weekly in the dual-channel CoI.

Evaluation tools. Evaluation will be ongoing, utilizing a diverse range of assessment
forms including (a) ongoing observation of training leaders and expert teachers; (b) quantitative
online surveys (Appendices L and M); (c) qualitative interviews with participants; and (d) online
writing reflections of participants.
Immediately following the program implementation. During an initial intensive site-
level immersion, secondary English teachers will engage with online content that will allow for
data collection of the degree of success in completing and learning the content of the program.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 329
At the end of each section of online content, participants will detail their perceptions of the
alignment of course materials with personal practices, as well as participant satisfaction with
content delivery (Appendix I). Additionally, post-secondary instructional resource experts will
evaluate Level One checks of the alignment of course content and teacher’s practices to gain
qualitative insight. These experts will also qualitatively evaluate Level Two understanding of
participants through observation of activities (Appendix K) and interactions of participants in the
program with one another.
Following the intensive training of declarative knowledge components, participants will
complete an evaluation tool including items in each of the four categories, using a quantitative
Likert scale (Appendix O: Blended Evaluation Instrument). This instrument provides insight into
the way that participants perceive the value of the program, and the degree to which they are
engaging in learning.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Four weeks after the
completion of the site-level immersions, and eight weeks after the initiation of the dual-channel
CoI, post-secondary instructional resource experts embedded in the CoI will provide secondary
English teachers with an evaluation (Appendix R) of the effectiveness of the intensive in meeting
the objectives of leadership (Table 20).
Table 20
Delayed Evaluation Elements
Level: Description:
Level One: (30 days
after initiating CoI)
My discoveries in the intensive workshop (including online units) have been very helpful
to my formative, summative, and benchmark evaluations for EBs.
Level Two: (60 days
after initiating CoI)
My ability to provide effective formative, summative, and benchmark evaluations for EBs
has increased after the workshop compared to before the workshop.
Level Three: (90 days
after initiating CoI)
Within the CoI, my colleagues and I consistently utilize discoveries formed during the
intensive workshop in our formative, summative, and benchmark evaluations for EBs.
Level Four: (120 days
after initiating CoI)
I employ accurate and effective formative, summative evaluations for EBs in my
classroom, and I effectively support colleagues in their evaluations. I provide PCSD with
accurate benchmarks for all EBs, including Latino PEBLs.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 330
The application of a Blended Evaluation Instrument (Appendix O) will assist PCSD’s leadership
in evaluating the satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level One); teacher confidence and
perceived value in applying discoveries from the intensive (Level Two); teacher success in
applying training from the intensive workshop and CoI in evaluating EBs coupled with support
from CoI members and expert teachers, (Level Three); and finally, more accurate and effective
classroom formative and summative evaluations, as well as the biannual benchmark evaluations
of EBs, leading to improved academic performance of Latino PEBLs (Level Four).
Data Analysis and Reporting
At each stage of the process of cultivating improved practices by secondary English
teachers of Latino PEBLs in PCSD, post-secondary instructional resource experts will analyze
quantitative data to determine the immediate overt effectiveness of the interventions (See
Appendix C). Subsequently, more holistic analysis of qualitative data will provide site-level and
district leaders with refined understanding of the paradigm shifts and the development of
improved evaluation practices of teachers, thereby shaping future interventions designed to fulfill
PCSD’s previously unfulfilled promise to Latino PEBLs. Evaluation of data as indicated in the
dashboard (Figures 9, 10, and 11) will allow leaders to gain immediate insight into the success of
the intervention.
Immediately after each section of the site-level immersions, secondary English teachers
will complete section Level One evaluations (Figure 9). Moreover, post-secondary instructional
resource experts will complete Level One observation protocols (Figure 10). After the
conclusion of the immersions, culminating Level One evaluations (Appendices I and K) will be
completed by participants (Figure 11). Data from these instruments will be collected to provide
information that will inform instructional adjustments made by the resource experts.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 331

Figure 9. Evaluation Dashboard: Participant Satisfaction.

Figure 10. Evaluation Dashboard: Post Intervention Blended Evaluation.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 332

Figure 11. Evaluation Dashboard: Delayed Blended Evaluation-Community of Inquiry.

Level Two instruments will be administered at the end of the site-level immersions, as
well as after the initiation of the dual-channel CoI (Appendices L and M). Data collected from
both instruments will assist embedded expert resources in remediation for teachers who are not
able to demonstrate satisfactory progress.
Quantitative evaluations from Level One and Level Two, while convenient, cannot be
taken at face value to establish with certainty the quality of training, or for that matter the
capability of teachers to demonstrate the rich depth of knowledge required of language
development, cultural relevancy, or modification and differentiation of formative and summative
evaluations. Instead, quantitative data from Level One and Level Two can be used as valuable
indicators providing a glimpse of information that should be buttressed by deeper analysis that
considers the qualitative sections that are critical aspects of the New World Kirkpatrick model as
recommended by this study.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 333
Level Three instruments will be administered after the initial CoI, and will provide
information that will demonstrate how effectively or ineffectively secondary English teachers are
applying discoveries made during the intensive workshop. This will provide post-secondary
instructional resource experts as well as participating teachers with the opportunity to address
areas of need, and collectively increase the capability for the teachers to meet the expectations
required by Level Four instruments. Finally, at the end of the first quarter of the school year, and
the conclusion of the initial CoI, teachers will be evaluated with the formal Level Four
observation protocol. In a culminating meeting with all participants, secondary English teachers
will complete the final Level Four knowledge evaluations.
In addition to the previously detailed evaluations, formative evaluations of teacher
development within the dual-channel CoI will enhance the ability of teachers to refine their
techniques for the evaluation of Latino PEBLs, as well as assist the teachers in a reflection and
contextualization of their developing knowledge. Providing ample qualitative data, these
reflections of teachers and of post-secondary instructional resource experts will help build the
capacity of members in the dual-channel CoI, and ultimately improve each teacher’s capability in
developing and acting autonomously through enriched application of Inquiry as Stance by each
teacher. The post-secondary instructional resource experts as well as district leaders will be able
to monitor secondary English teacher participation in the dual-channel CoI, and while qualitative
evaluations will require more engaged analyses, the high visibility of shared information within
the dual-channel CoI will make it possible for district and site-level leaders to render degrees of
participation of teachers instantaneously through website management privileges provided to
those leaders.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 334
Implementation Plan Summary
Fundamental paradigm shifts will be required of secondary English teachers in PCSD if
the district earnestly seeks to follow through on its promise to its population of Latino PEBLs.
Following the collection and analysis of data in my comprehensive inquiry, secondary English
teachers demonstrated that they clung to stereotypical views of Latino EBs that compromised
their educational opportunity through teacher’s execution of inaccurate language development
and content-area evaluations, both formative and summative. Shifting these paradigms held by
secondary English teachers will take time, and charting the improved practices will require on-
going analysis and consistent engagement by post-secondary instructional resource experts. It
will also require that district leaders provide differentiated support to teachers. Through
application of the New World Kirkpatrick model, district and site-level leaders will be able to
monitor the effectiveness of the site-level immersions and extended dual-channel CoI.
Moreover, leaders will be able to engage with teachers as both groups develop culturally relevant
paradigms that will support more effective evaluation methods in support of Latino PEBLS.
The New World Kirkpatrick model has significant limitations in evaluating the rich
complexity of the learning enterprise, particularly for metacognitive factors that are so crucial in
the development of new dispositions of teachers of Latino PEBLs. Yet the New World
Kirkpatrick model does have the advantage of providing leaders with valuable feedback
throughout the intervention efforts that can allow leaders to make shifts that will improve the
capability of the organization in realizing the goals of the intervention. The model is systematic,
articulated clearly, and provides leaders with degree of success in realizing performance
objectives.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 335
My extensive inquiry acknowledges that the social constructivist perspective does not
support a causal linkage of behavioral interventions in the same way as behaviorist perspectives.
Yet in shifting the view of the application of the New World Kirkpatrick model from the totality
of the evaluation of the intervention and instead using evaluations to provide immediate and
convenient (if incomplete) information that can make it possible to make rapid shifts in the
actual intervention, the model can be a very valuable tool.
The ultimate goal of the intensive professional development produced by the dual-
channel CoI will be to facilitate the development of culturally relevant, asset-based dispositions
among teachers who will eventually be required to engage in complex, instantaneous decision-
making in their classrooms. The New World Kirkpatrick model can support the organization in:
(a) breaking down the larger performance goals into sections that can be addressed with greater
precision in the intervention; (b) monitoring participation in the dual-channel CoI, including
remediation and enrichment interventions; and finally, (c) allowing teachers to engage in the
critical alignment of their more sophisticated understanding of the importance of aligning their
systems of internal accountability with systems of external accountability.
In the final analysis, the greatest value of the New World Kirkpatrick model will be in the
information that will be given to the secondary English teachers, allowing them to increase their
ability to see value in their improved practices even as the model improves their self-efficacy as
they apply enriched understanding of the effective methods of evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Recommendations for Future Study
Although my comprehensive study focused on the performance problem that most
directly involved secondary English teachers, the discoveries that emerged during my inquiry
extended beyond this stakeholder group. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 336
influences of State of California, Maplewood, and PCSD all dynamically interrelated in
contributing to ineffective evaluations by secondary English teachers of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. Although I recognize that the parent
and student stakeholder groups represent pivotal influences in the academic and language
development of Latino PEBLs, my inquiry did not extend into these admittedly vital stakeholder
groups. Nevertheless, I recognize the important contributions these two stakeholder groups
could provide, and each group represents important opportunities for further inquiry.
In this section, I initiate a brief discussion of recommendations for further research in the
form of research questions that could propel further inquiry of the influences that shape
secondary English teacher evaluations of Latino PEBLs. I then briefly explore the existing
context of influences, providing a potential platform for future research of the following
stakeholder groups: (a) the State of California, (b) Maplewood, (c) PCSD, (d) parents of Latino
PEBLs, and (e) Latino PEBLs.
State of California. My initial recommendation for further research considers the
influence of California Education Code § 313 on the evaluation of the language development and
academic performance of Latino PEBLs. In addition, I recommend further research of the
impact of policies and practices that stand in the way of more equitable representation of Latino
secondary English teachers in California schools, in alignment with the majority population of
Latino students in the State of California.
Potential research question 1. How do existing criteria in California Education Code §
313 for: (a) language development assessment, (b) parental opinion, and (c) LEA flexibility to
determine RFEP reproduce systemic obstacles for Latinos in general, and for Latino PEBLs in
particular?
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 337
My inquiry focusing on secondary English teachers indicated that California Education
Code § 313 may not effectively serve the needs of Latino PEBLs. As the code is presently
written and enforced, § 313 may not recognize the existing linguistic potentials and assets of
Latino PEBLs, and may serve to retard their development by giving LEAs the opportunity to
jigger RFEP criteria trapping these students in diminished educational tracks that do not promote
rigorous academic opportunities. As it stands, the language in § 313 provides districts like
PCSD with the latitude to alter the requirements for RFEP to suit the unique needs of the
district—even if these needs are built on structural inequalities that do not serve the needs of all
learners, as I discovered in teacher formative and summative evaluations of the language
development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs. PCSD’s interpretation of § 313
establishes that if Latino PEBLs do not pass each of their classes at the secondary level, these
students may not be advanced to RFEP. Were equitable grading policies that faithfully measured
student ability in meeting standards enacted by secondary teachers in PCSD, perhaps the
inclusion of student grades as part of RFEP would be justified. Yet as I discovered, secondary
English teachers rarely evaluated the actual language development and academic performance of
Latino PEBLs, choosing instead to measure student effort, attitude, and the ability to meet
teacher’s proprietary expectations that were not aligned with established content and language
standards.
Based on my discoveries, PCSD at the very least has violated the spirit of California
Education Code § 313, a code designed to ensure the language development and academic
opportunity for Latino PEBLs. This violation has resulted in a long-standing reproduction of
structural inequalities exacted against Latino PEBLs within PCSD. It is very likely that this form
of discrimination persists in other districts that, like PCSD, unknowingly enact discriminatory
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 338
policies and practices in RFEP. The result is that for far too many Latino PEBLs, diminished
educational opportunity has become a reality in secondary classrooms in the State of California.
Although the intent of § 313 was to ensure that schools would provide all EBs with the
necessary resources to support their language and academic development, with § 313 (as
practiced by districts like PCSD) the State of California has enabled Local Education Agencies
(LEA) with the capability to fashion what amounts to structural inequalities, all in fulfillment of
§ 313. Local Educational Agencies might be driven by the best of intentions, but by
homogenizing the language development and academic needs of the totality of EBs only to then
shape evaluative expectations that do not recognize the existing linguistic assets of learners,
certain groups of EBs who have distinctly different needs have not been provided with equitable
educational opportunity in the form of specific academic support combined with rigorous inquiry
that is aligned with necessary forms of language support. LEAs may identify local assessments
they will use to determine that EBs are meeting academic measures that indicate they are ready
to reclassify. Regulations (Title 5, California Code of Regulations, sections 11303-
Reclassification and 11308 [c][6]-Advisory Committee) specify that any local reclassification
criteria must be reviewed by the school district committee on programs and services for English
learners. This presents a potential bureaucratic obstacle for Latino PEBLs.
The State of California should closely examine the language in California Education
Code § 313 that promotes LEA application of additional evaluation forms to determine RFEP.
California Education Code § 313 has offered flexibility to suit the unique needs of every LEA;
yet this has residually led to the potential for organizations that do not recognize inequalities to
simply reproduce them. PCSD is a perfect example of how this structural inequality has become
manifest. The code indicates that in their evaluations of the language development of their EBs,
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 339
each LEA must include: “evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the student's
curriculum mastery” (Article 4.1[e]). Certainly, at face value, this seems to be a common-sense
approach to discovering how to best meet the needs of EBs; however, with Title 5, Section
11303 of the California Code of Regulations, the State of California has provided each LEA with
the ability to form its own local reclassification policies for EBs in satisfaction of the code—
even if these policies are inequitable (See Table 21).
Table 21
Summary of Components in RFEP
RFEP Process (Education Code § 313):
The reclassification procedures developed by the department shall utilize multiple criteria in determining whether to
reclassify a pupil as proficient in English, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
State of California PCSD
Assessment of language proficiency using an
objective assessment instrument (formerly CELDT,
in 2018, ELPAC).

Assessment of language proficiency using an objective
assessment instrument (formerly CELDT, in 2018, ELPAC).

Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a
review of the pupil’s curriculum mastery.
The student must earn grades of C or better in all academic
areas.
The English/language arts teacher must recommend the
student for reclassification to fluent based on the student’s
ability to demonstrate curriculum mastery and English
language proficiency.
The student must demonstrate grade level or above reading
as reflected in teacher administrated Fountas & Pinnell
reading assessment.
Parental opinion and consultation.
Parent meeting only after satisfaction of all other evaluations
for RFEP.
Comparison of the performance of the pupil in basic
skills against an empirically established range of
performance with English proficient pupils.
CAASSP Evaluation.

While each LEA may have the best of intentions, districts like PCSD have instituted
policies seemingly aligned with California Education Code § 313, yet not in line with the
existing needs of Latino PEBLs. These socially promoted practices of LEA may have contorted
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 340
the intent of § 313.
Demonstrating the potentiality for inexact fulfillment of § 313, PCSD has added weight
to the teacher evaluation, yet this has not necessarily facilitated the curriculum mastery of
students. Were classroom assessments and academic achievement indicators based solely on
academic and language development standards, it would be perhaps equitable to justify inclusion
of grades in all classes as part of the RFEP process; however, this is an assumption that is not
supported by research (Bowers, 2011, Brookhart, 1991; Cizek, Fitzgerald, & Rachor, 1996;
Cross & Frary, 1999; Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993; McMillan, 2001; Randall & Englehard,
2009). From my observations, and from the information gained from my interviews with
secondary English teachers, I discovered that secondary English teachers did not evaluate student
satisfaction of content standards, and largely ignored evaluation of satisfaction of ELD standards
in favor of each teacher’s own proprietary grading systems typically connected with effort,
attendance, and attitude of the students, as well as the ability to complete assignments that did
not necessarily align with academic or language development standards.
Another significant barrier that each LEA can establish in § 313 is exemplified by PCSD
in its exclusion of parental opinion in RFEP. PCSD has formed policy that prevents more
equitable execution of RFEP by limiting parental involvement in reclassification decisions only
upon satisfaction of all other facets of the evaluation for RFEP. The State of California requires
that all EBs are to be provided with a parental consultation, and PCSD has abrogated its
responsibility to parents of Latino PEBLs, who may not have achieved satisfactory grades in
their classes. Parents of these students thereby have been denied the opportunity for involvement
in the process of education in PCSD’s schools, presenting yet another bureaucratic barrier in the
way of greater parental participation by Latino mothers and fathers in their student’s education.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 341
With its Education Code § 313 that grants the autonomy of each LEA to alter execution
of the code, the State of California has established a potential bureaucratic barrier (RFEP) that
has been used to redirect Latino PEBLs into classrooms that were not designed to meet their
needs. This inexorable process of approval has become manifest as a struggle for Latino PEBLs,
who end up in secondary schools bound to classes that by their very design are used to segregate
students by language ability. More perniciously, as many LEA seek to satisfy § 313, execution
of autonomy by leaders may allow them to avoid potentially vital restorative remediation
processes with Latino communities in California, upon which generations of discrimination and
forms of counter-discrimination have been reproduced and solidified into monolithic entities that
may have unknowingly reproduced structural forms of inequality.
Potential research question 2. How does more equitable demographic alignment of
teachers with students influence the academic and language development of Latino PEBLs?
My inquiry revealed that an alarming structural inequality in the form of the alignment of
teacher ethnicity with student ethnicity persists in a suburban Los Angeles school district. The
most recent data provided by the CDE (2017) reflects a considerable disparity in ethnic
distribution of teachers to students, with a majority of White teachers (65%) teaching a minority
of White students (24.1%). In contrast, California’s Hispanic or Latino teachers (18.6%) strive
to meet the needs California’s Hispanic or Latino students, who form the majority group of
students in the State of California (54%). Like Ouzad (2014), I discovered in my study that this
form of structural disequilibrium may not benefit Latino students, who are consistently given
lower classroom grades by White teachers even though these students have registered higher
gains on formal terminal assessments. The imbalance of Latino students with Latino teachers in
classrooms in the State of California draws concern to the ability of the state’s existing teachers
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 342
to engage in culturally responsive instruction and evaluations that influence the academic
trajectories of these students. Research has indicated that increasing the population of Latino
teachers could provide considerable benefit for Latino students. In fact, teachers who share
ethnic heritages with students less frequently recommend remediation, and more frequently
identify them as gifted (Tomas Rivera Center, 1993). Yet the solution of increasing the
population of Latino teachers is not easily solved, as the population of qualified Latino teachers
in California remains considerably smaller than the population of qualified White teachers.
Solving structural inequalities in the State of California could be remedied by placing
more Latino teachers in the classrooms of Latino students. This will require active recruitment
of these potential teachers by teacher preparation programs. Based on my findings revealing an
alarming lack of Latino teachers in PCSD (8.7%) in contrast to a student population (27.4%), I
recommend that the State of California and PCSD should engage in more aggressive recruitment
of potential Latino teachers, as well as rigorous teacher certification programs that could assist
all teachers in their collective cultivation of culturally responsive evaluation practices.
Potential research question 3. How can the State of California more effectively recruit
and retain Latino students in teacher credentialing programs?
The challenge in accomplishing a more equitable alignment of Latino teachers with
students is great, owing largely to existing social and economic factors that have been solidified
over a century of inequitable policies and practices that have diminished educational opportunity
for Latino learners in California. Consequently, young Latinos in California do not seek teacher
credentialing programs as frequently as White members of their age group. For example, in
Sonoma, California, a teacher credentialing program at a local post-secondary institution actively
sought more equity in its population of prospective teachers; however, the program generated a
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 343
mere 10 Latino teachers out of a cohort of 237 (Hay, 2015). Gándara and Maxwell-Jolly (2000)
presaged this blight, owing it to the ineffectiveness of polices that were designed to provide
greater measures of equity, but which failed. The researchers maintained: “To a very large
extent, California’s teaching force is the product of its own public schools – schools which have
had little success in preparing underrepresented students to go on to college” (Gándara &
Maxwell-Jolly, 2000, p. 19). In recent years, as part of the Commitments to Action for
Hispanics in Education, the United States has initiated the process of encouraging various post-
secondary institutions to increase the number of Latino teachers in its certification programs;
however, the existing structural inequalities throughout the educational system have significantly
limited the very opportunity for Latino students to earn the academic credentials required of
them to navigate the teacher certification process course, which for many can be quite arduous.
Complicating the existing challenges for Latinos that stand in the way of the pursuit of
the necessary education to become teachers is the expense required of students to complete the
path to a college degree and teaching credential. Ricardo Alcala, who eventually became a
secondary-level Spanish teacher outlined this struggle: “I’d never seen $10,000 before because
that’s what my parents make in a year…And all of a sudden I have to go to the credential
program and take out more student loans — you see the impact of that?” (Hay, 2015). For those
who have command of the social capital that leads them to understand that taking on student
loans can be a sound financial strategy leading to lasting, productive careers, the financial
obstacle that higher education presents is easily surmounted. Yet for those who may not have
had parents, siblings, or other mentors who have managed their school loans effectively and
leveraged the opportunity the loans provided, this obstacle can become so great that more certain
options (if ultimately less profitable) may be the preferred default option.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 344
With its laws and policies, the State of California establishes the eventual cultural
production of secondary English teacher’s evaluation of Latino PEBLs. In engaging in a
rigorous form of inquiry of the influence of existing educational laws, as well as the potential for
more equitable representation by Latinos in the teaching profession, considerably greater
understanding of these influences that I was unable to study (owing to the temporal limitations of
my inquiry) could potentially deepen understanding of the evaluation of Latino PEBLs.
Maplewood. Even as California has established policies that influence teacher
evaluations of language development and academic performance of Latino PEBLs, cities
throughout California have been built on structural inequalities that significantly shape these
evaluations. A city like Maplewood, built on a legacy of environmental racism through
segregative policies and enforcement, needs to investigate the possibility of more effective
zoning practices that will facilitate more equitable distribution of students in its school districts.
Potential research question 4. How can Maplewood ameliorate the suffering inflicted
upon its populations of Latinos over the course of a century, and how can the people of
Maplewood counteract against the entrenched (if seemingly invisible) culture of discrimination
inflicted upon Latinos through the establishment and reinforcement of policies and practices that
have reproduced that culture of discrimination?
Hogan (2016) acknowledged that the very social fabric of neighborhoods throughout
California were shaped by zoning laws designed to promote “neighborhood homogeneity” (p.
26). These efforts, over a century old, are largely still in place, leading to structural challenges in
the promotion of increased diversity by social agencies that are designed to serve diverse groups
of citizens. Waldie (2005), reflecting on the formation of inequitable zoning decisions,
explained that real estate developers in the 1930s and 1940s created housing developments in
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 345
Los Angeles County that restricted sales to “Negroes, Mexicans, and Jews” (p. 73). Two such
developments, Lakewood and Westchester (both adjacent to Maplewood), were funded by the
Federal Housing Administration, one of several “whites-only projects” (Rothstein, 2017, p. 73).
While it is unlikely that such overt racism presently takes place in contemporary zoning
decisions, it remains incumbent upon the cities like Maplewood to ensure that the consequences
of zoning do not continue to reproduce structural inequalities.
Partnerships with social agencies constructed on foundations of discrimination have
perpetuated various strata of hostility against agencies of power in Maplewood. For almost a
century, these hostilities have consistently marginalized Latino people in Maplewood.
Alongside its identification as a model multi-cultural suburb populated by large populations of
voluntary minorities, Maplewood has a long-standing tradition of abject discrimination against
Latinos. Maplewood must address this issue.
Maplewood was founded following years of legal wrangling over land given by King
Carlos III of Spain to Juan Jose Dominguez, when it was purchased in 1911 by a real estate
developer who sought a parcel of 3,000 acres for a profitable industrial and residential setting.
25

The initial zoning of the city was designed to protect working class White populations from the
“dangerous classes” (Phelps, 1995, p. 506). In fact, the initial declaration of residential property
in Maplewood required homeowners to be of the “white or caucasian [sic] race” (Declaration,
1912). Early zoning efforts segregated Latino populations from Whites in Maplewood,

25
As per Hoffman (1862) Rancho San Pedro (a larger 300 km²-acre land area that encompasses present-day
Maplewood) was the initial Alta California land grant by the Spanish government under Carlos III petitioned for
and granted to Juan José Domínguez in 1784 by Governor Pedro Fages, first lieutenant under Alta California’s
first governor Gaspar de Portolà i Rovira. After the end of the Mexican-American War, the United States
government ripped the majority of the tract from the Dominguez heirs, yet at the same time ensured the lesser
holding to the Dominguez family, who eventually sold holdings to developers, including the founder of
Maplewood, who purchased over 3000 acres during the early 20
th
century.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 346
reinforcing prejudices even as it perpetuated them via legal means.
Throughout Maplewood’s past, blatant racism has been consistently interwoven into the
fabric of the city, negatively influencing generations of Latinos for over a century. For example,
in 1922, an active Ku Klux Klan chapter of over 4,000 members would congregate in various
Maplewood public meeting halls. A local paper of the era, the Maplewood Herald, openly
advertised the well-attended meetings (Gnerre, 2014). Moreover, in 1963, a group of people
including popular actors Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston protested real estate developer Don
Wilson’s White-only real estate subdivision in Maplewood. Following an altercation involving
young members of the Ku Klux Klan carrying a banner reading ‘White Men, We Unite’, a group
of White supremacists wearing swastikas, and large groups of citizens protesting against the
practice of discrimination, nineteen White men were detained by Maplewood police, only to be
released after charges were dropped (Weeks, 1963).
The existing culture of Maplewood was at one time described as a bastion of racism and
White supremacy by former Los Angeles Police Department Mark Fuhrman, who was indicted
and convicted of perjury in his claim of not using racial epithets, as revealed during the O.J.
Simpson trial in 1995. Fuhrman, who was taped by writer Laura McKinny over the course of ten
years, detailed the prevailing cultural perspective of Maplewood, stating: “Westwood is gone.
The niggers have discovered it. When they start moving into Redondo and [Maplewood]--that's
considered--Maplewood is considered the last middle-class white society. When that falls…”
(Fuhrman Tapes, 1995).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 347
Maplewood’s culture of discrimination
26
against Latinos in the city has consistently
resulted in a powerful culture of opposition. This has taken the unfortunate form of organized
crime groups like the Mafia Mexicana, (Mexican Mafia) more popularly known as La eMe,
whose present leaders were born in Maplewood and educated in PCSD. Ross (2013) described
the actions of this organized crime group as known for its “domination of criminal enterprises
and inmate life in federal and state prison and county jails, and for its projection of power outside
the walls in the initiation of an influence on a range of street crime” (p. 235). Leadership of La
eMe is currently effected from inmates in California’s Pelican Bay prison, which houses the
largest concentration of La eMe leaders. Although leadership of La eMe is not centralized in the
hands of one man, it is certain that the brothers Grajeda, (Senon “Cherilo” Grande Grajeda, as
well as twins Daniel “Cuate” Grajeda and Thomas “Big Wino” Grajeda) are in the leadership
group (Rafael, 2007). The Grajedas grew up in Maplewood, and are thought to be generationally
associated with the La Rana gang prior to their births, and although documentation of the origins
is lacking, anecdotal reports as well as my own research suggest that gang activity had been part
of the La Rana barrio since its origin as a community for Mexican laborers at the beginning of
the 20
th
century.
Each of the Grajedas are considered shot-callers for the eMe; however, Maplewood
native Cuate has an uncommon degree of power in La eMe, as he had the “weight” (Rafael,
2007) to reverse a long-standing La eMe rule that made it possible for members to sanction

26
A United States Department of Justice (DOJ) probe (1992) found that Maplewood’s police and fire departments
routinely engaged in discriminatory hiring patterns, a probe which led to a settlement to avoid a civil rights
lawsuit. Moreover, in 1995, the DOJ probed racist profiling by Maplewood’s police of Jose Esparza, 19 and
Louie Ortiz, 20, again leading to a settlement (Slater, 1995). Labelled by the Los Angeles Times as a city who is
“no stranger to civil rights abuse” (Streeter, 2010) Maplewood continues to see legal claims against racial
prejudice even into the 21
st
century.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 348
murders of fellow La eMe members. Cuate’s policy effectively extended the reach of the eMe,
as the extended network of the Sureños gang, who proudly consider themselves as “foot
soldiers” (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 465) of the Mexican Mafia, were able to execute the will of
La Eme leaders. The Grajeda family, multi-generational members and leaders of what
Abadinsky (2016) called the “most powerful prison gang” (p. 57) in the United States, were all
raised in the La Rana
27
and surrounding neighborhoods in Maplewood.
The culture of Maplewood certainly has changed over the course of a century, and
demographics indicate a much more diverse population than in previous decades; however, the
legacy of racism has remained. Maplewood has persistently ignored its dark past in favor of a
more equitable present, yet the city has not sufficiently examined the impact of the historical
influences of discrimination. The divisions of the past, once etched into city zoning plans, still
remain powerful, if invisible. Latinos in Maplewood, as well as other minority groups
(especially involuntary minority groups) have been the victim of crime in the form of
discrimination against them for over a century. Attempts at large-scale restorative community
justice, while not capable of instituting more equitable zoning or erasing a century of racism, still
may offer promise into beginning a dialogue between Latino people of Maplewood and the
agents of power in the city. Racist practices enforced and reproduced for over a century cannot
be ignored by the city in the hope of amelioration. Instead, a deeper inquiry of the larger cultural
influences of Maplewood must be undertaken to understand the impact of those influences.

27
The La Rana gang, while traditionally exerting territorial power throughout Maplewood, has gradually seen its
territory threatened; first by the East Side gang in the 1980s, which led to the formation of the 204
th
Street gang in
the early 1990s (Kun & Pulido, 2013). Tortilla Flats (TXFlats), powerful since the 1960s in nearby Compton, are
territorial rivals to 204
th
Street, and are formed by Sureños 13 who act as agents of La eMe. Any territorial wars
with La Rana are managed through agreement of the protection of the sanctity of La Rana territory.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 349
Pacific Coast School District. My recommendation for further research within the
PCSD organization considers three distinct areas that all contribute in secondary English teacher
evaluations of Latino PEBLs: (a) selection of RFEP criteria by district leaders, (b) teacher hiring
and recruitment practices, and (c) community outreach with Latino parents in Maplewood,
especially the La Rana, 204
th
Street, Maplewood Flats, East Side, and El Centro barrios. In
contrast to the recommendations I have made for study of California and Maplewood, I center
my potential inquiry for PCSD through a singular recommendation of the application of the
Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004) to maximize the inclusion of Latino parents and student in
the decision-making processes that PCSD applies in satisfaction of California Education Code §
313. Rather than dividing each separate context and providing contextual factors as well as my
ideas for the future research as I have done in my descriptions of future study in California and
Maplewood, for future study of PCSD, I have chosen to take a more integrated approach by
listing the research questions, followed by a discussion of the capability of the Diversity
Scorecard (DS) to address the larger organizational obstacles in PCSD and the extended
community that prevent more equitable evaluations of Latino PEBLs.
Potential research question 5. How do district leaders justify their additional criteria for
RFEP, and how is this judgment rendered?
Potential research question 6. How do district leaders establish hiring procedures that
increase the diversity of the population of teachers, and how can the district work with local
post-secondary institutions to increase the number of Latino teachers?
Potential research question 7. How can targeted outreach in the Latino communities of
Maplewood align external and internal forms of accountability through the application of the
Diversity Scorecard?
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 350
My investigation of the origin of the additional criteria that PCSD included in its
proprietary version of RFEP revealed that the district leadership acted unilaterally in creating the
policy, which it then submitted to the Maplewood Board of Education for unquestioned
adoption. I engaged in an inquiry with leaders of their justification of their choices, and was
rebuffed. It is certain that Latino parents and students did not contribute to this policy, further
disempowering them. In PCSD, as in other school districts in the State of California, the lack of
consideration of the perspectives of minority parents and students contribute to “misguided
accountability systems” (Crawford, 2004, p. 2), which local education agencies can only remedy
by considering the views of all stakeholders in the formation of more aligned expectations of
internal and external accountability.
The RFEP process for Latino PEBLs can act as a substantial barrier for entry into post-
secondary education for these students. Advancement through post-secondary education is
critical in the production of societal benefits including decreased crime, increased civic
participation, social cohesion, and decreased reliance on social welfare services (Hill, Hoffman,
& Rex, 2005). Yet the current system of RFEP in PCSD, as well as the State of California “may
actually be contributing to educational inequity, lack of accountability, and student failure”
(Liquanti, 2001, p. 1). The misalignment of systems of accountability in PCSD have negated
efforts for institutional change that recognize the needs of minority groups in favor of cultural
reproduction that preserves the stability of the organization as well as the status of its
majoritarian White leadership. This stability has persisted, because while Whites remain a
majority population in Maplewood (if diminishing annually, with strong indicators of increases
in the Latino population), its population of students is not. Dubnick (2014) explains that in the
discourse of existing social and cultural discontinuities “accountability will likely assume a
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 351
central role” (p. 34). This does not auger favorably for the social mobility of Latino PEBLs in
PCSD, for whom current accountability measures are anything but “authentic” (Lazarin, 2006, p.
20). The present challenges in the accountability of programs for these learners require “local
responses to external accountabilities” (Firestone & Shipp, 2005, p. 91). For these responses to
be effective, local agencies such as PCSD must acknowledge the diverse needs of diverse
stakeholders, as the existing unidirectional nature of accountability (Gelfand, Lim, & Raver,
2004) cannot be expected to align with the diverse cultural environment of people who represent
Maplewood—even if the leadership throughout PCSD reflects limited degrees of ethnic
diversity.
My recommendation is that the district investigate the application of Bensimon’s (2004)
approach to aligning systems of accountability, while increasing involvement from the totality of
stakeholders through application of the Diversity Scorecard (DS). The DS is designed to “close
the achievement gap for historically underrepresented students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45) at post-
secondary schools, but it has specific attributes that can leverage necessary change in PCSD.
The framework of the DS includes categories for “access, retention, institutional receptivity, and
excellence” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 46), and measures baseline, improvement target, and the point
of equity (see Appendix X). The DS can provide all stakeholder groups in PCSD with critical
information that can refine instructional practices, increase social opportunities, and facilitate
cultural integration in the promotion of improved outcomes of all learners—including Latino
PEBLs.
The most compelling reason for the use of the DS is that a focus on results as
demonstrated by standardized tests will not necessarily influence the socio-cultural factors that
have resulted in diminished academic outcomes for emergent bilingual learners, especially for
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 352
Latino PEBLs. Essentially, a sole focus on objective data provided by the State of California
may simply reproduce existing cultural practices, which in turn shape educational practices.
This will not serve a population of learners who will benefit only through systemic change. The
DS makes it possible to address the underlying causes of diminished performance, while at the
same time acknowledging objective outcomes in measuring localized interventions focused on
establishing equity.
The involvement of parents in the process of fleshing out the DS stands as a remarkable
opportunity in refining educational outcomes for all learners. In addition, the inclusion of this
group of otherwise ignored stakeholders in the planning process can create a new tier of support
for learners. As Auerbach and Collier (2012) found, accountability measures that included the
parents of immigrant families facilitated improved relationships between parents and the
institution, increasing parental involvement in the education of their students. Parents are
considered very important in the academic trajectories of students (Fan & Chen, 2001; Nokali,
Bachman & Votruba-Drzal, 2010; Sanoff, 2015; Wang & Sheikh‐Khalil, 2014), yet a deeper
involvement in accountability factors may be seen by parents as beyond their capabilities.
Simultaneously, it may be seen by educational professionals as intrusion. Cooper (2015) found
that parents of emergent bilingual learners were very eager to increase their level of participation
in school planning, but did not find the opportunity to do so. Additionally, these parents found
that programs requiring their participation helped them better communicate with their children.
Inclusion in school planning is of particular importance for parents of EBs, who have diverse
perspectives of the social expectations of parent involvement within the American educational
system.
Involving Latino parents is a critical factor in facilitating more culturally responsive
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 353
policies and practices in PCSD. At the same time, the student stakeholder group of Latino
PEBLs in PCSD must be afforded the opportunity to give their collective voice to the decisions
of PCSD. One of the challenges that Latino PEBLs face in PCSD is that they have been
traditionally marginalized into subordinate status. School systems depend on subordination of
students, giving inordinate dominance to the teacher “in the formulation of intended learning”
(Daniels, 2012, p. 11). For traditionally privileged groups of learners, this subordination is a
welcome tradeoff for the capability of one day extending their own measures of subordination
upon others in the society through the socio-cultural status guaranteed to them by organizations
that have reproduced cultural inequalities. For Latino PEBLs, as well as other non-voluntary
minorities, the capability to execute power simply does not exist, eventually diminishing the
desire for these marginalized learners to accept their subordinate status. If the purpose of the
educational institution is to build a subordinate status for students and create obedience, students
should not participate in planning decisions. Denying student involvement in planning can
support the ‘dominant’ position of the institution; at the same time, it can foster passive
engagement by students, diminishing learning. Yet if the purpose of an educational organization
is to acknowledge the equality of its participants, inclusion by all stakeholders—especially
students—is of paramount importance.
Fletcher (2003) found that students who are involved in the planning of their instruction
are considerable more engaged in learning—especially by marginalized populations of learners.
While many researchers have demonstrated the importance of the alignment of student learning
with school instructional planning, the reality is that few schools actively engage students. This
has created a climate in which students are passive learners, and without the advocacy of parents,
they may not extend the same degree of educational effort. The passivity has certainly not added
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 354
to the educational involvement by Latino PEBLs in charting courses of academic success, or by
their parents in supporting their children; yet by creating a culture in which involvement is an
expectation for all stakeholders, the reproduction of cultural inequalities can be identified,
diminished, and resigned to a reliquary that houses remnants from an unfortunate period in
California’s history.
Using the DS, PCSD’s leaders can gain the contribution of a broader range of
stakeholders in developing more equitable judgments of how to establish RFEP procedures that
are more culturally responsive to the unique needs of Latino PEBLs. It can also make it possible
for district leaders to begin to understand how the district’s existing structural inequalities in its
staffing have negatively impacted the academic trajectories of marginalized groups of learners
like Latino PEBLs. Moreover, by involving post-secondary instructional resource experts in the
application of the DS, PCSD can begin to create a more effective, more culturally responsive
pipeline of future educators who can one day lead students in a more equitable version of PCSD.
Even as application of the DS can assist PCSD in changing its very structure to meet the
needs of all of its stakeholder groups—including Latino PEBLs—it can also assist the district in
establishing more culturally responsive hiring patterns while promoting the eventual
development of a larger population of Latino teachers. Application of the DS can initiate the
critical process of remediating a century of injustices enacted upon the Latino communities of
Maplewood through bringing this traditionally marginalized group of stakeholders into the
formation of policies and expectations for practices that will reflect their unique needs. Rather
than remaining silent, and in many cases, selecting life pathways that consistently oppose the
existing structures of inequality, Latino citizens in the La Rana, 204
th
Street, Maplewood Flats,
East Side, and El Centro barrios of Maplewood can gain greater inclusion in the process of social
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 355
governance through participation facilitated by the DS.
The DS can help all stakeholders in formulating a culture that promotes the diverse assets
of each stakeholder, including the traditionally marginalized groups of involuntary minorities.
The solution the DS offers is organic, and does not allow the organization to retain its traditional
execution of power; however, based on my extensive research of establishing greater measures
of intuitional equity, the DS is perhaps the most effective method in addressing the deeper,
underlying internal forms of accountability that need remediation for PCSD to honor its promises
made to all learners, including the silent majority of Latino PEBLs.
Conclusion
Over twenty years ago, Romo and Falbo (1996) studied the educational plight of Latino
students in Austin, Texas public schools, as these students and their parents navigated the
“bureaucratic maze” (p. 182) of the public-school system. In accounting after accounting, the
authors shared the perspectives of students and parents who revealed that this system was “not
responsive to their needs as children of uneducated Mexicans” (Romo & Falbo, 1996, p. xiii).
The students and parents in the study believed that education was important, and could pave the
way to a better life; however, they did not believe that schools in Austin were structured
effectively to provide access to equal opportunity as guaranteed to them by the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (20 U.S. Code § 1701). Instead, they felt “demeaned and
demoralized by the way that teachers and other school personnel treated them” (Romo & Falbo,
1996, p. 253). Disempowered, they struggled in a system that had perpetuated a negative cycle
of academic outcomes leading to students who dropped out of high school, compelling them to
seek alternative pathways in order to survive outside of the established mainstream economy.
Reflecting on their findings, Romo and Falbo confided that “for the most part, the schools
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 356
blamed the parents for the low achievement, bad attitudes, and scholastic gaps of the students”
(1996, p. 218). This deficit-oriented paradigm may not have been overtly stated by teachers and
personnel in the Austin schools, nor may it have been even recognized. Yet discrimination
inexorably exacted its insidious grip upon the Latinos of Austin.
Twenty years after the publication of Romo and Falbo’s (1996) research, the shackles of
inequity binding involuntary minorities in the United States of America have rarely rattled, nor
have they rusted. In my own of study of the secondary English teachers of Latino PEBLs in a
Los Angeles suburb, I consistently observed deficit-oriented paradigms held by teachers of
Latino youth that presently and have persistently plagued contemporary public education in
suburbs like Maplewood, as well as in cities throughout California and the United States of
America. As I observed, reproduction of inequality in schools is not a myth. It is a finely-tuned
process within which the voices of dissention are weeded out in favor of more streamlined
functionality of the reproduction of structural inequalities benefitting the privileged at the
expense of the marginalized. Exceptional points of view that recognized the practices of
inequities, such as “Ms. Middlestadt,” a teacher at Bayside High School, who described the
systemic obstacles that Latino PEBLs faced, were the exception in my discoveries, as were
emotions like the despair “Ms. Middlestadt” experienced in fighting a system designed to
promote limitation rather than liberation of Latino PEBLs. These discoveries, like far too many
others, underscored the inexorable power of the system to resist change.
The scientific management (Romo & Falbo, 1996, p. 183) of the organizational enterprise
of public education in the last two centuries was designed to promote control of a system that
produced students as if they were products in a factory. At an early age, children’s entire
experiences were to be groomed by the institutions to facilitate society’s capacity for
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 357
reproducing itself. For those in the society who trust in the systems that perpetuate these
processes because they have traditionally benefitted from the results the system offers, consistent
hidden support is offered that perpetuates the stability of this system. For those who do not gain
the same benefits, a cycle of distrust and even resentment can pool, entrenching the division
between groups of people that stratifies in social divisions that eventually exacerbate existing
divisions in the society instead of producing equality. As Bourdieu (1977) so cogently revealed:
By doing away with giving explicitly to everyone what it implicitly demands of
everyone, the education system demands of everyone alike that they have what it does
not give. This consists mainly of linguistic and cultural competence and that relationship
of familiarity with culture which can only be produced by family upbringing when it
transmits the dominant culture. (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 494).
Even as the structural inequalities in the systems of public education that cement Latinos to the
margins of society persist, those very systems continue to offer the promise of equality to all
learners, no matter their ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, the State of
California (2017) explained in its Vision Statement that:
All California students of the 21st century will attain the highest level of academic
knowledge, applied learning and performance skills to ensure fulfilling personal lives and
careers and contribute to civic and economic progress in our diverse and changing
democratic society.
No nuancing or veiling (however clever) can camouflage the promise of equality California
offers to each of its students. In the same vein, with its Mission Statement, PCSD has promised
“to ensure that each and every student is educated and prepared to succeed in life. We are
dedicated to maximizing individual potential and developing lifelong learner who will be
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 358
contributing members in a global society” (2017). The promises that California and PCSD have
made are noble. These promises should catalyze hope for the Latino students throughout
California, including the Los Angeles suburb in which I observed and interviewed secondary
English teachers. Yet as I discovered, this seemingly-noble promise remains unfulfilled for
Latino PEBLs and their parents. The promise remains unfulfilled in no small part because of
cultural reproduction of deficit-oriented paradigms of the academic capabilities of Latinos held
by institutional agents at all levels of public education in the State of California. My inquiry
focused on secondary English teachers, who for the most part tacitly endorsed practices of
discrimination as arbiters of academic and language capabilities of Latino PEBLs. This
stakeholder group unknowingly had perpetuated traditional practices leading to the power of
teachers in playing the role of gatekeeper to secondary educational opportunity for Latino
PEBLs, in turn redirected these students away from the pathway to post-secondary opportunity.
In my study, I found that secondary English teachers reproduced structural inequalities that had
become so entrenched as to have become practically invisible, compelling the teacher-
gatekeepers to far too frequently engage in a mindless reproduction of inequality, perpetually
marginalizing Latino PEBLs.
Over the course of my study, I observed and interviewed secondary teachers who had
expectations reliant upon certain forms of social and cultural capital that led these teacher-
gatekeepers to cede responsibility of their own inequitable actions, ascribing them instead to
Latino parents and students who did not, as these teachers perceived, perform at high enough
levels to succeed academically in PCSD schools. Far, far too many secondary English teachers I
observed and interviewed continually capitalized on a culture in which command of multiple
forms of cultural currency positioned certain students to succeed academically and others to fail.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 359
For example, many teachers spoke of the benefits that tutors provided Asian students, and
ascribed this to “tiger moms” who cared about their children’s education. They wondered why
Latino parents did not do the exact same thing. Teachers consistently referred to parents who
provided their children education provided by what Spring (2011) disparagingly, if succinctly
described as “shadow education” (p. 5) in the form of local for-profit cram schools, test
preparation centers, and tutors. Teachers frequently remarked about the help that these tutors
provided students in polishing their writing products submitted for grades. Teachers accepted
these practices that prepared the students for better grades as well as success in the ultimate
assessment, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which would be the gatekeeper of successful
collegiate entry. Yet Latino students who did not command the same understanding of the
importance of this additional schooling were left on the outside looking in at a game that was not
designed for them to succeed in playing.
Shadow education was but one of the forms of the systemic expectations of cultural
capital expected by teachers that Latino students may not have had the same degree of command
as their peers. Gift cards accepted by local retailers delivered to teachers during holidays,
outright payments to coaches/teachers in lieu of fundraising efforts by students, parental
badgering of teachers to gain higher grades, and even the expectation of additional attention from
support personnel such as counselors and teachers during lunch time were all manifestations of
the cultural capital exchanged by White and Asian students with their teachers in the schools I
observed in PCSD. Never part of any explicit expectation of students of for that matter of the
teachers, these hidden forms of cultural exchange nevertheless played a critical role in student
capability in gaining increased cultural capital in the form of higher grades, inclusion in special
groups and teams, and even promotion to certain advanced academic classes. Lacking the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 360
command to negotiate these forms of cultural capital, Latino PEBLs all too frequently were
given diminished grades, dooming them to what has been inelegantly, if all too accurately
referred to as the “ESL ghetto” (Darling-Hammond, Ramos-Beban, Altamirano, & Hyler, 2016,
p. 216).
In my experiences over the course of my comprehensive study, secondary English
teachers perceived the inability for Latino PEBLs to participate in the hidden dimensions of the
discourse of power as apathy or recalcitrance. Yet teachers engaged in practices of evaluation in
the biannual benchmarks of their Latino PEBLs that were entirely disassociated from the stated
purpose of these evaluations. Systems of behavioral expectations and completion of worksheets,
although not even remotely associated with language evaluation expectations for EBs, emerged
as a primary consideration of secondary English teachers. While it is certainly a reasonable
expectation for students to complete assigned work in class, to evaluate language development
on completion of worksheets or on classroom behavior draws into question whether or not
secondary English teachers were expecting obedience from their Latino PEBLs, or if the teachers
were expecting these students to develop English language capabilities as well as content-area
mastery.
The expectations of obedience placed upon them by largely White teacher-gatekeepers in
secondary schools of PCSD positioned Latino students as recipients of, not participants in the
discourse of power inherent to educational institutions. Foucault (1982) labelled the educational
institution as a “block of capacity communication-power” (p. 787), and although this concretized
‘block’ may have been immovable for Latino PEBLs in PCSD, secondary English teachers
remained ignorant of its very existence, leading me to realize that no change benefitting Latino
PEBLs would ever take root in PCSD unless secondary English teachers recognized the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 361
extension of their agency of power and their discriminatory practices. No change would take
root unless secondary English teachers gained personal insight of the impact that their practices
contributed to in reproducing inequitable educational trajectories for Latino PEBLs.
The stated promise made by the State of California and by districts such as PCSD is to
provide equal opportunity to all students; however, for marginalized groups like Latino PEBLs,
that promise has become compromised by systemic forces that refute the funds of the Latino
learner in favor of the social and cultural capital commanded by the privileged students who are
more capable in negotiating the accepted expectations of the exchange of cultural capital. This
implicit pedagogy, as Bourdieu (1990) described it, reproduced itself in PCSD at the expense of
the marginalized Latino PEBLs, all the while “enabling the possessors of the prerequisite cultural
capital to continue to monopolize that capital” (p. 47). Engaging teacher-researchers in self-
directed inquiry as I have prescribed will provide the most lasting solution to the monolithic
problem of the reproduction of inequality by schools within PCSD. It is a simple solution, but it
is by no means an easy one. Authentic change that emerges organically from the discoveries of
teachers at each site in PCSD is essential to initiate what will be a gradual erosion of the powers
of discrimination that have hardened into culturally unresponsive teacher practices in districts
like PCSD. Fullan (1991) determined that “educational change depends on what teachers do and
think—it’s as simple and as complex as that” (Fullan, with Stiegelbauer, 1991, p. 117), and I
have adhered to this circumspect statement by localizing change within the very social processes
that secondary English teachers initiate, shape, and perpetuate as they evaluate Latino PEBLs.
The challenge faced by PCSD’s leaders is that from many vantages of external
accountability measurements, the performance of students in the district has traditionally been
well above the state average—at least until 2017, when the State of California piloted a new
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 362
metric it intended to use to hold LEA accountable, entitled the Equity Report. In past years, the
Academic Performance Index (API) was used to reflect school performance. This measure was
comprised largely of scores on standardized tests. In contrast, the Equity Report incorporates a
range of new indicators, including the performance of EBs as measured on the yet to be
administered ELPAC evaluation, as well as local indicators such as parental involvement and
local climate surveys. PCSD has historically performed at the highest of levels based on the
former API measurements; however, in 2017, as reflected in the Equity Report, PCSD registered
a distinct performance failure for its population of EBs in comparison to every other measure
provided by the State of California.
As I discovered, PCSD does not meet its own expectation for organizational performance
in meeting the needs of EBs, not to mention the Latino majority population of PEBLs in the
district. Although statistics for PEBLs are not disaggregated by ethnicity, my own research
demonstrated that at the secondary level, the overwhelming majority of PEBLs at each school
were Latino. In most of PCSD’s five high schools, Latino PEBLs comprised at least 90% of the
population of PEBLs. The performance problem is very clear. A promise has been made, and it
is the responsibility of each stakeholder group in PCSD as well as Maplewood to fulfill this
promise made to the silent majority of Latino learners in California.
Ogbu’s (1987) classified the “collective problems faced by minorities” (p. 158) into three
forms of discrimination: instrumental, relational, and symbolic. These represent roadblocks that
are objectified as “the system” (Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 156). I discovered that each of these
forms of discrimination was robustly present within PCSD’s secondary schools. Instrumental
discrimination took the form of legal barriers, such as the RFEP process and the way PCSD had
proprietarily constituted this process in satisfaction of California Education Code § 313.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 363
Relational discrimination took the form of residential and social segregation, as Maplewood and
PCSD have long created and perpetuated segregation in zoning decisions and school boundary
making. PCSD continues to extend the relational segregation for Latino PEBLs by established
RFEP requirements that place Latino PEBLs in classes that do not meet their needs. Symbolic
segregation took the form of the way that Latino PEBLs are continually subjected to
“intellectual, cultural and linguistic derogation, denigration, and stereotyping” (Ogbu & Simons,
1998, p. 158) by secondary English teachers in PCSD. PCSD continues to reproduce each of
Ogbu’s (1987) forms of discrimination for its population of Latino PEBLs by not recognizing the
existing assets of these learners, and by denying the ability of these learners to engage
multilingually in classrooms from an early age. PCSD has also perpetuated discrimination by
not addressing the demonstrated practices of racial stereotyping by teachers of Latino PEBLs.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) described that non-voluntary minorities frequently adopt a stance of
opposition to the majoritarian White agencies of power, because the involuntary minority
perceives that “adopting white ways and language is a subtractive or replacement process that
threatens minority identity” (p. 175). My research underscored the validity of this claim, leading
me to conclude that the only solution to the performance problem in PCSD is to develop the
capability of secondary English teachers to recognize their own participation in the perpetuation
of discrimination, even as they begin to develop more accurate and more culturally responsive
evaluation practices in their classrooms.
As I have sought and gained insight into the organizational performance gap found
among secondary English teachers who did not have the capability to effectively evaluate Latino
PEBLs, I recognized an extended network of influences that significantly shaped the cultural
production of those teachers. My earliest discoveries centered on the enormous distance between
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 364
the expectations of the district leadership for completion of detailed language evaluations in the
form of biannual benchmarks and the teacher capability to command the declarative and
procedural knowledge necessary to provide fidelity in this form of language evaluation of EBs.
Taken alone, this finding would represent the opportunity to justify robust methods of
remediation of the knowledge and motivation of secondary English teachers, so that they could
more accurately evaluate all EBs, including Latino PEBLs. Yet my discovery of the entrenched
forms of discrimination that first appeared in my observation of teacher recommendations for
RFEP, and which were deepened during interviews with teachers represented an altogether
different challenge: How can teachers, who do not recognize their discriminatory practices, begin
to identify those practices, and then begin the process of instituting culturally responsive
dispositions that would reverse the negative academic performance trajectories of Latino
PEBLs? The problem seemed so enormous, yet I found solace in my discoveries that teachers
were very hard workers, who for the most part cared very deeply about students. Unfortunately,
they had simply been shaped by a system that has reproduced inequalities long before these
teachers were even alive; these teachers had unknowingly participated in contributing to the
institutional inequalities in PCSD for as long as these teachers had been part of the district.
My study, like far too many before it, discovered that organizational performance
problems rooted in discriminatory practices had been reproduced all too frequently, and all too
powerfully in secondary schools in a suburban Los Angeles school district. The problem of the
instantiation of the cultural hegemony of whiteness within PCSD, the district I investigated,
encompasses much more than simply the evaluative practices of secondary English teachers. To
provide remedy, any solution to the organizational performance problem must address the
underlying issues of racial discrimination, or the solution will eventually be rendered
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 365
infructuous. The challenge is that the most practical, most lasting method of shifting the
dispositions of all who participate in the reproduction of injustice rests in the hands of teachers,
who have the capability of leaving an imprimatur on their learners that can lead to equality and
freedom for all members of the global society for generations to come.
Secondary English teachers in PCSD are not to blame for ineffective evaluation practices
rooted in discrimination. They are responsible for providing the remedy. Secondary English
teachers are not to blame for a lack of trust among far too may Latino PEBLs of agents in power
in PCSD, and in Maplewood. These teachers are responsible for establishing trust. They are
responsible for aligning binding social expectations that are rooted in equality with the promises
that they, as well as the larger organizational umbrellas of PCSD and the State of California have
rendered. Narrowing the gaps between expectations and performance within the organization
will require the development of considerable stores of declarative and procedural knowledge by
secondary English teachers in PCSD. Narrowing the gaps will also require the cultivation of
self-efficacy and value that will continually motivate these teachers to shift their practices.
Narrowing the gaps will require that the organizational barriers presently standing in the way of
more effective secondary English teacher evaluations be removed. Yet in simply developing
new, more effective evaluation processes that do not address the underlying aspects of
discrimination that I discovered to be rife throughout PCSD, organizational leaders and
secondary English teachers would be avoiding the development of deeper dispositions that would
provide them with the capability to provide culturally responsive education to the district’s
population of Latino PEBLs.
In closing, I remind that Freire (1985) lucidly remarked that “‘washing one's hands’ of
the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 366
neutral” (p. 122). For Latino learners in PCSD, as well as in schools throughout California,
participation in an educational enterprise that has persistently placed them on the margins has left
them in at a system that they do not trust. Quick fixes, or what Freire referred to as “anaesthetic
or aspirin practices” (p. 122), while alluring to the agents of power because they represent
recognition of a problem that it wants to solve, do not change the very dynamics that engendered
the inequalities. Without addressing the underlying social structures that have established and
reproduced the social inequalities, the agents of power force its subordinates to, as Bourdieu
(1990) conveyed, “enter the game of fictitious communication, even if this entails adherence to
the academic world-view which casts them into unworthiness” (p. 112). For an authentic
production of equality to supplant the all-too-familiar reproduction of inequality in PCSD (and
other educational institutions in California), it is essential that the participants in the reproduction
of inequality “experience their own Easter…so as to be resurrected on the side of the oppressed,
that they are born again with the beings who were not allowed to be” (Freire, 1985, pp. 122-123).
With my integrated implementation and evaluation plan, I have established a context within
which each secondary English teacher in PCSD can experience their own awakenings, leading to
a resurrection—not as a “commemorative rhetoric” (Freire, 1985, p. 123), but as an authentic
deepening of the commitment to honoring the promises that these educational agencies have
made to Latino PEBLs.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 367
References
Abadinsky, H. (2012). Organized crime. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education
eligibility. The Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282-2303.
Abedi J, Heckman P., Herman J. (2010). The Formative Assessment Project. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2001). Examining ELL and non-ELL student performance
differences and their relationship to background factors: Continued analyses of extant
data. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing.
Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on
English language learners’ test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 19(3), 16–26.
Abedi, J., Lord, C., Kim-Boscardin, C., & Miyoshi, J. (2000). The effects of accommodations on
the assessment of LEP students in NAEP (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 537). Los Angeles:
University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an
educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative
learning. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201-216.
Aganza, J. S., Godinez, A., Smith, D., Gonzalez, L. G., & Robinson-Zañartu, C. (2015). Using
Cultural Assets to Enhance Assessment of Latino Students. Contemporary School
Psychology, 19(1), 30-45.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 368
Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Akyol, Z., (2013). Metacognitive development within the Community of Inquiry. In: Z. Akyol
and D.R. Garrison, Eds. Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework,
Research and Practice. Hershey: IGI Global.
Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist
theory. Signs, 13(3), 405-436
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176-192.
Anderson, C., & Sally, D. (2013). The numbers game: Why everything you know about soccer is
wrong. New York, New York: Penguin.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anthony, G., & Ord, K. (2008). Change ‐of ‐career secondary teachers: Motivations, expectations
and intentions. Asia ‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 359-376.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K–6: Building
reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin/Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational Applications of Social Cognitive Theory. Australian Journal
of Management, 13(2), pp. 275-302.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 369
6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current directions
in psychological science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development: 9-35. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted Impact of Self-
Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social
comparison on complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology,
60(6), 941.
Battle, A., & Looney, L. (2014). Teachers' Intentions to Stay in Teaching: The Role of Values
and Knowledge of Adolescent Development. Education, 134(3), 369-379.
Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14, 239-247.
Beiser, F. (2011). The Historics of Johann Gustav Droysen. In The German Historicist Tradition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 370
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2007). The Economic Losses from High School Dropouts in
California. Policy Brief, UC Santa Barbara, California Dropout Research Project, Gevirtz
Graduate School of Education.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. London:
Routledge.
Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across
the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child
development, 82(2), 508-519.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change: The magazine of higher learning, 36(1), 44-52.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change. Vol. 7: Factors affecting implementation and
continuation (Report No. R- 1589/7 -HEW). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2002). Research in Education (7
th
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Blake, W. (1972) Complete Writings: with Variant Writings. London: Oxford University Press
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education
Goals. Cognitive Domain. Handbook 1. New York, Longman.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bohrnstedt, G.W. (2013). Measurement. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson, (Eds.),
Handbook of Survey Research. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 371
Boyd, S.E., Banilower, E.R., Pasley, J.D., & Weiss, I.R., (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A cross
site look at local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC:
Horizon Research Inc.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview
in social science research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
Burger, T. (1977). Max Weber, Interpretive Sociology, and the Sense of Historical Science: A
Positivistic Conception of Verstehen. The Sociological Quarterly, 18(2), 165-175.
Calderón, J. (1992). "Hispanic" and "Latino": The viability of categories for panethnic unity.
Latin American Perspectives, 19(4), 37-44.
California Department of Education. (2002). California English Language Development
Standards: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. Sacramento: California Department of
Education.
California Department of Education. (2017). California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) Results.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 372
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 27(1), 115-132.
Capitani, E., Laiacona, M., Mahon, B., & Caramazza, A. (2003). What are the facts of semantic
category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 213-261.
Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability: High schools and
high-stakes testing. New York: Routledge.
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1981).
Cera, R., Mancini, M., & Antonietti, A. (2013). Relationships between metacognition, self-
efficacy and self-regulation in learning. Journal of Educational, Cultural and
Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), 4(7), 115-141.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
140(4), 980–1008.
Chávez, K. R. (2013). Queer migration politics: Activist rhetoric and coalitional possibilities.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merrienboer, J., Yates, K, and Early, S. (In Press for August 2007).
Cognitive Task Analysis. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &
Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 373
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24(1), 249-305.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions
to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS quarterly, 23, 145-158.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and
teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1-18.
Creer, T. L., & Miklich, D. R. (1970). The application of a self-modeling procedure to modify
inappropriate behavior: A preliminary report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(1),
91-92.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 374
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Massimini, F. (1985). On the psychological selection of bio-cultural
information. New Ideas in Psychology, 3(2), 115-138.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework, 3-49.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ramos-Beban, N., Altamirano, R. P., & Hyler, M. E. (2016). Be the
change: Reinventing school for student success. New York: Teachers College Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105– 115.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
Declaration of Dominguez Land Company of the Reservations, Restrictions, Conditions,
Covenants, Charges, and Agreements Affecting Torrance, October 24, 1912, file cabinet
3, drawer 2, Dominguez Land Company Paper.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and instruction. In:
Berliner, D. C., and Calfee, R. C. (eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology,
Macmillan, New York, pp. 491–549.
Denial of equal educational opportunity prohibited, 20 U.S. Code § 1703 (1974).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 375
Denzin, N. K. (1973). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (1
st

ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
de Onís, C. (2017). What's in an “x”?: An Exchange about the Politics of “Latinx”. Chiricú
Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 78-91.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions (A. Bass, Trans. & Annotator). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Derrida, J. (1991). A Derrida reader: Between the blinds. New York, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Dilworth, M. E. (1991). Motivation, rewards, and incentives. Trends and issues Paper No. 3.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.
Dimmock, C. (2013). School-based management and school effectiveness. Routledge.
Dittmar, N. (1976). A critical survey of sociolinguistics: Theory and application (P. Sand, P. A.
M. Seuren & K. Whiteley Trans.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of
student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 519-538.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition (Vol. 23). National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Dörnyei, Z. & Chan, L. (2013), Motivation and Vision: An Analysis of Future L2 Self Images,
Sensory Styles, and Imagery Capacity Across Two Target Languages. Language
Learning, 63, 437–462.
Droysen, J.G., 1977. Historik, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Duke, D. L. (1990). Developing teacher evaluation systems that promote professional growth.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 131–144.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 376
Duranti, A. (2007). Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(4),
301– 310.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Dye, G. A. (2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! Helping students link and remember
information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3): 72-76.
Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Eccles [Parsons], J., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., &
Midgely, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation, (pp. 75–146). San Francisco:
Freeman.
Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners.
Educational Leadership, 62(4), 8-13.
Elmore, R. & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York,
NY: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 377
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and
learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, R.F. (2002). What doesn’t meet the eye: Understanding and addressing racial
disparities in high achieving suburban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Nelson, J. (2012). Literacy achievement through sustained professional
development. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 551-563.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flores, B. B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers' beliefs and their relation to self-reported
practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299.
Forgas, J. P., & Eich, E. E. (2012). Affective influences on cognition: Mood congruence, mood
dependence, and mood effects on processing strategies. Experimental psychology, 4, 61-
82.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New
York, NY: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2013). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport,
Connecticut; Bergin and Garvey, Publishers Inc.
Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30
th
anniversary edition. New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 378
Fullan, M. with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Fuhrman tapes; The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial. (1995, Aug 30). Los Angeles Times.
Gaines L. K., Miller L. E. (2015). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in
conceptual knowledge. Cognitive neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455-479.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to Teachers of English
Language Learners: A Survey of California Teachers' Challenges, Experiences, and
Professional Development Needs. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (NJ1).
Gándara, P. & Rumberger, R. (2003). The inequitable treatment of English learners in
California’s public schools. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute.
Garavan, T. N. (1997). Training, development, education and learning: different or the
same?. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(2), 39-50.
García, O. (2009). Emergent Bilinguals and TESOL: What's in a Name?.Tesol Quarterly, 43(2),
322-326.
García, O. (2011). Educating New York’s bilingual children: Constructing a future from the
past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(2), 133–153.
García, O., Kleifgen, J., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent
bilinguals (Equity Matters: Research Review No. 1). New York: A Research Initiative of
the Campaign for Educational Equity.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp. 352–355), 2nd ed. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 379
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70.
Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative
research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report,
20(11), 1772-1789.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gnerre, S. (2014, March 15). The 1922 Ku Klux Klan Inglewood raid. The Daily Breeze.
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT journal, 51(4),
361-369.
Gonzalez, R., Pagan, M., Wendell, L., & Love, C. (2011). Supporting ELL/culturally and
linguistically diverse students for academic achievement. Rexford, NY: International
Center for Leadership in Education.
Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training and
to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11.
Gorrell, J., & Capron, E. (1990). Cognitive modeling and self-efficacy: Effects on preservice
teachers' learning of teaching strategies. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 15-22.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 380
Gracia, J.J.E. (2000). Hispanic/Latino identity: A philosophical perspective. Malden, MA:
Blackwell
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American
psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers' cognition
and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational psychology review, 15(2),
147-179.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29 (2), 75-91.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of
evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in
research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
Gunning, A. M., & Mensah, F. M. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers’ development of self-
efficacy and confidence to teach science: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 22(2), 171-185.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree-diagram on students’ comprehension of main ideas in
an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 236–247.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 381
rationalization of society. London: Heinemann.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute. Policy Report 2000-1.
Hakuta, K. (2014). Assessment of content and language in light of the new standards: Challenges
and opportunities for English language learners. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(4),
433-441.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision,
mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 9-40). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Hansford, B. C., & Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and
achievement/performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 123-142.
Hanson, S., & Moir, E. (2008). Beyond mentoring: Influencing the professional practice and
careers of experienced teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 453-458.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and teacher
education, 14(8), 835-854.
Harless, J. (1970). An ounce of analysis (is worth a pound of objectives.) McLean. VA: Guild V
Publications.
Harris, J. W. (1991). The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 27-62.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London: Routledge.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 382
Hay, J. (2015, December 12). Shortage of Latino teachers felt throughout California. The Press
Democrat.
Heath, S. (1983) Ways with Words: language, life and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: A process of inquiry and
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1966). The phenomenology of mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie.
London: George Allen & Unwin - Humanities Press.
Hiebert, J. & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An
Introductory Analysis (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical
issue for the 21st century. Review of educational research, 70(2), 151-179.
Hill, L. E., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in
California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of
Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Hipp, K. A., & Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Exploring Connections between Teacher Efficacy and
Principals' Leadership Behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5(2), 136-50.
Hiver, P., & Dörnyei, Z. (2015). Language teacher immunity: A double-edged sword. Applied
Linguistics, 36(5) 1-20.
Hoffman, O. (1862). Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California: June Term, 1853 to June Term, 1858, Inclusive (Vol.
1). San Francisco: N. Hubert.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 383
Hogan, M. (2016). Re-Coding Planning. Boom: A Journal of California, 6(1), 24-33.
Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to
dropping out of the profession. Teaching and teacher Education, 26(8), 1530-1543.
Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.
Il’enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s ‘Capital’.
Moscow: Progress.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st
century. New York: Teachers College Press.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and
issues. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Karabenick, S. A., & Conley, A. (2011). Teacher motivation for professional development. Ann
Arbor: Math and Science Partnership—Motivation Assessment Program, University of
Michigan.
Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the
structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809-840.
Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test
of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional
Science, 38(6), 679-705.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: self ‐understanding,
vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 257-272.
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, 413 U.S. 189 (1973).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 384
Kılınç, M. (2011). A perceptual scale for measurement and evaluation of prospective teachers’
self-efficacy in education. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 12(4), 81-93.
Kim, J. (2011). Relationships among and between ELL Status, Demographic Characteristics,
Enrollment History, and School Persistence. CRESST Report 810. National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American
Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26.
Kleinginna Jr, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of motivation definitions,
with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and emotion, 5(3), 263-291.
Kluge, A., Grauel, B., & Burkolter, D. (2013). Combining principles of Cognitive Load Theory
and diagnostic error analysis for designing job aids: Effects on motivation and diagnostic
performance in a process control task. Applied ergonomics, 44(2), 285-296.
Köckeis-Stangl, E. (1982) Methoden der sozialisationsforschung, in K. Hurrelmann & D. Ulich
(eds), Handbuch der Sozialisationsforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective
theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of applied
psychology, 78(2), 311.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2003). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological
perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kun, J. & L. Pulido (2013). Black and Brown in Los Angeles: Beyond Conflict and Coalition.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 385
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., & Mathes, P. (2009). Teachers' Pedagogical Differences
During ESL Block Among Bilingual and English-Immersion Kindergarten Classrooms in
a Randomized Trial Study. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1), 77-100.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 110-117.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La pensée sauvage (Vol. 289). Paris: Plon.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin.
London: Tavistock.
Lewontin, R. C. (1982). Organism and environment. In H. C. Plotkin (Ed.), Learning,
development, and culture (pp. 151-172). Chichester: Wiley.
Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2008). Understanding information systems continuance: The
case of Internet-based learning technologies. Information & Management, 45(4), 227–
232.
Lindsey, R. B., Karns, M. S., & Myatt, K. (2010). Culturally proficient education: An asset-
based response to conditions of poverty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 386
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In L. Darling-Hammond & G.
Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
233-262). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. The Review of
Higher Education, 12(3), 221-240.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2013), The Constructivist Credo, Left Coast Press Inc., Walnut
Creek, CA.
Lind, D. A., Marchal, W. G., & Wathan (2012). Statistical techniques in business and
economics. 15th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macias, R. F. (1993). Language and ethnic classification of language minorities: Chicano and
Latino students in the 1990s. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 230-257.
Martell, C. C. (2013). Race and histories: Examining culturally relevant teaching in the U.S.
history classroom. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(1), 65–88.
Marx, K. (1909). Capital. Vol. 1. London: William Glaisher.
Marx, K. (1971). Capital. Vol. 3. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy
(rough draft). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 387
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft).
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marx, K. (1976). Theses on Feuerbach. In K. Marx & F. Engels, The German
ideology. Moscow: Progress (pp. 615-617).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell-Jolly, J., Driscoll, A., Gándara, P., Mendez-Benavidez, L., Stephenson, S., Gomez,
M.C., & Vega, J. (2006). Meeting the Needs of English learners in the Davis Joint
Unified School District. A Report to the DJUSD Superintendent and the Board of
Education. Davis, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute Education Policy Center,
University of California at Davis.
Maxwell-Jolly, J., Gándara, P., & Shields, S. (2009). Teaching all of California’s children well:
Teachers and teaching to close California’s achievement gap. Report to the State
Department of Education P-16 Council, Sacramento, CA.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into practice, 41(4), 226-232.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The Learner-Centered Classroom and School:
Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. The Jossey-Bass
Education Series. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
McKay, S. L., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the U. S.: National policies,
personal consequences. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 399-419.
Merino, B. (2007). Identifying critical competencies for teachers of English learners. LMRI
Newsletter, 16(4).
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 388
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
Expanded from Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A. (2001, October). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction in the new millennium.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Minh-Ha, T. T. (2009). Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data:
Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse?. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1),
106-116.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for
establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 389
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching:
Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 243-261.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Neves de Jesus, S., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher
motivation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 119-134.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming Diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education.
White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Ouazad, A. (2014). Assessed by a teacher like me: Race and teacher assessments.
Education, 9(3), 334-372.
Ochs, E. (1979). Chapter 3: Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.),
Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43-71). New York: Academic Press.
Olsen, L. & Jaramillo, A. (1999) Turning the Tides of Exclusion: A Guide for Educators and
Advocates for Immigrant Students. Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow.
Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English language
learners. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special
education needs (pp. 40–58). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings
Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept,
and school achievement. Perception, 11, 239-266.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 390
Palomares, G. D. (1970) The effects of stereotyping on the self-concept of Mexican-Americans.
Southwestern Cooperative Educational Lab. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Pappamihiel, N. E., & Walser, T. M. (2009). English language learners and complexity theory:
Why current accountability systems do not measure up. Kappa Delta Pi, 73, 133-140.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Pennington, M. C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. Tesol Quarterly, 29(4), 705-731.
Penny, R. (2002). A history of the Spanish language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated
learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition
(pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An
analysis of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 189-220.
Pulido, L., Sidawi, S., & Vos, R. O. (1996). An archaeology of environmental racism in Los
Angeles. Urban Geography, 17(5), 419-439.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 391
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers' cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language
Learning, 47(2), 289-325.
Rafael, T. (2007). The Mexican Mafia. New York: Encounter Books.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159-175.
Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution information
in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85-110.
Richards, L. & Richards, T. (1991). The transformation of qualitative method: Computational
paradigms and research processes. In N.G. Fielding, & R.M. Lee (Eds.), Using
Computers in Qualitative Research (pp.38-53). London: SAGE Publications.
Richards, L. & Richards, T. (1994). From filing cabinet to computer. In A. Bryman, & R.G.
Burgess (Eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data (pp.146-172). London: Routledge.
Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional
development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal
learning opportunities. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 116-126.
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. M., & Martinez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance
intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of
Human–Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 392
Rodríguez, N. (2008). Theoretical and methodological issues of Latina/o research. In H.
Rodríguez, R. Sáenz, and C. Menjívar (Eds.), Latinas/os in the United States: Changing
the Face of America (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer.
Romo, H., and Falbo, T. (1996). Latino High School Graduation: Defying the Odds. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Rossett, A., & Schafer, L. (2012). Job aids and performance support: Moving from knowledge in
the classroom to knowledge everywhere. John Wiley & Sons.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How our Government
Segregated America. New York, New York: Liveright Publishing Company.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press.
Salinas, L. S. (2005). Latino Educational Neglect: The Result Bespeaks Discrimination.
University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 5(2), 269-324.
Saussure, F. (1974): Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana.
Scanlan, M. (2007). An asset-based approach to linguistic diversity. ACEI Focus on Teacher
Education 7(3), 3-7.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical report 2003-1).
Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Scherer, M. (Ed.). (1999). A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new
teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 393
Schieb, L. J., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Teacher motivation and professional development: a
guide to resources. National Science Foundation, 1-57.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner – how professionals think in action. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Seidel, J. (1991). Methods and madness in the application of computer technology to qualitative
data analysis. In N.G. Fielding, & R.M. Lee (Eds.), Using Computers in Qualitative
Research (pp.107-116). London: SAGE Publications.
Sernak, K. S. (2008). School reform and Freire’s methodology of conscientization. In A. H.
Normore (Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through
inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 115–149). Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.
Sicotte, D. (2016). From Workshop to Waste Magnet: Environmental Inequality in the
Philadelphia Region. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43–49.
Sims, R. (2002). Organizational success through effective human resource management.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Singh, K., & Shifflette, L. M. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on professional
development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(2), 145-160.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 394
Slater, E. (1995). U.S. Probes Claims of Racist Police Stops. Los Angeles Times.
Sparks, G. M. (1988). Teachers' attitudes toward change and subsequent improvements in
classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 111.
Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Spring, J. (2011). The Politics of American Education. New York, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404-411.
Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 38(2), 132-135.
Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The
process of teacher change. Teaching and teacher education, 4(2), 171-187.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings
Institution Press.
Stovall, D. (2006). We can relate: Hip-hop culture, critical pedagogy, and the secondary
classroom. Urban Education, 41(6), 585-602.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice (Vol. 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Street, B.V. (1995) Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy Development,
Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.
Swan, K. & Ice, P. (2010). The Community of Inquiry framework ten years later: introduction to
the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 1-4.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 395
Syed, K. T. (2008). Voicing teachers’ perspectives on professional development in literacy
education through narrative inquiry. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(3),
284-292.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Téllez, K. & Waxman, H. C. (2006). Preparing quality teachers for English language learners:
An overview of critical issues. In K. Téllez & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality
teachers for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition
and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley
Tittle, C.K. (2006). Assessment of teacher learning and development. In P. A. Alexander & P.H.
Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.), (pp. 953-980). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tomas Rivera Center. (1993). Resolving a Crisis in Education: Latino Teachers for Tomorrow’s
Classrooms. Claremont: CA: Tomas Rivera Center.
Tong, F., Luo, W., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Rivera, H. (2015). Investigating the impact of
professional development on teachers’ instructional time and English learners’ language
development: A multilevel cross-classified approach. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 19(1), 1-22.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 396
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs:
Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 751-761.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Umansky, I. M., Reardon, S. F., Hakuta, K., Thompson, K. D., Estrada, P., Hayes, K.,
Maldonado, H., Tandberg, S., & Goldenberg, C. (2015, October). Improving the
opportunities and outcomes of California’s students learning English (PACE Policy Brief
15-1). Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
U.S. Department of Education (2013). NAEP 2012; Trends in academic progress: Reading
1971–2012, Mathematics 1973–2012.
Valdés, G. (1999). Non-native English speakers: language bigotry in English mainstream
classrooms. ADFL Bulletin 31(1), 43-48.
Valdés, G., Menken, K., & Castro, M. (Eds.). (2015). Common Core, Bilingual and English
Language Learners: A Resource for Educators. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon, Inc.
Van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 21(5), 615–656.
van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning
environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.
van Yperen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of self-reported
achievement goals and nonself-report performance across three achievement domains
(work, sports, and education). PloS one, 9(4), e93594.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language
development: methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Company.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 397
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23(2), 223-234.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Waldek, S.W. (2017, September 12) The Most Beautiful Public High School in Every State in
America. Architectural Digest.
Walberg, H. (2011). Improving student learning: action principles for families, classrooms,
schools, districts, and states. Charlotte: Information Age.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(3), 231-250.
Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career
choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 75(3), 167-202.
Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U., &
Baumert, J. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: An international
comparison using the FIT-Choice scale. Teaching and teacher education, 28(6), 791-805.
Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., & Pietsch, J. (2007). Choosing to teach in the “STEM”
disciplines: Characteristics and motivations of science, ICT, and mathematics
teachers. Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice, 2, 795-804.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 398
Webster, L. E. (2006). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Teacher
efficacy, task value, and perception of administrative support (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304969008).
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Weeks, P. (1963, Jun 30). 700 march for integration in Torrance tract. Los Angeles Times.
Westwick, P. J. (Ed.). (2012). Blue Sky Metropolis: The Aerospace Century in Southern
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement
outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1-35.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental review, 12(3), 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wilson, J. P. (Ed.). (2005). Human resource development: learning & training for individuals &
organizations. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Wlodkowski, R. J., and M. B. Ginsberg. (1995). Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence
on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and
Answers Report, REL 2007 No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 399
Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Eds.). (2012). Negotiating academic literacies. Routledge.
Zhang, T., McConnell, T. J., Lundeberg, M. A., Koehler, M. J., Stanaway, J., Zhang, M., Urban-
Lurain, M., Eberhardt J., & Parker, J. (2008, January). If you build it, why will they come
back? Motivation of teachers to re-enroll in a professional development project.
In Association for Science Teacher Education 2008 international conference, St. Louis,
MO. January 10, 2008.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 400
Appendix A
Interview Questions
1. How frequently have you had LTELs in your classes in the last 5 years?
2. What differentiation of evaluation do you provide LTEL students?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) How do you recognize their needs?
a. Is it informed by assessment?
b. Describe the kind of assessment(s) you used.
b) Give me an example of a time when you worked with an LTEL student.
c) Describe to me your experiences in evaluating their language development and
academic performance.
3. Describe for me the specific academic, or non-academic challenges that English Learners and
LTELS face.
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) Why do you think they have these challenges?
b) What do schools do to address these challenges?
4. What challenges do you have in planning your instruction for LTELs, and what challenges do
you have in evaluating their work?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) Talk about a time when you had to consider the needs of LTELs in your formative
and summative evaluations.
b) Describe to me how the student or students reacted to your efforts.
5. What do you think are the specific evaluation needs of LTELs?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) How can a teacher best meet those needs?
b) What prevents teachers from using those evaluation techniques?

6. What is your opinion about why these students have not been able to demonstrate English
language fluency in six years?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) What has contributed to shaping your opinion?
7. Have you ever learned something during district-provided professional development or in
your PLC that specifically concerns the needs of LTELs?
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 401
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) What was it that you learned?
b) How were you able to apply it in your classroom?
c) Describe for me the results of your application of this in your classroom.
8. Describe for me the steps you take to evaluate language development and academic
performance of LTELs.
9. Have you ever had a conversation with site-level administrators of the specific needs of
LTELs?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) Describe for me the focus of the discussion.
b) What were their concerns?

10. Think about a recent evaluation that included an LTEL in your classroom. Walk me through
the evaluation.
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) How did you differentiate for their language development and academic needs?
b) How did you specifically use formative and summative evaluations to meet this
student’s language development and academic performance needs?
11. Have you ever spoken with a parent of an LTEL about their child’s performance in your
classroom?
Probing/ Follow-up Questions:
a) Talk about why you called them, and what issues you addressed.
b) How did the parents react?
c) How did they say they would support the student?

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 402
Appendix B
Level Four Evaluation Instrument: QTEL Teacher Instructional Knowledge Test

I. Background Information

1. School District: PCSD

2. In what school do you currently teach?

3. What grade(s) do you currently teach? (Check all that apply)
9th
10th
11th
12
th

4. Which courses do you currently teach? (Check all that apply)
English Language Arts (ELA)
English as a Second Language (ESL)
Other (please specify):

Instructions: Please choose the best response from those provided for each item. Do not spend too much
time on any one item.

II. Scaffolding

5. Schema building refers to __________.
Constructing concept maps for textual themes
Using thematic units to develop language skills
Monitoring your own thinking process
Developing complex connections between and across ideas
Using graphic organizers to develop meanings for vocabulary items

6. Text re-presentation is __________.
Simplifying language for English Language Learners
Inviting students to process language by using a different genre
Comparing language structures for the purpose of clarification
Paraphrasing ideas from a text
Showing students pictures/video/music to better explain a concept/subject

7. The purpose of scaffolding is to __________.
Enable a student to complete a task that he/she would otherwise not be able to do alone
Teach language to English Language Learners in stages
Guide an activity that is carried out as the result of processing language
Activate a students’ prior knowledge about the content of a text
Help a student to whatever extent necessary so that the task is completed

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 403
8. What kind of scaffolding does the Think-Pair-Share provide?
Schema building and story telling
Bridging and schema building
Role-play and reflection
Modeling and metacognitive development
Dialogue writing and bridging

9. Bridging refers to __________.
Starting with familiar concepts and connecting them to new ideas
Inviting students to process language by using a different genre
Language processes that are based on repeated written use and habit formation
Monitoring your own thinking process
The ability to internalize new vocabulary

10. Which of the following is the most effective type of instructional scaffolding for ELLs?
Repetition
Reconstruction
Comprehensible input
Bridging
Verbalization

11. Which of the following is an example of modeling?
Showing video clips to emphasize a particular concept
Having students orally repeat a set of vocabulary words until pronunciation approximates that of a
native speaker
Having students create a poster that summarizes a story or passage
Demonstrating a science experiment
Using prior knowledge and experience to connect ideas

12. The instructional use of 'anticipatory guides' is effective because they __________.
Identify information that students will need to know
Provide a model of what a student should learn
Elaborate and extend the text
Allow comparisons with what a student knows in his first language
Activate students’ prior knowledge

13. An example of a technique that encourages metacognitive development is __________.
Creating a Mind Mirror
Retelling a story to someone
A teacher using explicit language
A teacher thinking aloud about how to solve a problem
A student taking notes from a story while reading

14. Extended anticipatory guides promote metacognitive development by __________.
Having students use a graphic organizer
Requiring that students have an opinion
Asking students to support their thinking with evidence from a text
Asking students to read difficult texts
Allowing students to take some time to jot down their ideas before speaking

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 404
III. Literacy Development
15. Academic language refers to __________.
Language that is used by a teacher or instructor
Abstract concepts
Written language like that used in college texts
Language used in formal contexts for academic subjects
Non-comprehensible input

16. Which of the following should occur first in the lesson planning process?
Creating different activities for students at different levels of proficiency
Grouping students according to proficiency level
Inviting students to read the text one time on their own first
Identifying how you will prepare the learners prior to the reading
Identifying which vocabulary might prove difficult and providing definitions

17. The main goal for inviting students to interact with the text is…(Check one only)
Requiring that more advanced students provide support to struggling peers
Inviting students to practice their English reading skills
Exposing students to new literature
Having students analyze text for meaning
Enabling students to appropriate new vocabulary

18. The main factor that makes academic text difficult for ELLs in secondary classrooms is:
Disciplinary discourse
Word length
Sentence length
Unfamiliar vocabulary
Elaboration

19. Which of the following is a key feature of quality teaching for English language learners?
Exploration of ideas at increasing levels of depth
Teaching word meanings in small groups
Direct instruction of vocabulary
Lessons that are structured on Initiation-Response-Feedback
Instructional language that is simplified to match students’ linguistic proficiency

20. Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of effective classrooms for intermediate to
advanced ELL students?
Structured opportunities for student participation
Multiple entries for participation
Simplified linguistic input
Access to rigorous curriculum
Appropriate use of teacher “wait time”

21. Which of the following strategies is most useful in helping ELLs interpret new
vocabulary?
Having students repeat the new word 3 times in a row
Helping students learn how to use a dictionary effectively
Pre-teaching the unfamiliar words in a new text
Having students write a sentence for each new word
Helping students recognize central and peripheral information
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 405
22. A successful English language learner __________.
Surrounds herself with native speakers of English
Enjoys grammar and vocabulary study
Can tolerate ambiguity of meaning
Tries to use English more than his/her L1
Is able to learn new vocabulary words daily

23. The best way to teach vocabulary to ELL students is to __________.
Invite students to keep a personal glossary of vocabulary words
Teach simple vocabulary first, then move toward more difficult vocabulary
Embed new vocabulary words in meaningful chunks of text
Pre-teach vocabulary through lists and examples
Test vocabulary regularly (about once a week)

IV. Sociocultural Theories of Learning
24. The instructional strategy most clearly aligned with a sociocultural view of learning is____.
Scaffolding
Direct instruction
Differentiated instruction
Cross-age tutoring
Sheltered instruction

25. In contrast to Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, the Expanded Zone of Proximal
Development includes interaction with _____ and _____.
Native speakers and challenging texts
More capable peers and challenging texts
Equal peers and less capable peers
Adults and native speakers
Equal peers and native speakers

26. __________ is the main vehicle of thought.
Reasoning
Vocabulary
Language
Culture
Intelligence

27. The primary process by which learning takes place is __________.
Interaction
Internalization
Assimilation
Repetition
Memorization

28. In the apprenticeship model, the learner moves from _____ to _____.
Direct instruction to facilitation
Peripheral participation to appropriation
Imitation to invention
Marginal appropriation to full appropriation
Simple ideas to complex ideas

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 406
29. The Zone of Proximal Development is the __________.
Level at which the material is too challenging for a student to comprehend
Level at which students plateau and struggle to further their development
Level at which a student is able to work independently of help from their teacher or peers
Difference between the level at which a learner can complete a task independently and the level at
which she can complete it with support
Frustration level

30. Metacognitive development refers to __________.
Learning that occurs as a result of imitation, practice, and reinforcement
When a teacher’s lesson plan focuses on developing students’ analytical skills
The ways in which students examine and guide their thinking or cognitive processes
The result of a teacher's use of schema building within their lesson plans
When students’ development occurs outside of structured learning activities

31. The constructivist view of learning is one in which __________.
Students are believed to be active participants in the learning process
Students only learn from tightly constructed and compartmentalized lesson plans
Learners build from an understanding of basic concepts toward more abstract reasoning
Similarities between the first and second languages allow the learner to acquire second language
structures with ease
Learning occurs as a result of imitation, practice, and reinforcement

32. __________ creates a conceptual framework in which a meaningful context is
maintained for several days or weeks.
Culturally responsive teaching
Thematic instruction
Direct instruction
Cooperative group work
Information processing model

V. Second Language Acquisition
33. The best way to organize instruction for English Language Learners is __________.
To use simple sentences and below grade - level texts
To ensure that students reach a certain level of English proficiency before teaching grade level content
To provide a specialized all-day program until ELLs reach oral fluency in English
Use grade level curricula with appropriate support and scaffolding
Teach in stages, beginning with simple vocabulary and then moving to more complex vocabulary

34. An indication that an ELL student is learning can be seen by __________.
An increase in participation over time
An ability to hold elaborate conversations with few errors
An improvement in standardized test scores
Fewer errors in written products
Consistent improvement in pronunciation

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 407
35. Communicative Competence involves __________.
The ability to communicate on a basic level
Mastery of meaning within social and cultural contexts
The level at which students are ready to transition into a mainstream classroom
Language that is to be used in a classroom setting
Code switching

36. Additive Bilingualism is __________.
Developing the student's primary language while he or she acquires a second language
The ability to engage in problem-solving, deduction, and complex memory tasks
Having equal proficiency in two languages across a range of contexts
The act of acquiring a third or fourth language
Replacing the primary language with a new language

37. Cummins' Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) is __________.
The ability to engage in problem-solving, deduction, and complex memory tasks
The level at which students are at a proficient enough level to be introduced into a mainstream
classroom
When the first language is partially or completely lost as a second language is acquired
The ability to use language in all its forms as a tool for thinking and communicating effectively
The language required to succeed in higher order, literacy-related tasks of the classroom

38. Metalinguistic knowledge involves the ability to __________.
Comprehend multiple languages
Find hidden meanings in the text
Talk about language forms and functions
Connect new texts with prior knowledge
Translate texts accurately

39. Instructional conversation is an effective means for engaging ELLs in classroom
discourse because __________.
It provides different opportunities for modeling and feedback
It enables language learners to memorize correct forms
It allows for student and teacher to follow a prepared script
Students are able to avoid working independently, which could result in more mistakes
It prevents students from repeating each other's errors

40. Cummins' Common Underlying Proficiency is __________.
Made up of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS)
When teachers encourage all students to memorize key vocabulary prior to the reading of text
Developing networks among clusters of meaning that are interconnected
The foundational linguistic knowledge and skills on which a learner can draw to learn a new language
A single underlying abstract structure of all languages that children must acquire in early childhood

41. Krashen's Comprehensible Input is __________.
The recommendation that teachers use language just beyond students’ current ability level
A metaphor for the interaction of emotional factors with other factors that serve to make a learner more
or less open to second-language input
Translation into the primary language to ensure that the students will grasp key concepts
The order in which certain features of a language are acquired
Simplification of language input to the students’ current ability level
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 408
42. Transfer refers to __________.
The replacement of the primary language with an acquired language
The omission of elements of a sentence
Overgeneralization of learned grammar rules
The continued use of a student’s first language after they have gained competency in the newly learned
language
A learner’s use of patterns of the first language in second language sentences

43. Developmental errors are __________.
The omission of elements of a sentence
An error that reflects the learner’s gradual discovery of the second language system
A learner’s use of patterns of the first language in second language sentences
Overgeneralization of learned grammar rules
Errors learned or picked up from interaction with peers with limited fluency

44. Overgeneralization errors are the result of __________.
A learner’s use of patterns of the first language in second language sentences
The omission of elements of a sentence
The learner’s gradual discovery of the second language system
Trying to apply a linguistic rule in a context where it does not belong
Illogical reasoning

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 409
Appendix C
Level Four Evaluation Instrument: QTEL Aligned Classroom Observation Instrument

Date: Observer:

School/District: Teacher:

Grade(s):
Class:
Lesson Topic:

Start time: End time: Lesson Type: Multi-day Single-day Don’t know
(military time) (circle one)
Solo Observation
Number of Students:

Paired Observation

Paired with_________________

Directions: Using the rubrics on the following pages, circle the number that best reflects
what you observe in the lesson. You may give a score from 0-4. Cite under “Comments”
specific examples of the behaviors/evidence observed. Make your comments as clear and
complete as possible.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 410

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 411

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 412

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 413

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 414

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 415

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 416

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 417

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 418

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 419

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 420

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 421
Appendix D
Level Three Evaluation Instrument: Resource for Equitable Classroom Practices
Observation Rating Scale 4= Highly Evident 2= Somewhat Evident 0=Not Evident
Preparation 4 3 2 1 0
Welcomes students by name as they enter the classroom
Uses eye contact with high- and low-achieving students
Uses physical proximity with high- and low-achieving students equitably
Uses body language, gestures, and expressions to convey a message that all
student’s questions and opinions are important

Arranges the classroom to accommodate discussion
Ensures bulletin boards, displays, instructional materials, and other visuals in
the classroom reflect the racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds represented
by students

Uses a variety of visual aids and props to support student learning
Learns, uses, and displays some words in students’ heritage language
Models use of graphic organizers
Uses class building and teambuilding activities to promote peer support for
academic achievement

Uses random response strategies
Uses cooperative learning structures
Structures heterogeneous and cooperative groups for learning
Uses probing and clarifying techniques to assist students to answer
Acknowledges all students’ comments, responses, questions, and
contributions

Seeks multiple perspectives
Uses multiple approaches to consistently monitor students’ understanding of
instruction, directions, procedures, processes, questions, and content

Identifies students’ current knowledge before instruction
Uses students’ real-life experiences to connect school learning to students’
lives

Uses Wait Time
Asks students for feedback on the effectiveness of instruction
Provides students with the criteria and standards for successful task
completion

Gives students effective, specific oral and written feedback that prompts
improved performance

Provides multiple opportunities to use effective feedback to revise and
resubmit work for evaluation against the standard

Explains and models positive self-talk
Asks higher-order questions equitably of high- and low-achieving students
Provides individual help to high- and low-achieving students

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 422
Appendix E
Level Three Evaluation Instrument: Adapted Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 423
Appendix F
Level Two Evaluation Instruments: Check of Declarative Knowledge
I-Scaffolding
Yes No
󠄸 Text re-presentation 󠄸
󠄸 The purpose of scaffolding 󠄸
󠄸 Bridging 󠄸
󠄸 Comprehensible input 󠄸
󠄸 Modeling 󠄸
󠄸 Anticipatory guides 󠄸
󠄸 Metacognitive development 󠄸

II Literacy Development
󠄸 Academic language 󠄸
󠄸 Disciplinary discourse 󠄸
󠄸 Sociocultural view of learning
󠄸 Zone of Proximal Development 󠄸
󠄸 Expanded Zone of Proximal Development 󠄸
󠄸 Internalization/ Assimilation 󠄸
󠄸 Metacognitive development 󠄸
󠄸 Constructivist view of learning 󠄸
󠄸 Culturally responsive teaching 󠄸

III Second Language Acquisition
󠄸 Communicative Competence 󠄸
󠄸 Additive Bilingualism 󠄸
󠄸 Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) 󠄸
󠄸 Metalinguistic knowledge 󠄸
󠄸 Common Underlying Proficiency 󠄸
󠄸 Comprehensible Input 󠄸
󠄸 Transfer 󠄸
󠄸 Developmental Errors 󠄸
󠄸 Overgeneralization Errors 󠄸

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 424
Appendix G
Level Two Evaluation Instruments: Check of Procedural Knowledge
Concepts:
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Participant applies
satisfactory
understanding of
concepts in group
projects.
Participant applies some
understanding of
terminology in group
projects.
Participant applies no
understanding of concepts in
group projects.

Comments:

Terminology:
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Participant applies
accurate terminology in
group projects.
Participant applies some
understanding of
terminology in group
projects.
Participant applies no
understanding of terminology
in group projects.

Comments:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 425
Appendix H
Level Two Evaluation Instruments: Check of Procedural Knowledge-Extended Online CoI
1. Demonstration of metacognition in applying, reflecting, and refining key procedures:
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Provides detailed,
thoughtful description of
thought processes in
reflection of procedures
Demonstration of
description of thought
processes in reflection of
procedures.
No demonstration of
description of thought
processes in reflection of
procedures.

.

Comments:

2. Demonstration of understanding of peer’s metacognition in applying, reflecting, and refining
key procedures:
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Connects to peer
posting, adds thoughtful
commentary.

Makes some connection,
shallow commentary.
Makes no connections to peer
posting, inappropriate or
inapplicable commentary

.

Comments:

3. Frequency of student metacognitive reflective journal responses: ______ (#)
4. Frequency of student postings to peer content in metacognitive reflective journals: ______ (#)

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 426
Appendix I
Level One Evaluation Instrument: Intensive Intervention Participant Engagement Questionnaire
During the intensive program, how often did you:
1. Work in-class with other classmates to explore solutions to problems: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

2. Work on-line with other classmates to explore solutions to problems presented during
intensive: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

3. Develop new ideas for practice from content provided during intensive: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

4. See ways to connect new ideas provided during intensive with existing practice: (Circle
One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

5. I realized the benefits in completing the objectives of the intensive program. (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

6. I will apply the discoveries from the intensive to my practice: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

7. I was engaged by the online content presented in the intensive: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

8. I was engaged by the break-out groups during the intensive: (Circle One)
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 427
Appendix J
Level One Evaluation Instrument: Participation in Online Discussions
1. Reflection on key topic by participant:
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Connects to content,
personal experiences, or
peer discoveries

Makes some
connections to content,
personal experiences, or
peer discoveries
Makes no connections to
content, personal experiences,
or peer discoveries

.

Comments:

2. Student’s response to peer posting
Highly Evident Somewhat Evident Not Evident

4 3 2 1 0
Connects to peer
posting, adds thoughtful
commentary.

Makes some connection,
shallow commentary.
Makes no connections to peer
posting, inappropriate or
inapplicable commentary

.

Comments:

3. Frequency of student responses to peers ______ (#)
4. Frequency of student postings of content: ______ (#)

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 428
Appendix K
Level One Evaluation Instrument: Intensive Intervention Engagement Observation Protocol
1. Participants were engaged with online content. (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
2. Participants interacted with class members in breakaway groups: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
3. Participant remained on task while reading content: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
4. Participant remained focused on listening to instructor during directives: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
5. Participant was engaged in discussion related to intensive content: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 429
Appendix L
Level One Evaluation Instrument: Community of Inquiry Participant Engagement Questionnaire:
During your participation during your Community of Inquiry (CoI), how often do you:
1. Work with other members of the CoI to explore solutions to problems:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
2. Work on-line with other members of the extended CoI to explore solutions to problems:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
3. Develop new ideas for practice from content provided during intensive:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
4. Connect new ideas presented during intensive with existing practice:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
5. I realized the benefits in completing the objectives of the intensive program in my CoI.
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
6. I apply the discoveries from the intensive to my practice in the CoI:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
7. I am engaged by the online content in the extended CoI:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
8. I am engaged by working with members of the extended CoI:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never
9. I am engaged by working with members of the site CoI:
Very Often Often Sometimes Never

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 430
Appendix M
Level One Evaluation Instrument: Community of Inquiry Engagement Observation Protocol
1. Participants are engaged with participants of site CoI: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
2. Participants interact with CoI members in reflective practice: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
3. Participant are engaged in applying intensive content within site CoI: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed
4. Participant was engaged in online discussion with extended CoI: (Circle One)
Disengaged Partially Engaged Mostly Engaged Engrossed

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 431
Appendix N
Expert Teacher Observation and Data Analysis Protocol

Level 1: Reaction
• Are secondary teachers exploring ideas from the course content during activities, and
completing online sections with satisfactory (75% or above) results and involvement?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers are fully
engaged with participants
during intensive workshop,
actively involved in
exchanging ideas relevant to
the content of the course
section.
Secondary teachers are only
partially engaged with
participants during intensive
workshop, actively involved in
exchanging ideas relevant to the
content of the course section.
Secondary teachers are not
engaged with participants
during intensive workshop,
actively involved in
exchanging ideas relevant to
the content of the course
section.
• Are secondary teachers reflecting on relevant, direct connection to their practices in their
postings on the extended online CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers are
making clear, relevant
connections to their
personal practices in their
postings on the online
extended CoI.
Secondary teachers are making
partial, or misaligned
connections to their personal
practices in their postings on the
online extended CoI.
Secondary teachers are not
making relevant connections
to their personal practices in
their postings on the online
extended CoI.
• Are secondary teachers describing satisfaction with both the online content and the
intervention activities in their postings on the online extended CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers report
high satisfaction with online
content and intervention
activities.
Secondary teachers report
average satisfaction with online
content and intervention
activities.
Secondary teachers report
limited degree of satisfaction
with online content and
intervention activities.
• Are secondary teachers exhibiting satisfaction with both the online content and the
intervention activities in their postings on the online extended CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating high
satisfaction with online
content and intervention
activities.
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating average
satisfaction with online content
and intervention activities.
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating limited degree
of satisfaction with online
content and intervention
activities.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 432
Level 2: Learning
• Are secondary English teachers demonstrating satisfactory scores on initial evaluations of
content from each section presented during the intervention?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating high scores
(90% or better) in initial
evaluations of content.
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating average scores
(70% or better) in initial
evaluations of content.
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating unsatisfactory
scores (50% or better) in
initial evaluations of content.
• During intervention activities, are secondary teachers demonstrating the target skills for each
section of the intensive workshop?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating skills
effectively in activities
presented during intensive
workshop.
Secondary teachers are
demonstrating skills with
average ability in activities
presented during intensive
workshop.
Secondary teachers are not
demonstrating skills
effectively in activities
presented during intensive
workshop.
• Based on brief interviews with participants, do participants reflect positive attitudes while
performing the target skills practiced during the initial CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers reflect
positive attitudes in
performing target skills
during initial CoI.
Secondary teachers reflect
average attitudes in performing
target skills during initial CoI.
Secondary teachers reflect
poor attitudes in performing
target skills during initial CoI.
• Based on brief interviews with participants, do participants reflect positive degrees of self-
efficacy in performing the target skills practiced during the initial CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers reflect
high degrees of self-
efficacy in performing
target skills during initial
CoI.
Secondary teachers reflect
average degrees of self-efficacy
in performing target skills
during initial CoI.
Secondary teachers reflect
limited degrees of self-
efficacy in performing target
skills during initial CoI.
• Are secondary English teachers reporting high degrees of value for their new practices that
they have implemented in their initial CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary teachers report
high degrees of value in
performing target skills
during initial CoI.
Secondary teachers report
average degrees of value in
performing target skills during
initial CoI.
Secondary teachers report
limited degrees of value in
performing target skills
during initial CoI.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE 433
Level 3: Behavior
• Are secondary English teachers demonstrating asset based evaluation practices?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary English
teachers are fully applying
asset-based practices in
formative and summative
evaluation.
Secondary English teachers are
partially applying asset-based
practices in formative and
summative evaluation.
Secondary English teachers
are not applying asset-based
practices in formative and
summative evaluation.
• Are secondary English teachers demonstrating evaluation accommodations?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary English
teachers are fully applying
accommodation in
formative and summative
evaluations.
Secondary English teachers are
partially applying
accommodation in formative
and summative evaluations.
Secondary English teachers
are not applying
accommodation in formative
and summative evaluations.
• Are secondary English teachers accurately evaluating language development?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary English
teachers are accurately
using formative and
summative assessments to
evaluate language
development.
Secondary English teachers are
using formative and summative
assessments to evaluate
language development with
some consistency.
Secondary English teachers
are not using formative and
summative assessments to
evaluate language
development, or are using
formative and summative
assessments to evaluate
language development
inaccurately.
• Are CoI members recognizing and reinforcing new evaluation practices by fellow teachers?
5 4 3 2 1
Recognition of target
evaluation behaviors by
CoI members is clearly
evident.
Recognition of target evaluation
behaviors by CoI members is
partially evident.
Recognition of target
evaluation behaviors by CoI
members is not evident.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 434
• Are members of the extended and site-level CoI supportive of integrating new practices?
5 4 3 2 1
Secondary English
teachers are fully
supportive of integrating
new practices as reflected
in online forum and in
site-level support sessions.
Secondary teachers report
Secondary English teachers are
partially supportive of
integrating new practices as
reflected in online forum and in
site-level support sessions.
Secondary English teachers
are not supportive of
integrating new practices as
reflected in online forum and
in site-level support sessions.
• Are extended and site-level CoI recognition awards supporting actual improved evaluation
practices of teachers in CoI?
5 4 3 2 1
Extended and site-level
recognition awards for
Secondary English
teachers reflect
improvement in
evaluation practices.
Extended and site-level
recognition awards for
Secondary English teachers
partially reflect improvement in
evaluation practices.
Extended and site-level
recognition awards for
Secondary English teachers
do not reflect improvement in
evaluation practices.

Level 4: Results

• PCSD English teachers are providing accurate evaluations of content and language
development.

5 4 3 2 1
Latino PEBLs instructor
evaluations share a 75%
or better consistency with
CAASP evaluation of
students.
Latino PEBLs instructor
evaluations share a 50% or
better consistency with CAASP
evaluation of students.
Latino PEBLs instructor
evaluations share a 25% or
lesser consistency with
CAASP evaluation of
students.

• Effective secondary English teacher formative and summative evaluations of language
increase instruction to Latino PEBLs that meets district expectations for performance.

5 4 3 2 1
The population of PCSD
Latino PEBLs has
diminished from 89% to
69% in 2018.
The population of PCSD Latino
PEBLs has diminished from
89% to 79% in 2018.
The population of PCSD
Latino PEBLs has not
diminished in 2018.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 435
Appendix O
Blended Evaluation Instrument: Participant Survey

Instructions: Now that you have completed the intensive workshop designed to
increase your capability to provide effective evaluation of Emergent Bilingual (EB)
learners in your classroom, please take a few moments to reflect
agreement/disagreement with each of the following statements by using the following
scale, circling the number that best represents your experience:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

The online content and online activities helped me to
learn.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

The live content and activities helped me to learn.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I was fully engaged in the activities in this workshop. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The activities and content facilitated my process of
discovery of new ideas for the evaluation of EBs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I had ample opportunities to practice what I was learning
in the workshop.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I know that I can apply in my classroom what I have
discovered in this intensive workshop. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The discoveries I have made during this intensive
workshop will facilitate my success in evaluating EBs
more effectively. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I would recommend this intensive workshop to my
colleagues. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 436

Comments: Help us help you! Please reflect on ways that we can improve this intensive
workshop.

You have been provided with a range of new concepts, practices, and perceptions of the
evaluation of EBs. Based on what you have discovered, what specific elements will you
implement in your own practices?

Are there any additional resources or specific assistance that will make it possible for you to
implement the discoveries from the intensive workshop in your classroom?

To what degree are you confident in your application of my discoveries from this intensive
workshop in my own evaluations of EBs… (Circle one)

0…..1…..2…..3…..4…..5…..6…..7…..8…..9…..10

Not at all confident Extremely confident

To what degree are you committed to implementing your discoveries from the intensive
workshop in your own classroom? (Circle one)

0…..1…..2…..3…..4…..5…..6…..7…..8…..9…..10

Not at all confident Extremely confident

Comments:

Now that you have completed the intensive workshop, what are the specific outcomes that you
intend to produce in your evaluations of EBs?

Please share any other comments or feedback you would like to provide the leaders of the
intensive workshop:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 437
Appendix P
Delayed Post-Intensive Evaluation Instrument:

Instructions: Looking back to your discoveries that you made during the intensive workshop,
describe the degree to which agree with each statement:

Thinking about the course you completed 3 months ago, please indicate to what degree you
agree with each statement using this rating scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree

Please use “Comments” to provide a brief explanation or further feedback.

The intensive workshop:

1. I fully understood the purposes of the intensive before I began.
1 2 3 4 N/A
2. I fully understood the expectations in applying the content from the intensive.
1 2 3 4 N/A

Comments:

Practical application:

3. I consistently and successfully apply what I learned during the intensive in my CoI.
1 2 3 4 N/A
4. If you answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to Question 3, what are the most
significant reasons? (check all that apply)
 What I already knew
 What I learned in the intensive
 What I learned from CoI colleagues
 What I learned from CoI lead teachers
 Recognition of my efforts on extended CoI
 Personal interest
 External expectations
 Internal expectations
 Reference to online course content

Comments:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 438
5. If you answered “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” to Question 3, what are the main
reasons? (check all that are true)

 Discoveries from intensive are irrelevant to my practice
 Conflicting information from supervisors led me to different practices/ perspectives
 Discoveries from intensive did not last
 Time conflicts with other things
 I don’t understand some of the intensive content
 Application of discoveries is difficult
 CoI support (site and extended) is not sufficient to assist my application
 I am not motivated to employ changed evaluation practices.

Comments:

Overall:

6. The intensive was a valuable experience.
1 2 3 4 N/A
7. I recognize the benefits from the intensive.
1 2 3 4 N/A
8. I expect to continue to improve my practices in site level and extended CoI.
1 2 3 4 N/A

Comments:

9. Do you have any ideas that would help others put into practice what you discovered
during the intensive workshop?

10. Give an example of how the intensive workshop has improved your formative, summative,
and benchmark evaluation practices:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 439
If possible, we would like to take fifteen minutes of your time to interview you so that we can
gain more insight into the intensive workshop and the site level as well as extended CoI. Please
provide your email address if you wish to assist us. Thank you for your efforts on improving
evaluation practices for EBs.

Name:

Email:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 440
Appendix Q
Teacher Value of Effective Strategies for the Evaluation of Emergent Bilingual Learners:
(Adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, García, &
McKeachie, 1991)

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree

I. Intrinsic value
1. Regarding this workshop, I preferred the course material that really challenged me, so
that I can learn new things about how to evaluate Emergent Bilingual Learners more
effectively.
1 2 3 4 N/A

2. Regarding learning about evaluation of Emergent Bilingual Learners during this
workshop, I preferred course material that aroused my curiosity, even if it may have been
difficult to learn.
1 2 3 4 N/A

3. The most satisfying thing for me during this workshop was trying to understand the
content as thoroughly as possible.
1 2 3 4 N/A

4. When I had the opportunity in this workshop, I chose course assignments that I could
learn from even if they were not easy.
1 2 3 4 N/A

II. Attainment value
1. It was important for me to learn the material in this workshop
1 2 3 4 N/A

2. I am very interested in the content area of this workshop.
1 2 3 4 N/A

5. I like the subject matter of this workshop.
1 2 3 4 N/A

3. Understanding the subject matter of this workshop is very important to me.
1 2 3 4 N/A

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 441
III. Utility value
1. I think the material presented in this workshop is useful for me to learn.
1 2 3 4 N/A

2. I think I will be able to use what I learned during this workshop in my classroom.
1 2 3 4 N/A

3. I think that applying what I learned in this workshop will make me a better teacher of
Emergent Bilingual Learners.
1 2 3 4 N/A
IV. Cost
1. The time I spent learning how to evaluate Emergent Bilingual Learners could have been
better spent in a different area of my practice.
1 2 3 4 N/A
2. Changing my practices of evaluating Emergent Bilingual Learners will not be worth the
effort.
1 2 3 4 N/A

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 442
Appendix R
Self-efficacy Scale: Evaluation of Emergent Bilingual Learners
Please score your degree of confidence in completing each statement:
0…..1…..2…..3…..4…..5…..6…..7…..8…..9…..10
Not at all confident Extremely confident

1._____ I can explain the concepts related to the language evaluation of Emergent Bilingual
Learners.
2. ____ I can explain the concepts related to English content-area evaluation of Emergent
Bilingual Learners.
3. ____ I can explain the differences between domains of language development as demonstrated
by the three modes of communication and the two dimensions of knowledge of language as
specified by the California ELA Standards.
4. ____ I can explain the importance of the reliability of the methods I use to evaluate the
language development of Emergent Bilingual Learners.
5. ____ I can explain the best type of evaluation tool to provide validity in measuring the three
modes of communication and the two dimensions of knowledge of language as specified by the
California ELA Standards.
6. ____ I can explain the importance of formative and summative assessments in the language
development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
7. ____ I can explain the importance of formative and summative assessments in the content-area
development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
8. ____ I can write high-quality, multiple-choice test items that evaluate the language
development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
9. ____ I can write high-quality, multiple-choice test items that evaluate the content-area
development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
10. ____ I can write high-quality, reliable constructed response items that evaluate the language
development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
11.____ I can write high-quality, reliable constructed response items that evaluate the content-
area development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
12. ____ I can use item analysis to determine the validity and reliability of test items evaluate the
language development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
13. ____ I can use item analysis to determine the validity and reliability of test items evaluate the
language development of Emergent Bilingual learners.
14. ____ I can provide students with effective task rubrics that accurately evaluates the three
modes of communication and the two dimensions of knowledge of language as specified by the
California ELA Standards.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The promise of “equal, fair, and meaningful access to education services” (Equal Opportunity, 2015) made by the State of California remains unfulfilled for the silent majority of 835,358 Latino students labelled as Long-Term English Learners, or LTELs, which I have applied the asset-paradigm in designating these students as Latino Persistently Emergent Bilingual Learners (PEBLs). From the application of a deficit-paradigm label to the diminished support it provides to these students, California has fallen short in realizing its mandate guaranteeing equal educational opportunity as established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Seeking to understand how one stakeholder group contributed to the reproduction of inequality for this silent majority of Latino learners, in my three-tiered qualitative study, I investigated the work processes and dispositions of secondary English teachers at a suburban Los Angeles school district. Using a gap analysis of the organizational performance of the district, my comprehensive data collection and detailed analysis demonstrated that the secondary English teachers entrusted with the actualization of the promises of equality did not have the required knowledge and motivation to evaluate Latino PEBLs with accuracy, leading these teachers to reinforce structural inequalities at the expense of the language development and academic development of these students. Moreover, the organizational influences that could have otherwise facilitated more effective teacher performance were misaligned with the needs of Latino PEBLs, producing a considerable performance problem for the district. My results point to the application of a comprehensive performance improvement plan I have established that harnesses technology in the form of the Community of Inquiry (CoI), within which an embedded expert works with teachers in developing more culturally responsive dispositions that align with the existing assets of Latino PEBLs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to identify and refer students with anxiety or depression for evaluation

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Educator professional development for technology in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

PDF

Implementing culturally responsive therapy to serve Latino male clients in mental health

PDF

A gap analysis of homeless student school attendance in a large urban school district

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

Asset Metadata

Creator Alvarez, John Michael (author)

Core Title Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/02/2017

Defense Date 11/02/2017

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

Tag accountability,inquiry as stance,Latino,LTEL,OAI-PMH Harvest,Secondary

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Coleman, Rhoda (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email johnalva@usc.edu,kokorohitotsu@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-450930

Unique identifier UC11263288

Identifier etd-AlvarezJoh-5866.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-450930 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlvarezJoh-5866.pdf

Dmrecord 450930

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alvarez, John Michael

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