University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

(USC Thesis Other)

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 1
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS MEETING THE COMMON CORE:
DO PRINCIPALS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
by
Yadira S. Perez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016
Copyright 2016 Yadira S. Perez
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my loving husband and my two beautiful children, who
agreed to be part of this journey from the day that I embarked on it. They have been patient,
supportive, and encouraging throughout the process. My family gave me the strength to be able
to achieve such a fulfilling accomplishment.
I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my mother-in-law, who committed herself to
take the role of a mother when I was not around for my family, mentally or physically. Because
of her, I was able to spend days in front of a computer to complete this doctoral program within
the time expected. She gave me the peace of mind that my family was attended to and sound
without me.
Last but not least, I dedicate this accomplishment to my mother, who instilled in me the
courage and ambition to pursue my dreams. She constantly reminded me of the reasons for
immigrating to this country, taught me a love for education, and gave me more than she had to
support me in all aspects.
Dedico esta tesis doctoral a mi amado esposo y a mis hermosos hijos, quienes acordaron
en ser parte de este viaje desde el día que lo embarqué. Ellos me demostraron paciencia, apoyo, y
aliento durante este proceso. Mi familia me dio la fortaleza de poder realizar tan deseado logro.
También quiero dedicar esta tesis doctoral a mi suegra, quien se comprometió a ser una
madre modelo cuando yo estuve ausente en mi familia, física o mentalmente. Gracias a ella,
pude pasar días en frente de una computadora y terminar este programa doctoral en el tiempo
planeado. Ella me dio la tranquilidad de que mi familia estaba bien sin yo estar ahí.
Por ultimo pero no menos importante, dedico este logro a mi madre, quien me inculco el
coraje y la ambición de alcanzar mis sueños. Ella constantemente me recordó las razones por las
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 3
que inmigramos a este país, me enseñó desde pequeña amar la educación, y me dio más de lo que
tenia para apoyarme en todos los aspectos.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 4
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia, for his support, guidance,
and wise advice throughout this program. I also want to thank my committee member, Dr. Rudy
Castruita, for his intelligent suggestions during the development of my study and for always
pushing me forward and expecting the best of me.
I am especially grateful to my committee member and administrator, Dr. Sergei Orloff,
for the invaluable life lessons that he unknowingly taught me during the years that I have worked
with him. I thank him for being a role model of positivism and humbleness for others. I thank
him for teaching me to never look back and regret but to look forward and move on, as well as
his acceptance to be a member in my dissertation committee.
Finally, I thank my good friend Alen, who took my hand and dragged me to the finish line
of this program.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 4
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations of the Study 18
Delimitations of the Study 18
Definitions of Terms 18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 21
Body of the Literature 22
The CCSS and the ELLs 22
ELLs in Urban Schools 24
Teachers’ Role in Addressing ELLs 25
Resource Allocations and Local Decision Making Affecting ELLs 29
Principals and the Curriculum 34
Reform to the Curriculum and Instruction of the School 35
A Full Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies 37
Principal as an Instructional Leader: Promoting the Implementation of CCSS 41
Pedagogical Skills 41
Evaluating the Instructional Program 42
Evaluating Staff Development Programs 42
Communicating With Teachers About Outcome Data and Improvement Goals 43
Chapter Summary 43
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 44
Purpose of the Study Restated 44
Research Questions Restated 45
Research Design 45
Sample and Population 48
Instrumentation 50
Interview Protocol 50
Survey Protocol 51
Data Collection Approach 51
Data Analysis 52
Validity and Reliability 53
Chapter Summary 54
Chapter Four: Research Results 56
Context of the Problem 56
Significance of the Problem and the Literature Review 57
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 6
Research Questions 58
Demographics of Surveyed and Interviewed Participants 58
Response Rates 59
Research Methods 60
Analysis 60
Credibility and Trustworthiness 61
Findings 63
Research Question 1 65
Research Question 2 70
Research Question 3 73
Summary 78
Chapter Five: Discussion 80
Summary of Findings 82
Research Question 1 82
Research Question 2 84
Research Question 3 85
Ancillary Findings: An Emergent Stage 87
Limitations 87
Implications for Practice 88
Recommendations for Future Research 89
Conclusion 90
References 92
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 101
Appendix B: SurveyMonkey Questionnaire 103
Appendix C: General Recruitment Email Cover Letter 111
Appendix D: Summary of Data 112
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of the Five Interviewed Study Participants 60
Table 2: Alignment of Participants’ Criteria and Research Questions (RQs) to Items on
Survey and Interview Guide 62
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Factors affecting the implementation of CCSS for ELLs 21
Figure 2: Resource allocations and local decision making affecting ELLs 30
Figure 3: Conceptual model of the research design 45
Figure 4: Survey results on number of teachers having English language learners (ELLs)
in their classes 63
Figure 5: Survey results on question regarding the influence that LCFF had on the allocation
of resources 66
Figure 6: Survey question on state priority areas that have targeted the achievement of
English language learners (ELLs) 69
Figure 7: Survey question question on the important factors that contributed to the
success of English language learners (ELLs) with the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) 73
Figure 8: Survey question on the evaluation of English language development (ELD)
instruction delivered to English language learners (ELLs) 75
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 9
Abstract
In recent years, educational reform has been strongly influenced by a new set of national stan-
dards and a new funding formula that changes the way that school administrators allocate re-
sources to support teachers. The purpose of this study was to learn about ways in which
principals at urban elementary schools with high numbers of English language learners (ELLs)
provided support to teachers when implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
The study was based on a mixed-methods approach and investigated this topic through inter-
views and surveys. Five principals from various districts located in urban communities in
southern California were interviewed on their experiences and the types of supports put in place
for teachers during their 1st official implementation year of the CCSS, while considering the
needs of ELLs. In addition, 25 surveyed principals shared the various supports that they provided
to teachers to implement the CCSS. Findings from this study indicated that principals allocated a
plethora of resources such as teacher collaboration time, professional development (PD), curricu-
lum materials, technology, and others in order to assist elementary school teachers during this
transitional time. The study found that support aimed at addressing the requirements of ELLs
was evident only at a local level based on the needs of the site’s demographics. Finally, this
study found that principals’ evaluations influenced the effectiveness of the instruction delivered
to ELLs with respect to achievement of the CCSS. Possible implications for future research
would include investigating the effect of the newly adopted English language arts-English
language development framework on the achievement of ELLs. A 2nd consideration for future
research would be to analyze the results from the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium to
better identify factors that influence the academic achievement of ELLs.
Keywords: ELLs, CCSS, support, principal, urban elementary
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
A challenge that urban schools are currently facing is the way in which principals prepare
teachers to support English language learners (ELLs) for the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS Initiative; 2015b). The CCSS were publicly released in 2010 and have been fully imple-
mented in schools across the United States as of the 2014–2015 academic year. The CCSS is an
initiative in the United States launched by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
and the National Governors Association (NGA) to develop common content standards for states
to use in elementary and secondary education (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lan-
guages [TESOL], 2015). Teacher preparation on how to implement the standards, including the
right supports to put in place, has been the main focus of leaders across districts. According to
the initiative, decisions on the types of supports to put in place for teachers are made at the state
and local levels (CCSS Initiative, 2015b). Principals and district administrators are responsible
for providing their teachers with the supports they need to help students successfully reach the
standards (CCSS Initiative, 2015b). The challenge is greater when it comes to finding support
systems that address the needs of one particular subgroup in urban schools across the United
States—the ELLs.
Administrators are aware that in order to implement the CCSS successfully, support
systems should be provided to teachers to meet the specific needs of the particular subgroups that
comprise urban schools such as ELLs, special education, and gifted and talented. The new
standards are based on rigorous content and the application of knowledge through higher order
thinking skills (CCSS Initiative, 2015b). The level of rigor and higher expectations are a shift for
students, teachers, and administrators. It is important to explore ways in which schools and
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 11
principals prepare for this challenge. Most importantly, it is critical to investigate what support
systems have been put in place to help students meet these demands.
Implementing the CCSS and doing it right are critical. Because the initiative has left the
decision making to the states and districts, effective support systems should be strongest at a
local level, specifically in the support that principals provide to the teachers. The support
systems that principals are putting in place should include ways to help teachers make the CCSS
accessible to urban schools with significantly large percentages of ELLs who historically have
had a significant achievement gap (Abedi, 2002; Fry, 2007; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders,
& Christian, 2005; Rivera et al., 2010). The aim of this study was to explore the ways in which
principals of urban schools with large numbers of ELLs have supported teachers in implementing
the CCSS. This study explores the challenges that principals have encountered when making
decisions such as the allocation of resources, PD, curriculum implementation, and being in com-
pliance with the new funding formula.
Background of the Problem
The education system in the United States is undergoing an overhaul in curriculum
reform with the new CCSS. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), Edu-
cational Demographics Office (2014), the CCSS have been created as benchmarks to help
prepare students with the skills and knowledge necessary for college and career success. Cole-
man and Goldenberg (2012) argued that the CCSS Initiative gives general guidelines and recom-
mendations on the application of the standards to the ELL population but provides little acknowl-
edgment of the challenges that this group will face. The vague guidelines are based on the
assumption that the school leaders and teachers are responsible for making the new, rigorous
standards accessible to all students, including the ELLs. This is a concern and a major challenge
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 12
that comes along with the implementation of the new standards, especially in urban schools with
a high number of ELLs (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012; Quay, 2010). This concern is the reality
of many American urban elementary schools that have high numbers of students with diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Schools across the nation are trying to understand how the
adoption of the CCSS will affect ELLs in particular because they have historically been held to
lower academic expectations (Quay, 2010).
The goal of the new national standards is to ensure that all students graduate from high
school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless
of where they live (CCSS Initiative, 2015a). Teachers, administrators, and districts are being
held accountable for carrying out the implementation of the standards. Likewise, school princi-
pals, other administrators, and district superintendents are accountable for making sure that
teachers meet the objectives of the goal and support teachers in achieving successful results. At
the local level, principals carry the main responsibilities in ensuring that they provide the neces-
sary support to make these national standards accessible to all students.
Scholars have written much about the importance of principals and their critical role in
maintaining high expectations for all students while providing support for diverse groups of
students (Fullan, 2014; Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). Fullan (2014), for instance, discussed the
role of the principal as the overall instructional leader in maximizing the learning of all teachers
and, in turn, of all students. Other studies have looked at the different ways in which urban
school principals provide leadership in the face of numerous multicultural challenges (Gardiner
& Enomoto, 2006). The new implementation of CCSS in urban schools with large numbers of
ELLs is one challenge that requires school principals to work with teachers and to demonstrate
instructional leadership that promotes awareness of pedagogical practices. According to Fullan,
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 13
because of the CCSS curriculum, so much more is expected of schools and their principals that it
places principals in the position of change agents in these conditions.
Other research has shown the importance of addressing these concerns and have sup-
ported the need for a further investigation (Achieve.org, 2013). In an action brief (Achieve.org,
2012), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Associ-
ation of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), College Summit, and Achieve.org have high-
lighted some important shifts that principals should be aware of while transitioning to the CCSS.
The authors discussed the importance of supports for planning, capacity building, implementa-
tion, resources, and PD for teachers. They corroborated that principals’ understanding and
leadership are essential to the success of the CCSS. This action brief reminds everyone that
standards alone will not improve schools and raise students’ achievement, nor will they narrow
the achievement gap. It will take implementation of the standards with fidelity by school leaders
and teachers to significantly raise student achievement. Therefore, it is necessary to explore and
learn about ways in which principals at urban schools have supported their teachers in imple-
menting the CCSS, especially when addressing the needs of ELLs. The present study attempts to
determine their experiences during the 1st official implementation year of the CCSS.
At the same time, other research has also demonstrated that principals’ actions and deci-
sions make a difference with respect to student achievement (Ebert & Stone, 1988). Ebert and
Stone (1988) found that, in fact, principals’ behavior and attributes significantly influence
student achievement. Another study investigated the ways in which principals engage with
teachers to encourage success for ELLs. Rivera et al. (2010) found that principals identified PD
and effective instructional strategies as the factors that most contributed to ELLs’ successful
academic performance. The findings of this study suggest the importance of investigating the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 14
influence that principals could have over ELLs with respect to achieving the new national
standards.
Although a well-planned support system is needed to help ELLs, educators and school
leaders must be cognizant of the vast shift in the instructional approach necessary to help ELLs
achieve success with the Common Core. Research has been conducted to examine the impor-
tance of acknowledging the special needs of ELLs from the teacher’s perspective (Gándara,
Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). One study by Gándara et al. (2005) looked at the kinds of PD
that teachers felt would be most helpful to improve their teaching of ELLs. The study identified
the need for greater differentiation of PD for ELL teachers in the elementary and secondary levels
as one of the greatest challenges. This study supported the need for investigating the impact that
principals have on the implementation of the CCSS because not only are urban schools are facing
the challenge of transitioning to rigorous standards that are more cognitively demanding, focused
on deep understanding and greater coherence and skill mastery, but also they have to keep in
mind the special needs of one large group that is present in the majority of urban schools
today—the ELLs.
There is sufficient evidence from the literature that demonstrates the importance of the
principal’s role in the academic achievement of students, including ELLs. Therefore, if princi-
pals make a difference, it is necessary to explore ways in which they can better support ELLs to
achieve the goals of the new national standards. This is a crucial transitional time in education in
which a reform system at the local level is more important than ever. Although stakeholders
range from state legislators, local district administrators, school and administrators to teachers
and parents, principals are the key stakeholders in this reform system. The most influential
constituents involved in the successful implementation of the CCSS are the school principals
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 15
because they are systematically placed between those enforcing the standards (i.e., district
administrators) and those implementing them (i.e., teachers). Overall, the literature supports the
need for a deeper investigation about the role that school principals play in making this transition
successful for all students.
Statement of the Problem
The U.S. population is projected to be more ethnically and racially diverse by the middle
of the 21st century (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In fact, Hispanics are projected to make up 38%
of the student population in the United States compared to 33% Whites by the year 2060 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012). Based on these statistics, it is clear that the diversity of student popula-
tions will play an important role on the expected academic performance. In addition, current data
show that, just in the state of California, the dropout rates of African Americans and Hispanics
are the highest at 22% and 16%, respectively. Meanwhile, the dropout rates of Asians are 5.5%
compared to 8.2% for Whites (CDE, 2015b). These differences in educational achievement in
relationship to ethnicity and racial groups in the United States have been consistent in the past 3
decades (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], Institute of Educational Sciences [IES]; 2015b).
The statistics illustrate that the ethnically and racially diverse student population will be a
major shift to consider in education; consequently, the number of ELLs in urban schools will
continue to be a considerably larger subgroup. ELLs are the fastest growing population in U.S.
public schools. Between 1997 and 2009, the number of ELLs increased by 51% while the
general population of students grew by just 7% (Samson & Collins, 2012). It was estimated that
over 4 million ELLs were in the public school population as of the 2012–2013 school year
(USDOE, NCES, 2015b)—an increase of more than 100% since 1991, when there were 2.4
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 16
million ELLs enrolled. Today, 1 in 10 students is an ELL; by 2025 it is predicted that ELLs will
comprise 25% of the student population (National Center for English Language Acquisition,
2011).
The demographic composition of urban schools in particular calls for an instructional
approach that will meet the needs of its students. In order for teachers, administrators, and the
district to be successful in the implementation of the CCSS, it is imperative that school system
reform occurs. The school principal is accountable for reform that involves support systems to
be put in place to prepare teachers to implement successful instructional strategies in order to
help ELLs achieve the new, rigorous standards. Principals at urban settings should be cognizant
of the needs of all students and be able to provide PD that prepares teachers meet these needs. At
the same time, principals must be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction delivered to
all student subgroups. The application of the new national standards across the United States
creates a problem particularly for urban schools with very diverse populations and needs that
demand research attention.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to attempt to understand the ways in which principals of
elementary schools in urban settings support teachers in implementing the CCSS while address-
ing the needs of the ELL population. First, the study explores the different types of support
systems that principals have put in place to assist teachers during this transitional time to the new
standards. Second, the study investigates the specific PD that principals have provided for
teachers to meet the needs of ELLs. Finally, the study examines how principals evaluate the
effectiveness of the instruction delivered to ELLs and how this instruction leads to the
achievement of the CCSS.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 17
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How are principals supporting elementary school teachers in urban schools in ad-
dressing the needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS?
2. What PDs do principals provide for elementary school teachers to support them in
implementing the CCSS for ELLs?
3. How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs?
Importance of the Study
During a time when the nation is transitioning to a new set of common learning standards,
this study is particularly significant because it analyzes the ways in which urban school principals
are supporting teachers through this crucial period. With 1,415,623 students who are ELLs,
California has the highest concentration of ELLs than anywhere else in the United States
(USDOE, NCES, IES, 2015a). This study examines the support systems that principals are
putting in place to help the ELL population in their schools. This investigation should serve as a
bounce-off board for other urban schools that are struggling with the new challenge of imple-
menting more rigorous standards to schools with large numbers of ELLs. The findings of this
investigation should provide information on the role that principals play in this time of reform.
The study also sought to explore ways in which principals evaluated how effective the instruc-
tions delivered to ELLs was in meeting the CCSS. These findings will add to a growing body of
literature about strategies that administrators are utilizing to evaluate the achievement of the
national standards with a particular focus on the ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 18
Limitations of the Study
The following factors limited this study:
1. The study provides perspectives and opinions of only principals as the main partici-
pants. Their statements and information provided were taken as truthful and reliable.
2. Data collection occurred over a period of 6 months during a transitional time of the
end of the 1st official year of implementing the CCSS and the beginning of the 2nd year.
3. The study was limited to randomly selected elementary schools located in urban
settings defined as areas with a high human population density in comparison to the areas sur-
rounding them.
Delimitations of the Study
The research was conducted within the following parameters:
1. The quantitative and qualitative data were focused on one subgroup only: the ELLs.
This subgroup is one of the fastest growing groups in urban schools (Samson & Collins, 2012).
2. Data were collected from interviews and surveys only. Field observations were
neither conducted nor included in this study due to time constraints and site accessibility.
3. The data utilized for this study were limited to 25 online surveys and five personal
interviews due to time constrains.
4. This study did not include the opinions and perspectives of principals in rural or
suburban areas because the scope of the study was to inform about areas with large numbers of
ELLs.
Definitions of Terms
CCSS: Educational standards that describe what students should know and be able to do
in each subject in each grade from kindergarten through high school.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 19
CCSS Initiative: An educational initiative in the United States that details what K–12
students should know in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade.
CCSSO:
A nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head depart-
ments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the
Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. The
CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational
issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses
views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public.
(CCSSO, 2015, Who We Are section, para. 1)
ELL: A person who is in the process of acquiring the English language and whose first
language is not English. The government sometimes refers to ELL students as limited English
proficient (LEP) students (National Education Association, 2015). Students are identified as
ELLs until they achieve district-specified scores on state achievement tests and meet other
academic criteria. At that point, the district labels the student as reclassified as fluent English
proficient (RFEP).
NGA Center for Best Practices, Education Division: A division of the NGA that
provides information, research, policy analysis, technical assistance and resource devel-
opment for governors and their staff in the areas of early childhood, K–12 and post-
secondary education. The division focuses on helping governors develop effective policy
and support its implementation in the areas of: early education, readiness and quality; the
Common Core State Standards, Science Technology Engineering and Math and related
assessments; teacher and leader effectiveness; competency-based learning; charter
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 20
schools; data and accountability; and postsecondary (higher education and workforce
training) access, success, productivity, accountability, and affordability. The division
also works on policy issues related to bridging the system divides among the early child-
hood, K–12, postsecondary and workforce systems. (NGA Center for Best Practices &
CCSSO, 2010, Education Division section, para. 1)
Urban school: A school characterized by its location in areas of high population density,
high rate of poverty (as measured by the free and reduced-price lunch data), high proportion of
students of color, and high proportion of students who are LEP (CDE, 2015b).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 21
Figure 1. Factors affecting the implementation of CCSS for ELLs. CCSS
= Common Core State Standards; LCFF = Local Control Funding
Formula; ELL = English language learner.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The dynamics surrounding the implementation of the new CCSS require an analysis of
the body of literature that has recently generated research on the impact the standards are ex-
pected to cause. At the same time, in the past decade, an abundance of literature has been
devoted to the way ELLs learn, their achievement gaps, and the increasing numbers representing
this subgroup in urban schools (Abedi, 2002; Fry, 2007; Genesee et al., 2005). Considering the
new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the state is allowing greater freedom to decision
making on the allocation of resources based on the needs of the school site. Therefore, princi-
pals, particularly those in positions to lead urban schools toward the successful implementation
of the new standards, have a major responsibility to make sure that teachers receive the appropri-
ate support to address the needs of a very diverse student populations that make up urban schools
today (see Figure 1).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 22
The analysis of the literature identifies how the new academic standards have been
designed to address the needs of ELLs and what role principals play in the process of this imple-
mentation. This analysis specifically explores the successful support systems that principals have
put in place in schools with a large number of ELLs in recent years. The literature review also
analyzes the way in which principals evaluate how successful the instruction delivered to ELLs is
when trying to meet their needs and what effect the new funding formula has on students’
learning.
Body of the Literature
The CCSS and the ELLs
The Common Core is a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and
English language arts (ELA) for students in kindergarten through 12th grade (NGA Center for
Best Practices & CCSSP, 2010). The CCSS are already making an impact in schools across the
nation. During the 1st implementation year, teachers tried to understand the standards and how
to teach according to them. According to the NGA Center for Best Practices and the CCSSO
(2010), the CCSS increase the rigor and complexity within ELA and mathematics and the goal is
to ensure that U.S. students are prepared for college and ready for careers. Experts have
acknowledged these academic standards to be tougher now than in the past; hence, related
services personnel must facilitate the challenge of working with students diagnosed with learning
disabilities, ELLs, gifted students, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds in the implementa-
tion of CCSS (Gewertz, 2013; NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO, 2010). The analysis of
the literature focuses on the role that principals play in facilitating the challenge of working with
large numbers of ELLs when implementing the new standards.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 23
One major consideration for focusing on this specific subgroup of students is due to the
increasing numbers statistically recorded in the past decade, specifically in urban settings. In
California alone, 1,413,549 ELLs learners constitute 22.7% of the total enrollment in public
schools (Ed-Data, 2014). More than 4 in 10 California students, or almost 2.7 million students
overall, speak a primary language other than English at home (California Legislative Analyst’s
Office [LAO], 2014b). This large group of students would potentially suffer the consequences of
poor implementation of the CCSS. Therefore, it is important to look at the relationship between
ELLs and their successful achievement of the CCSS in order to avoid a problem that could poten-
tially affect education on a large scale. An intentional approach to the analysis of ELLs ‘achieve-
ment gap can lead to research that investigates ways for teachers to receive appropriate PD on
how to design instruction that fosters the academic achievement of ELLs.
For schools to be successful in the implementation of the CCSS, it is imperative that the
conceptual framework of instruction changes to meet the needs of all students. Urban schools
need a well-planned curriculum that pays attention to the various needs of its students. To help
the large numbers of ELLs meet high academic standards, it is essential that these students have
access to teachers and personnel at their school who are well prepared and qualified to support
them and a district that provides support and growth opportunities for teachers while taking
advantage of the many strengths and skills that teachers they bring to the classroom (CCSS
Initiative, 2015a).
The NGA and the CCSSO strongly believe that ELLs should be held to the same high
expectations outlined in the CCSS but that ELLs will require appropriate instructional support
and additional time as they acquire both English language proficiency and content area knowl-
edge (CCSS, 2015a, 2015b). Limited literature has been published to address the type of
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 24
instructional supports that schools have put in place to meet the needs of ELLs when applying the
CCSS due to the initial state of implementation. However, a plethora of literature has been
devoted to address the perpetual achievement gap of ELLs (Abedi, 2002; Fry, 2007; Genesee et
al., 2005; Rivera et al., 2010). The focus of this analysis is on the effect that the CCSS might
have when applied at urban schools with high numbers of ELLs and how these schools are
responding to their needs.
ELLs in Urban Schools
The student achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs is an ongoing educational
problem that has been addressed by many researchers. According to Abedi (2002), ELLs gener-
ally perform lower than non-ELL students on reading, science, and math—a strong indication of
the impact of English language proficiency on assessment. Another study looked at the Nation’s
Report Card and found that data from standardized testing around the country shows that the
fast-growing number of students designated as ELLs are among those farthest behind (Fry, 2007).
Factors that contribute to the performance gap between subgroups and mainstream
students deserve special attention. “Different subgroups are faced with different sets of chal-
lenges. Therefore, to understand and control for factors leading to the performance gap between
subgroups and mainstream students, one must clearly understand the issues specific to each
subgroup” (Abedi & Gandara, 2006, p. 36). In trying to find ways to close the achievement gap
of ELLs, the literature focuses on exemplar urban schools around the nation with high numbers
of ELLs. One study identified three common characteristics among urban elementary and middle
schools that showed exemplary academic programs for ELLs. First, at the organizational level,
most emphasized cooperative learning in untracked, heterogeneous classes of students with
varying proficiency levels. Second, teaching focused on developing students’ critical thinking,
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 25
embedding content in meaningful contexts for students, and creating opportunities for ELLs to
produce oral and written English and to engage in intellectual conversation. Third, students’
cultural backgrounds and experiences were respected, and schools had devised ways to “break
down alienation between their community and the school by embracing the culture and language
of students, and by welcoming parents and community members into the school in innovative
ways” (Rivera et al., 2010).
The literature has examined the achievement gap of ELLs from different lenses. Some
studies have looked at the cause, while others at solutions. One research study looked at solu-
tions to address the achievement gap of the ELLs and corroborated the importance of differenti-
ated instruction:
ELLs are more successful when they participate in programs that are specially designed to
meet their needs (ESL, bilingual, etc.) than in mainstream English classrooms and when
the program is consistent throughout the student education. A program that is enriched,
consistent, provides a challenging curriculum, and incorporates language development
components and appropriate assessment approaches is also supported by the findings of
the research in this corpus. (Genesee et al., 2005, p. 15)
Teachers’ Role in Addressing ELLs
Principals depend on teachers for successful outcomes when implementing the new
CCSS initiative. One interesting perspective presented by the literature is how the implementa-
tion of the CCSS may affect teacher efficacy (Day, 2007; Heibert & Mesmer, 2013). Findings
from a national teacher survey demonstrate that a large number of teachers in the United States
feel unprepared to teach the new standards (Gewertz, 2013). Some studies have investigated
teachers’ understanding of their role when achieving a common goal for student success and have
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 26
found a variation in perspectives. An examination in The MetLife Survey of the American
Teacher (Markow, Pieters, & Harris Interactive, 2010) examined the views of teachers, princi-
pals, and students about their respective roles and responsibilities, current practice, and priorities
for the future. The literature has looked at how and to what extent teachers, principals, and
students work and learn together to increase their success with respect to academic achievement
(Markow et al., 2010). In the case of the Common Core, success in the implementation of the
standards would depend on this type of collaboration.
Markow et al. (2010) surveyed a sample of 1,003 public school teachers, 500 K–12 public
school principals and 1,018 public school students in Grades 3–12. The results of the study dealt
with effective teaching and leadership. The survey examined views about responsibility and
accountability, what collaboration looks like in schools, and if and to what degree collaboration
is currently practiced. The findings of this survey showed evidence that teachers and principals
felt that increased collaboration has a direct effect on student success. The examination found
that teachers (80%) and principals (90%) strongly agreed that teachers in a school share responsi-
bility for the achievement of all students. Nine in 10 teachers agreed that other teachers contrib-
ute to students’ success in the classroom (Markow et al., 2010). These findings corroborate the
idea that teacher collaboration with principals is an essential factor in the success of the CCSS
implementation.
Another study investigated the insights of educators’ awareness of the standards, their
views of the CCSS and their potential to transform their practice, the training that they have
received and their general preparation to put them into practice (Editorial Projects in Education
[EPE] Research Center, 2013). This study was based on an online survey of 599 randomly
selected teachers in K–12 schools from states that have adopted the common standards. Ninety
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 27
percent of the respondents were teachers in Grades K–12; the remaining respondents served as
instructional specialists in various capacities. The survey was conducted by the EPE Research
Center (2013) in the fall of 2012. The study looked at how prepared teachers felt to teach the
CCSS. Results indicated that on a 5-point scale (where 1 = not at all prepared and 5 = very
prepared), respondents reported an average score of about 3 in preparedness for the CCSS. Only
4% of the respondents expressed a high level of confidence in the readiness of their schools to
put the CCSS into practice (EPE Research Center, 2013). The study also found that although
most teachers have received some PD related to the CCSS, respondents had typically spent less
than 4 days in such training, including training in collaboration with colleagues. These teachers
felt that additional collaboration with colleagues and a clearer understanding of the new expecta-
tion for students would enable them to better implement the CCSS (EPE Research Center, 2013).
This collaboration can happen only if the school principal supports the importance of collabora-
tion among teachers to improve instruction. Therefore, it is the principal’s role to allocate time
and resources for trainings and staff development that include collaboration with colleagues.
Another empirical study conducted by The MetLife Survey of American Teacher (Markow
& Pieters, 2011) examined what it takes to be college- and career-ready and the implications of
this goal for teaching. The MetLife research combined both quantitative and qualitative methods
to gain a clear picture of attitudes and perceptions among key stakeholder groups in the realm of
college and career readiness. They examined the perceptions of a nationally representative
sample of 1,000 public middle and high school teachers, 2,002 students in Grades 6–12, 580
parents, and 301 Fortune 1000 business executives. The study included a survey and a series of
telephone and online interviews. One important finding from this investigation illustrates the
importance of preparing teachers for the new, rigorous standards. The study found that teachers,
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 28
parents, and executives felt that higher order crossdisciplinary skills (such as writing, critical
thinking, and problem solving), self-motivation, and team skills are more important for college
preparation than higher level content in mathematics and science. Another interesting finding
from this examination was that 9 in 10 of each of the key stakeholders believed that problem-
solving skills, critical thinking, the ability to write clearly and persuasively, and the ability to
work independently are four skills and abilities that are absolutely essential for students to be
ready for college and careers (Markow & Pieters, 2011). These are demands not only for non-
ELLs but also for ELLs who already face the historical burden of playing catch-up in the
academic field. The findings in this study support the strong need to give assistance to teachers in
their preparation for delivering the new challenge presented by the CCSS.
The analysis of these three sets of empirical data in the literature points out some factors
that play an important role in the types of supports teachers need during this time of change. The
phenomenon of the CCSS brings along a significant instructional shift requiring teachers to take
responsibility teaching reading and writing in all content areas, including mathematics, science,
social science, physical education, and even elective classes as part of the new literacy standards.
The literature review supported the fact that the shared responsibility from all teachers for the
achievement of all students, as well as increased collaboration among them, has a direct effect on
students’ success (Markow et al., 2010). Therefore, the contribution of teachers working in col-
laboration matters to students’ achievement, which is essential for the effective implementation
of the CCSS and which, consequently and more importantly, requires the support and buy-in of
the school principal.
Other evidence from the literature analysis supported the fact that teachers lack prepara-
tion to implement the new standards (EPE Research Center, 2013). These studies corroborate the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 29
importance of teachers’ perspectives in the success of the implementation of the CCSS. The
findings support that if teachers do not have a clear understanding of the new expectations for
students, the implementation of the CCSS will suffer (EPE Research Center, 2013). These
findings again confirm the need for the effective teacher preparation for the implementation of
the standards.
The supports needed and the collaboration discussed in the literature must be part of the
principal’s action plan to build local capacities that support effective teaching practices. These
two factors depend on how education resources are distributed and the principal’s decisions on
funding and have direct implications for student learning. The distribution and allocation of
resources play an important role when analyzing the support systems established in urban
schools.
Resource Allocations and Local Decision Making Affecting ELLs
The implementation of CCSS may cause a financial burden for school districts due to the
need to obtain more rigorous curricular materials that are required to support successful imple-
mentation (Heibert & Mesmer, 2013). Principals are responsible for ensuring that the curriculum
and instruction meet CCSS requirements and that teachers have the PD and supports they need
for these instructional shifts (MetLife, 2013). These demands depend on the decision making of
resource allocations. On the other hand, the financial burden caused by the need to adopt a new
curriculum that supports the implementation of the CCSS and the need to prepare teachers might
be alleviated by the new financial system in California (see Figure 2).
LCFF and ELLs. The LCFF is the new K-12 finance system implemented this 2013-14
by school districts and charter schools across California (CDE, 2015d). The new system creates
funding streams for oversight activities and instructional programs based on the category of pupil
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 30
Figure 2. Resource allocations and local decision making affecting
ELLs. PD = professional development; LCAP = Local Control and
Accountability Plan; ELL = English language learner.
served. The new budgeting system is relevant to this study because it acknowledges the ELL
population as one of the three targeted disadvantaged groups: low income (LI), those eligible to
receive a free or reduced-price meal (FRPM), and foster youth (FY). Under the new LCFF,
schools with targeted disadvantaged students receive additional funding identified as supplemen-
tal and concentration grants (CDE, 2015d).
The California State Board of Education (SBE) requires school districts, county offices of
education (COEs), and charter schools “to increase and improve” (CDE, 2015d, para. 3) services
for targeted students and will provide authority for school districts to spend funds schoolwide
when significant populations of those students attend a particular school. This is the case for a
large number of urban schools in California. In California, more than 60% of K–12 students are
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 31
low income, ELLs, or foster youth (California LAO, 2014a). Under the LCFF, these students
generate supplemental funding equivalent to 20% of the base rate. If these students comprise
more than 55% of a district’s enrollment, the district also receives concentration funding equal to
50% of the base rate for each student above the threshold (CDE, 2015d).
Considering the vast diversity of the student population in urban schools, the ELL sub-
group represents a large factor in this funding formula. As part of the LCFF, school districts,
COEs, and charter schools are required to develop, adopt, and annually update a 3-year Local
Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP is required to identify goals and measure
progress for student subgroups across multiple performance indicators (CDE, 2015d). The
accountability measures under the new LCAP are aligned with eight statewide priority goals:
1. Student achievement. To measure progress for students subgroups in the Student
Achievement area, data are required from performance on standardized tests, scores on the
Academic Performance Index (API), number of ELLs who become English proficient, ELL
reclassification rate, number of students that pass Advanced Placement (AP) exams with a score
of 3 or higher, and number of students college and career ready.
2. School climate. To measure progress for student subgroup on the School Climate
area, data are required from student suspension rates, expulsion rates, and other local measures.
3. Credentials and materials. To measure progress for student subgroups on the Creden-
tials and materials area or basic services, data are required from the rate of teacher misassign-
ment, access to standards-aligned instructional materials, and facilities in good repair.
4. Implementation of the CCSS. To measure progress on the Implementation of CCSS
area, data are required from the standards implementation for all students, including ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 32
5. Other student outcomes. To measure progress for student subgroups on the Other
Student Outcomes area, data are required from other indicators of student performance on other
exams.
6. Parental involvement. To measure progress for student subgroups on the Parental
Involvement area, data are required from efforts to seek parental input and promotion of parental
participation.
7. Course access. To measure progress for student subgroups on the Course Access
area, data are required from student access and enrollment in all required areas of study.
8. Student engagement. To measure progress on the Student Engagement area, data are
required from school attendance rates, chronic absenteeism rates, and dropout and graduation
rates (California LAO, 2013),
To meet these goals, strategic resource allocation is crucial. It is necessary that principals
pay close attention to the differentiated instruction required to meet the needs of special sub-
groups. The utilization and allocation of funds should align to the needs of all students and to the
goals attached to the new categorical funding plan, LCAP. The specific categorical areas that are
most relevant to this study are Student Achievement, Course Access, Implementation of the
CCSS, and Student Engagement. These specific statewide priority areas require school districts
in urban areas to be more attentive to their budgeting plans when adopting or updating their
LCAP. Consequently, the LCAP provides more freedom and guidance to address the needs of all
students based on their local context in order to improve performance. At a local level, school
principals should consider the number of ELLs when making major decisions on support systems
and PD provided to teachers with the aim of preparing them to a successful implementation of
the new standards.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 33
Educational equity and adequacy for ELLs. Principals have the responsibility to
support teachers when implementing the CCSS in classrooms where ELLs make up a significant
portion of the student population. One exploratory qualitative study argued that school principals
have a critical role in providing and promoting education that is culturally sensitive to differ-
ences, is free from discrimination and prejudice, and promotes educational equity and adequacy
(Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). The study illustrated how six urban school principals provided
leadership in facing numerous multicultural challenges. To reach a level of equity and adequacy
for all students, principals should maintain high expectations for all while advocating appropriate
pedagogical approaches for each student (Lomotey, 1993). The lens of this empirical study in the
literature was to critically examine the role of urban principals as multicultural leaders. It also
examined the principal’s role as the one responsible for supporting, facilitating, or being a
catalyst for change. Finally, the study looked at the role of the principal in building connections
between schools and communities (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).
The findings in the qualitative study conducted by Gardiner and Enomoto (2006) demon-
strated that some principals were not promoting inclusive instructional practices and relied
especially on the ELL teachers to do so. These findings are relevant because they reveal the
important characteristics necessary for school leaders in times of reform, such as today when
urban schools in California are required to apply new standards under a new funding formula.
Considering the phenomenon of the CCSS and the historically recorded achievement gap of
ELLs, it is important to look at the role of urban principals as multicultural leaders. Gardiner and
Enomoto recommended PD for teachers, particularly when requested by principals themselves, in
order to be self-reflective and to critique their own school sites and context. Gardiner and
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 34
Enomoto further argued that multicultural leadership could be an explicit expectation tied to staff
and administrators’ evaluations.
Principals and the Curriculum
According to Coleman and Goldenberg (2012), “school leaders and teachers are responsi-
ble for making the challenging academic standards accessible to students who must learn rigor-
ous academic content while learning the language in which the content is taught” (p. 46). The
authors identified two key recommendations from the creators of the CCSS about instructional
supports that would enable ELLs to better perform when the CCSS are implemented:
1. Teach ELLs the mainstream academic content that all students must learn.
2. Help ELLs develop proficiency in English, particularly the academic English in oral
and written language that is foundational to the content standards. (p. 46)
In addition to Coleman and Goldenberg’s (2012) recommendations, Quay (2010) outlined
three reform components that should be considered for the successful implementation of the
CCSS at the classroom and school levels: (a) the need for the development and validation of
aligned assessments for ELL students, (b) standards-aligned curriculum frameworks and instruc-
tional materials, and (c) effective teaching and instructional capacity. The study suggested that
administrators (i.e., principals) find ways to increase teachers’ capacity to successfully instruct
students to meet the new standards. Teacher training and PD programs must be dramatically
improved. Quay’s research suggests professional learning aimed at school and classroom
practices that improve students’ academic engagements and study behaviors, differentiated
instruction for classes of students with varying levels of academic preparedness, and English- and
content-based instruction for ELL students.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 35
Another study by Rivera et al. (2010) focused on five states with high concentrations of
ELLs (i.e., California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Texas) and identified schools
whose ELLs demonstrated exemplary achievement. The study surveyed 49 principals to investi-
gate multiple factors that contributed to student success in these schools. Principals identified
high-quality PD and effective instructional strategies as the factors that contributed the most to
their ELLs’ successful academic performance. Instruction driven by research- based practices,
such as direct and sheltered instruction, was found to be effective for all students.
Considering the literature recommendations, two elements that are critical for this imple-
mentation that principals should consider are (a) reform to the curriculum and instruction of the
school; and (b) full implementation of research-based instructional strategies that serve all
students, especially the large group of ELLs at the school.
Reform to the Curriculum and Instruction of the School
Best practices for improvement. According to recommendations of the USDOE, IES,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE; 2009), “multiple data
sources are important because no single assessment provides all the information teachers need to
make informed instructional decisions” (p. 11). This situation leads to support the imperative
need to reform the curriculum and instruction in elementary schools to improve the performance
of all students, especially the ELLs. Multiple sources of data are necessary to make sound deci-
sions during the modification and design of the new curriculum and instruction. This curriculum
must be designed to meet the various needs of the students; at the same time, it should meet the
new, rigorous content set by the CCSS. Without a well-planned approach to a new curriculum
and instruction, teachers will struggle implementing the CCSS in their classrooms.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 36
Research has recommended the use of data as an ongoing cycle of instructional improve-
ment that includes the developing and testing of hypotheses and modifying instruction when
using assessment data to guide instruction (USDOE, IES, NCEE, 2009). Langer, Colton, and
Goff (2003) called this the Analysis Cycle that consists of observing and gathering information
(qualitative data), analyzing and interpreting data, planning instruction, and putting it into action.
To gain a deeper insight into students’ needs and to measure their academic progress during the
academic year, principals should collect classroom performance data for examination, including
grades, projects, classwork, and homework. These classroom-level data sources, in conjunction
with district data, can help paint a complete picture of student performance (USDOE, IES,
NCEE, 2009).
Considerations. It is important to consider the impact and influence of both summative
and formative data when reconstructing a curriculum and instruction. It is important to be atten-
tive to how summative data should be considered in decision making. These data can help to
evaluate whether students are ready to advance to the next level. Formative data can assist when
making the decisions on how to modify the curriculum and shape the design of future instruction.
Most importantly, summative and formative data should be obtained from multiple sources, both
qualitative and quantitative, and from different levels—classroom, school, district, and state.
Challenges. Two current challenges that principals at urban schools may face when
trying to reform curriculum and instruction can be the required collaboration of teachers and
strong leadership needed to implement it. “A collaborative culture for inquiry helps teachers gain
a deeper understanding of the link between their instruction and their students’ learning in a
standards-based target learning area” (Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003, p. 20). “The collaboration
of teachers to analyze classroom-level student data, plan instruction for awareness and
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 37
self-assessment is one practice suggested in the literature that can improve student performance”
(Langer et al., 2003, p. 17). For this curriculum and instructional change and reform, it is impor-
tant for teachers to embrace collaboration and self-assessment. Culture is one difficult thing to
change, and it takes time (Gruenert, 2008). Gruenert (2000) identified the strong norms of an
organization that become ritual, traditions, and rules as a phenomenon that evolves slowly over
many years. However, collaborative school culture can be developed effectively as a context for
student and teacher learning (Gruenert, 2000). A strong leader can foster a collaborative school
culture if he or she creates structures and opportunities for collaboration, rewards teachers who
collaborate, and learns and assess the school’s culture (Gruenert, 2000). Strong leadership is
required to implement reform in curriculum and instruction. “Choosing the right school leaders
and managing them the right way is a critical step without which large improvements cannot
happen” (Hassel, Hassel, Arkin, Kowal, & Steiner, 2009, p. 16).
A Full Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies
A full implementation of research-based instructional strategies is another crucial element
for successful implementation of the CCSS. Research-based instructional strategies that serve all
students, especially the ELL student population, are fundamental for a successful transition and
implementation of the CCSS.
Best practices for improvement. The most critical area that should be addressed is
consideration of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson et al. (2001) as the fundamental
basis for implementing instructional strategies. If the teacher understands the cognitive dimen-
sion in Bloom’s taxonomy that matches the cognitive demands of every Common Core standard,
he or she will be able to implement a curriculum using research-based instructional strategies that
move students to the highest levels in depth of knowledge.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 38
Another important practice supported by the literature when implementing research-based
strategies to serve all students is the ability to scaffold the learning process. Once the school
reflects on the data and acknowledges that its students have diverse assets and needs, the plan for
scaffolding should be the next step. It is necessary to create an overall scaffolding plan to
address all students. This plan should include targeted scaffolding and general scaffolding for all
students. It should also include supplementary scaffolding activities for those students who will
need additional scaffolding. The first step in the plan is to identify the various learners who may
differ linguistically, by gender, culturally, socioeconomically, or in special needs. The second
step is to plan scaffolding instructional strategies that meet these diverse needs in the classroom.
Some of the scaffolding practices suggested by the literature are understanding of English lan-
guage variations that exist among students (Hudley & Mallison, 2011). This strategy encourages
educators to actively approach instruction being mindful of diversity and valuing students’
language diversities. Another form of scaffolding is designing comprehensive lesson and
instructional programs that have high quality and rigorous second-language teaching (Dutro &
Moran, 2003). English language development (ELD) research-based practices include the
systematic development of English language, the front loading of language, and the use of teach-
able moments (Dutro & Moran, 2003). Other research-based strategies that will serve the needs
of the large number of ELLs at urban schools are those discussed by Fisher and Frey (2008), such
as collaborative learning, many formative assessments, modeling, metacognitive awareness,
think aloud, and small groupings.
Considerations. Consideration should be made of the influence that administrative and
teacher leadership might have on the implementation of research-based instructional strategies,
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 39
because leaders need to support teachers in preparing for meeting the needs of ELLs, standard
English learners (SELs), and students with special needs:
In order for Standard English Learners to experience greater success in acquiring school
literacy and learning, teachers will need access to comprehensive professional develop-
ment that provides opportunities to learn how to construct learning environments that are
authentic, culturally and linguistically responsive, and that build upon the learning styles
and strengths of SELs to promote academic growth. (LeMoine, 2007, p. 12)
It is important to assume that many teachers might lack basic knowledge of the effective
implementation of many of the instructional strategies previously recommended. Administrative
support in the form of PD focused on training teachers on how to effectively implement re-
search-based instructional strategies that will help ELLs is an important consideration in the
effectiveness of this plan.
Challenges. A particular challenge that administrators might face when trying to influ-
ence teachers to implement research-based instructional strategies is their inability to demon-
strate multicultural leadership through this process (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). Principals
should be able to demonstrate multicultural leadership by (a) “having high expectation for
teachers and staff as learners,” (b) “engaging the school in a plan that would change the cultural
perspective of the students,” (c) “providing staff development meeting that would promote
teachers to talk about validating student identity and raising expectations,” (d) “promoting
inclusive instructional practices,” and (e) “building connections between schools and communi-
ties” (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006, pp. 10–17).
Research has supported the important role and influence that the school and district have
on the achievement of ELLs and what happens in their classrooms (Coleman & Goldenberg,
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 40
2012). Coleman and Goldenberg (2012) noted that “coherent schoolwide goals, ongoing assess-
ment of student learning, strong leadership, and ongoing professional development linked to
goals and assessments contribute to creating a schoolwide culture of higher achievement and
higher expectations for ELLs” (p. 50).
The new standards bring various changes to education; therefore, it should be expected
for schools to change significantly, especially with respect to those students who are
considered at higher risk. Based on the research, there is no question that professional
development and effective instructional strategies are key factors that contribute the most
to the successful academic performance of ELLs. (Rivera et al., 2010, p. 24)
The literature review has explored many areas of concerns about the challenges that ELLs
face in an education system that is made for one size fits all. It has also investigated the effect of
principals on the academic achievement of all students, particularly in urban schools. Research
has demonstrated the impact that the principal’s decision making has on creating support systems
for teachers and capacity building to prepare them for the implementation of the CCSS. A
limitation in the literature, due to the recent implementation of the CCSS and the lack of measur-
ing data on student achievement in general, is the impact that the CCSS have made particularly
on the academic achievement of ELLs. Two important factors that have to be considered regard-
ing the recent changing aspects of education relevant to the academic achievement of ELLs, the
new standards, and the role that principals play are LCFF funding and accountability provisions.
The decisions made in the allocation of resources based on the LCFF require a careful look at the
way that ELLs will be addressed.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 41
Principal as an Instructional Leader: Promoting the Implementation of CCSS
One of the eight priority goals required by the LCAP is the implementation of the state
standards. As the instructional leader, the principal of a school is expected to be knowledgeable
about all of student academic content standards and the appropriate pedagogical skills for teach-
ing them to K–12 students. The principal should promote the use of the CCSS as the primary
basis for classroom instruction and for student assessments. Based on the California Professional
Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL) school principals are expected to support the school
community understand the new standards and be able to articulate the principles of effective
instruction to teachers. According to Element 2B-3 under the Curriculum and Instruction guide-
lines of the CPSEL standards, school leaders are expected to provide access to a variety of
resources that are needed for the effective instruction and differentiated support of all students
(Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2014). In schools located in urban areas, princi-
pals should identify and take action to mitigate potential barriers to student learning specific to
the subgroups.
Pedagogical Skills
Principals have the responsibility to be knowledgeable about pedagogical skills required
to address the needs of all students. In order to assess the effectiveness of the instruction deliv-
ered to students, it is essential that principals are familiar with the principles required for effec-
tive teaching. Particularly in the case of urban schools, the ability to identify effective pedagogi-
cal practices in the classroom can be more complex. The principal should be aware that teaching
approaches work differently depending on the community of students they are addressing.
Teaching the new CCSS to ELLs requires a broad repertoire of research-based pedagogical
models and strategies on the part of the teacher. It is the principal’s responsibility to evaluate
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 42
whether the needs of the subgroups in this complex setting are being met (WestEd & Association
of California School Administrators, 2004).
Evaluating the Instructional Program
Based on Category B: Instructional Leadership, as outlined in the California Administra-
tive Performance Expectations based upon the CPSEL, the principal uses knowledge of the K–12
student academic content standards and appropriate instructional practices to observe and evalu-
ate classroom planning and instruction in accordance with the local educational agency’s (LEA)
policy and practices. The principal should analyze evidence of teacher effectiveness and provide
feedback to help teachers improve instructional practices. Principals should be able to demon-
strate understanding of urban school settings, including the instructional implications of teaching
a large number of ELLs. Principals are responsible for evaluating, analyzing, and providing
feedback on the effectiveness of classroom instruction to promote student learning and teacher
professional growth (CTC, 2014).
Evaluating Staff Development Programs
According to Guskey and Sparks (1991), principals should focus on evaluating the quality
of staff development programs through student outcomes. The evaluation should involve a
multifaceted approach to truly inform the potential impact of the relationship between staff
development and student outcomes. The elements recommended for evaluating a staff develop-
ment are (a) the content of the staff development program, (b) the quality of the staff develop-
ment, and (c) the organizational climate and culture. The last element to be analyzed is the
improvement in student learning outcomes affected by the program. Research shows the need to
develop methods for increasing teachers’ capacity to make sure that content and instruction are
comprehensible to ELLs. A study by Aguirre-Muñoz, Park, Amabisca, and Boscardin (2009)
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 43
presents the effectiveness and instructional impact of a PD program designed to increase teach-
ers’ understanding of the characteristics of academic language.
Communicating With Teachers About Outcome Data and Improvement Goals
The role of the instructional leader is also to communicate with the school community
about progress toward meeting the academic goals. Based on analysis of multiple sources of
data, the principal makes decisions on the type of teaching professional learning capacities
needed at the school (CTC, 2014). It is important for principals of schools with high numbers of
ELLs to make sure that student achievement is evident in the outcomes represented by the
sources of data utilized to measure performance. Moreover, it is important to provide the neces-
sary PD and/or professional learning capacities to prepare teachers to increase their knowledge in
regard to applying the new national standards while addressing the needs of ELLs, especially if
student achievement is not evident.
Chapter Summary
There is no doubt that the rigor of the new national standards will have a tremendous
impact on many students, especially those in disadvantaged situations such as the ELLs. The
literature review has covered an abundance of ways to address the problem. Limited research is
available in two rather new movements in the educational field, the CCSS and the LCFF, yet the
principal’s influence on the directionality of this issue is one particular element that remains
constant and justifies the attention paid in this study.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 44
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research study explored the pivotal role of principals in times of change when the
United States attempts to conduct an overhaul to the educational system by adopting new
national standards. California’s education system faces even greater reforms due to its new
LCFF and the allocation of resources based on specific subgroups. Principals of urban schools,
as leaders of their organizations, carry the responsibility of making sure that funds are allocated
to meet the needs of all students. Principals must keep in mind the specific needs of the large
numbers of the ELL subgroups who comprise part of today’s urban schools, including elementary
schools. Principals are accountable for leveling the play field to make the new standards accessi-
ble to the ELLs. Recent statistics showed four in every ten California students speak a primary
language other than English at home (California LAO, 2014a). About 1 in every 4 students in
public schools is an English learner in California (Ed-Data, 2014). These statistics reflect the
demographic makeup of today’s urban schools and the importance of addressing students’ needs.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of the study was to understand and identify ways in which principals at
urban elementary schools are supporting their teachers when addressing the needs of ELLs while
trying to implement the CCSS (see Figure 3). During a time of transition to new CCSS and a
new financial accountability system, it was important for this study to investigate how principals’
decisions are influential with respect to the academic achievement of ELLs in urban schools.
This study investigated successful support systems that principals decided to put in place
to assist elementary teachers during this time of reform. At the same time, this study examined
ways in which principals evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction delivered to ELLs and how
new instructional methods are leading to the achievement of the CCSS.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 45
Figure 3. Conceptual model of the research design. CCSS = Common Core State Standards;
ELL = English language learners; LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan; LCFF =
Local Control Funding Formula; ELD = English language development.
Research Questions Restated
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How are principals supporting elementary school teachers in urban schools in ad-
dressing the needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS?
2. What PDs do principals provide for elementary school teachers to support them in
implementing the CCSS for ELLs?
3. How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs?
Research Design
In order to learn about the ways in which principals are supporting elementary teachers at
urban schools to address the needs of ELLs during the implementation of the new set of national
standards, it was most appropriate to conduct a mixed-methods approach. Using both qualitative
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 46
instruments and gathering quantitative data from principals allowed this design to validate infor-
mation obtained as accurate:
In this approach, a researcher collects both quantitative and qualitative data, analyzes
them separately, and then compares the results to see if the findings confirm or discon-
firm each other. The key assumption of this approach is that both qualitative and quanti-
tative data provide different types of information—often detailed views of participants
qualitatively and scores on instruments quantitatively—and together they yield results
that should be the same. (Creswell, 2014, p. 219)
Qualitative methods permitted the researcher to gather information through the use of
interviews, casual conversations, and observations. The implementation of the CCSS in urban
schools with large numbers of ELLs across the United States is a phenomenon within a culture
than can be better understood through the use of qualitative methods. This approach was neces-
sary for this the researcher because she was required to build relationships that would allow her
to ethically gain access to the information that could answer my research questions. According to
Merriam (2009), “when people are interested in uncovering the meaning of a phenomenon for
those involved and trying to interpret their experiences, qualitative research is the best approach”
(p. 5).
Another reason why qualitative methods was an appropriate approach for this study is
because the phenomenon of the CCSS implementation is fairly new and there has been very little
research done about effective approaches. Therefore, there is a lack of theory or any existing
theory to adequately explain the phenomenon. “Qualitative research allows the process of induc-
tively gather data to build concepts toward theory from observations and interviews” (Merriam,
2009, p. 15).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 47
Semistructured interviews and some open-ended questions were a necessary form of data
collection because they were a vehicle to understand how principals made their decisions to
support teachers while keeping in mind the achievement of the ELLs. Merriam (2009) confirmed
this approach: “Interviewing is necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how
people interpret the world around them” (p. 88); Patton (2002) also agreed. If the researcher
wanted to capture principals’ perspectives with respect to supporting teachers in implementing
the new standards, or if the researcher wanted to understand principals’ expectations regarding
the academic achievement of the ELLs, qualitative interviewing was necessary.
Quantitative methods for this research study, with specific focus on survey designs,
permitted the examination of the relationships between and among variables in order to answer
the research questions. The independent variables in this study were the principal and the deci-
sions made by the administration on how to provide support to teachers when implementing the
CCSS (see Figure 3). Principals’ decisions cause an impact on the outcome with regard to ELLs
meeting the CCSS. The dependent variables were the ELLs who are affected by the decisions
made by the principals. Teachers are the intervening or mediating variables because they stand
between the independent and dependent variables and mediate the effects of the independent
variable (i.e., the principals) on the dependent variable (i.e., the ELLs; Creswell, 2014). In a
quantitative research study, variables are related to answer the research questions. This re-
searcher attempted to understand how decisions made by principals affected the way that ELLs
were meeting the Common Core standards. The relationship of these variables allowed making
predictions or hypotheses about the expected results. The information obtained from the quanti-
tative approach provided measures for a meaningful interpretation of data (Creswell, 2014).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 48
The Internet survey provided a quantitative and numeric description of attitudes and
opinions of the purposely selected sample of principals for this investigation. The results of the
survey helped to generalize and draw inferences about ways in which principals are addressing
this challenge. The purpose of survey research was to generalize from a sample of principals of
urban schools the ways in which they addressed the need to support teachers when implementing
the new standards, specifically considering the ELL population. Inferences from the survey were
made based on the characteristics, opinions, and attitudes of the participants. Based on the
survey design descriptors identified by Creswell (2014), the Internet survey was cross-sectional
“with the data collected at one point in time; this is the preferred type of data collection proce-
dure due to the feasibility of the study and rapid turnaround in data collection” (p. 157).
Combining the two forms of data in this study, qualitative and quantitative, provided
different types of information: (a) open-ended data in the case of qualitative and (b) closed-ended
in the case of quantitative. This mixed-methods approach allowed the development of a stronger
understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2014).
Sample and Population
The population for this study was limited to California urban elementary principals, the
selection of whom was based on the following criteria:
1. A principal of an elementary school with a minimum of 3 years of experience,
2. A principal leading an elementary school with a population of 400 students or more,
and
3. A principal leading an elementary school with at least 25% of the student population
classified as ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 49
To allow for a broader sample range, the study included principals from five districts
located in urban areas. Urban areas were characterized by a high human population density with
50,000 or more inhabitants.
Five purposely selected elementary school principals were interviewed to learn about the
ways in which they supported the teachers in their schools on their 1st implementation year of the
CCSS. These principals were also selected because in order to understand this phenomenon, it
was necessary to investigate ways that they supported teachers with high numbers of ELLs.
Their participation was valuable because they represented many principals in the nation who are
experiencing the impact of supporting teachers who are implementing the CCSS in classrooms
that include a large number of ELLs. It was assumed that, like many principals in other elemen-
tary schools, these individuals were using support systems such as PD, teacher trainings, collabo-
rating strategies, and ELD instruction to facilitate the implementation of the new standards for
the ELL population.
Although a larger number of principals interviewed would have been more adequate, for
feasibility reasons only five were selected as a convenience sample (Merriam, 2009). To enhance
the representation and develop a stronger understanding of the opinions of the participants, the
unit of analysis of this study included a minimum sample size for surveys set at 25 based on
need, research questions, and research design (Patton, 2002). The surveys were sent to 100
principals in 10 school districts situated in urban areas; these principals all met the criteria listed
above. Information to select principals meeting the criteria was retrieved from the California
School Directory (CDE, 2013). The elementary schools in this study had enrollments of over
400 students, with at least 25% of the student population being ELLs. The schools were pur-
posely selected because their population was typical of urban schools so that the information
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 50
obtained would be generalizable to schools in other large cities that are implementing the CCSS
to ELLs.
The principals’ experiences and perceptions were representative of principals across the
nation. Gaining this knowledge from the interviews and surveys served as a springboard of data
from a new phenomenon that is affecting our schools, and other principals in the same situation
should be able to utilize the findings.
Instrumentation
Interview Protocol
A semistructured type of interview for this study was used. The researcher found that this
type of interview would allow for some guidance by determining the questions ahead of time but
would also allow some flexibility with the wording and order of the questions at the same time.
For this purpose, the researcher crafted an interview guide to lead interviewees with a list of
interpretative questions that would yield descriptive data. This format is the best one to use when
the researcher wants to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respon-
dent, and to new ideas on the topic (Merriam, 2009).
The interview guide (see Appendix A) included the research questions as the heading to
keep a constant reminder of the focus of the interview. The introduction of the guide included a
brief explanation to the interviewees about the topic of the study and the rationale for selecting
them (i.e., they met the criteria for the study). The introduction asked for verbal permission to
record the interview and the confidentiality agreement that assured them that information pro-
vided would be strictly confidential and pseudonyms would be used in place of their names.
The interview guide was organized with the first four interpretative questions being
related to the experiences that principals had with the implementation of the CCSS and the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 51
allocation of resources to support the CCSS based on the LCFF. The second set of questions had
to do with the type of support that principals provided to teachers during the 1st implementation
year of the CCSS, specifically with respect to the ELL population. The third set of questions was
related to the type of evaluation procedures principals used to find out whether the instruction
delivered to ELLs was effective in addressing the CCSS.
Survey Protocol
This study gathered the quantitative data via an Internet survey. As recommended by
Creswell (2014), a survey was necessary to obtain a numeric description of attitudes and opinions
of principals in urban schools. The survey consisted of three sets of questions, for a total of 25
questions (see Appendix B). Ten questions were focused on the experiences of the principals
and the CCSS during the 1st implementation year. These questions also explored the ways in
which principals allocated resources to support the CCSS utilizing the new funding formula. The
next set of questions focused on specific types of support that principals offered their teachers
that assisted them in meeting the needs of ELLs. The last set of questions was focused on the
ways that principals monitored and evaluated how the effectiveness of the lessons delivered to
students was addressing the CCSS. All of the questions in the survey were written as closed
questions with an option to add comments. The survey incorporated multiple-choice questions
with a few a 4- or 5-point scale items ranging Very Important to n/a (not applicable).
Data Collection Approach
With the proper permission of the interviewee, the researcher captured the interview data
through a password-protected electronic voice recorder to ensure a quality recording of the
interview. Recording the interview allowed the researcher to preserve all the information for
later analysis. The researcher also took brief notes as the interviewee responded to the questions.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 52
In order for the researcher to show engagement and be able to listen attentively to participant, this
approach was the most appropriate for the interview data collection. Interviews lasted, on
average, 45 minutes to an hour. All interviews were transcribed and reviewed by the researcher.
Aiming for a minimum return sample size of 25, the survey instrument was sent to 100 elemen-
tary principals in California public schools located in urban areas by utilizing SurveyMonkey
.com. Identified principals were emailed a general recruitment cover letter (see Appendix C).
The survey was designed as a cross-sectional survey with the data collected at one point
in time. Follow-up calls were made to schools and principals, as necessary, in an effort to obtain
the minimum sample size. A paper form of the survey, with a self-addressed stamped envelope,
was sent to principals as a third attempt to collect the number of surveys required for this study.
Data Analysis
Information for this report was obtained by data derived from interviewing five elemen-
tary principals who were supporting teachers in implementing the CCSS with the inclusion of
ELLs. Data were also derived from 25 surveys from elementary principals in urban schools.
The approach in analyzing the interviews and surveys was to determine if the assertions of
principals making a difference during the implementation of the new national standards were true
based on the research questions. It was assumed that all principals were supporting teachers in
implementing the CCSS with fidelity and were aware that ELLs need differentiated instruction to
meet their academic demands.
The analysis of the qualitative data of this study was based on the Creswell’s (2014)
recommendations. The process of analyzing the data once they were collected went hand in hand
with other parts of developing the study— namely, the writeup of findings. The researcher coded
and organized the findings of the interviews as they took place. During this process, the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 53
researcher focused on some of the data and disregarded other parts. The impact of this process
was to aggregate data into themes. Then the data were coded and organized based on queries of
their association and relationship to create a spreadsheet of the categories. Finally, the themes
were interpreted to compare the findings. This process followed steps from specific to general
and involved multiple levels of analysis.
In analyzing the quantitative section of the study, Creswell (2014) suggested some
general points about the overall process to be followed, with one step leading to the other. First,
the researcher took into account the number of surveys sent out and returned, then created a table
with numbers and percentages describing respondents and nonrespondents. Second, to check for
reliability, the researcher made sure that the only responses included in the survey were those that
met the criteria of the study based on the first four questions of the survey (Appendix B). Third,
a descriptive analysis of the data for the dependent and independent variables in the study was
provided. Finally, the researcher presented the results in tables and interpreted them in order to
draw conclusions for the research questions or for future research on the subject.
Validity and Reliability
In an effort to maintain trustworthiness and credibility in the study, the researcher fol-
lowed recommendations from Maxwell (2013) and paid extra attention to threats that might
compromise the validity, reliability, authenticity, and quality of the study. For the qualitative
section of the study, two specific validity threats were acknowledged: (a) researcher bias and (b)
reactivity. The researcher explained the possible biases that could have influenced the conclu-
sion of the study due to her beliefs and perceptions of the research problem studied. Reactivity or
reflexivity was also addressed, as the researcher might have influenced what the interviewees
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 54
said during the interview by avoiding leading questions and using an open-ended script that
minimized any indication of researcher bias.
To establish validity in the quantitative part of the research, the researcher followed
Creswell’s (2014) recommendation and identified three forms of validity: (a) content validity—
by making sure that the items on the survey measured the content they were intended to measure,
(b) predictive or concurrent validity—by making sure that the results correlated with the results
from the interviews, and (c) construct validity—by making sure that the items on the survey
measured the hypothetical concepts of the research problem. Internal validity was addressed by
triangulating the data through interviews and surveys. The triangulation was utilized in an effort
to promote validity and reliability in the study. Collecting information using a variety of meth-
ods, such as interviews and surveys, was a strategy used to reduce the risk of possible threats and
allowed a better assessment of the generalizability of the findings. The data collected were
cross-checked from the survey responses and the principals’ interviews to compared their views
and opinions with Common Core and ELLs.
Chapter Summary
This chapter is important because it helps the reader understand how the researcher
planned to study the effect that principals’ decisions have on the implementation of the CCSS in
terms of meeting the needs of ELLs. This chapter showed the steps taken to obtain and analyze
the data collected for the study.
Based on the research questions identified, it was clear that a mixed-method design was
the most appropriate in planning to answer them. Through the qualitative inquiry for the study,
the researcher was allowed access to the interpretive explanation of principals regarding a
phenomenon affecting education today. In order to strengthen the validity of the investigation, a
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 55
quantitative approach was also necessary. Quantitative data were needed to enhance the repre-
sentation and to develop a stronger understanding of the opinions of the participants. The
utilization of these two instruments of inquiry comprised the vehicle to understand the problem
being researched.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of a study on how principals at urban schools have expe-
rienced the implementation of the CCSS when considering the inclusion of ELLs. This chapter is
intended to present the perspectives of principals, the supports they put in place, and the ways in
which they evaluated the curriculum and instruction during the 1st year of implementing the
CCSS in their schools. One of the core principles guiding the development of the ELA–ELD
framework is that schooling should help all students to achieve their highest potential. Under the
concept of access and equity, as outlined in Chapter Nine of the ELD–ELD framework (CDE,
2015a) “schools and districts are responsible for ensuring that all ELs have full access to an intel-
lectually rich and comprehensive curriculum, via appropriately designed instruction, and that
they make steady—and even accelerated—progress in their English language development” (p.
888).
Context of the Problem
The American education system is experiencing an overhauled curriculum reform with
the new CCSS at the first official implementation in years. These new standards have been the
topic of discussion across the United States among teachers, administrators, parents, students,
and public media in the past few years. According to the department of education, the CCSS
have been created as benchmarks to help prepare students with skills and knowledge necessary
for college and career success (CDE, Educational Demographics Office, 2014). The CCSS Initi-
ative (2015a) gives general guidelines and recommendations on the application of the standards
to the ELL population and but little acknowledgment regarding the challenges that this group will
face (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012). It is believed that these vague guidelines are based on the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 57
assumption that school leaders and teachers are responsible for making the new, rigorous stan-
dards accessible to all students, including the ELLs (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012).
Significance of the Problem and the Literature Review
The diverse demographic makeup of schools today calls for educational reform that can
meet the needs of its students. In order for teachers, administrators, and districts to be successful
in the implementation of the CCSS, it is imperative that the school systems change to meet the
needs of all students. The current literature deals with the implications of CCSS on ELLs and the
ways in which today’s educational reforms could impact the way that principals address this
change; “significant resources and professional development for teachers are needed, especially
for those working with the growing number of ELLs” (TESOL International Association, 2013,
p. 10). The literature addressed these concerns and supported the need for a further study. The
present qualitative and quantitative analysis looked specifically at the way that principals were
dealing and coping with a new challenge, considering the complex educational setting of urban
schools today. The study also explores the different ways in which principals provided support
to teachers with large numbers of ELLs so as to effectively meet the needs and improve the
ability to close the achievement gap of this subgroup. Finally, this study investigated the ways
that principals evaluated the instruction delivered to ELLs when applying the CCSS.
The information obtained from the principals’ interviews and the survey responses should
provide valuable insight to many who want to learn about the impact that principals make in the
implementation of the CCSS. This information is particularly important in a time of reform
when the implementation of the CCSS is unfolding across the nation.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 58
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How are principals supporting elementary school teachers in urban schools in ad-
dressing the needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS?
2. What PDs do principals provide for elementary school teachers to support them in
implementing the CCSS for ELLs?
3. How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs?
Demographics of Surveyed and Interviewed Participants
The participants in this study were principals of urban elementary schools that, like many
others in the nation, have high numbers of students with diverse cultural and linguistic back-
grounds. During the 1st transitional year, many schools are trying to understand how the adop-
tion of the CCSS will affect ELLs—in particular, those students who have historically been held
to lower academic expectations (Quay, 2010).
The population for this study was limited to California urban elementary principals, the
selection of whom was based on the following criteria:
1. A principal of an elementary school with a minimum of 3 years of experience,
2. A principal leading an elementary school with a population of 400 students or more,
and
3. A principal leading an elementary school with at least 25% of the student population
classified as ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 59
Response Rates
The participants for this study were selected from a target population of principals leading
urban elementary schools located in the state of California. The pool of candidates for the quan-
titative data collection were chosen based on the school criteria gathered from the CDE (2015b).
One hundred surveys were sent to principals who potentially met two of the qualifications for the
study: (a) principals leading an elementary school with a population of 400 students or more and
(b) principals leading an elementary school with at least 25% of the student population classified
as ELLs. In addition, the selected participants were to have been principals for at least 3 years
(not necessarily at the same school). Thirty-two responded to the survey, but only 25 individuals
met all the criteria for the study—resulting in a 25% return rate. Seven responses from the
survey were eliminated because participants identified themselves as principals with less than 3
years of experience, led a school with less than 25% of its student population classified as ELLs,
led a school with a student population less than 400, or the school was located in rural or subur-
ban areas. The data were collected during the period May-October of 2015.
For the qualitative research portion of this study, five additional principals were selected
for a one-on-one interview to gain further information and insight on their experiences (keeping
in mind the needs of ELLs) during the 1st official implementation year of the CCSS. The five
principals were selected based on networking referrals, and only those who met all criteria were
chosen. Each of the five principals was from a different school district located in an urban area
in southern California. For the qualitative portion of this study, to assure anonymity, these
principals are referred to as Principals A, B, C, D, and E. At no time are any of them linked to
his or her current school site or district (see Table 1).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 60
Table 1
Summary of the Five Interviewed Study Participants
Criterion 1: Years as Criterion 2: School Criterion 3: % of students
Participant principal population classified as ELLs
Principal A 6 500 70
Principal B 5 750 45
Principal C 5 900 39
Principal D 13 570 67
Principal E 8 750 29
Note. All schools were located in an urban area. ELL = English language learner.
Research Methods
Analysis
This research study combined both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain a clear
picture of attitudes and perceptions among principals leading schools with a large number of
ELLs and to provide an in-depth examination of statistical data. The qualitative data obtained
from the interviews was derived from the use of an interview guide outlined by Patton (2002) to
ensure the same basic lines of inquiry for each participant while allowing some freedom to
explore, probe, and ask about a particular subject, if desired. The quantitative data provided
numerical statistics from a survey instrument that allowed the findings from this study to be
unbiased and generalized toward a larger population. The duration of the Internet survey was
approximately 10 to 20 minutes for each individual principal to complete. The survey contained
a total of 25 questions based on the three research questions and focused on the purpose of the
study.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 61
The interview guide (Appendix A) and survey questions (Appendix B) were organized in
three groups. The first set of questions was focused on the experiences of principals during the
1st official implementation year of the CCSS. The second set was designed to learn about the
support that principals provided to teachers during this transitional time. The last set of questions
was to explore ways in which principals evaluated the instruction delivered to ELLs while
addressing the new standards. Table 2 shows the relationship of the items in the interview guide
and the survey in relation to the research questions. The duration of each individual interview
ranged from 30 minutes to 1½ hours. The interviews were audiotaped with written and verbal
permission from each participant. Notes were taken during the interviews for later analysis. The
notes and interviews were transcribed. The interviews all were conducted in each principal’s
school site at a convenient time.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several steps were taken to promote validity and reliability in the study. Internal validity
was addressed by triangulating the data through interviews and surveys. The multiple sources of
data collection methods confirmed the emerging findings. The data collected were cross-checked
from the principals’ interviews to compare their views about their experiences with Common
Core and ELLs. Another strategy for promoting internal validity for the findings was through
member checks. At the end of every interview, the researcher reviewed with the interviewee the
interpretations of what the main message was that was obtained to corroborate the information
that the researcher would find after coding the emerging themes from the interviews.
Reliability was attained through the use of the same interview guide with all interviewees
and the same survey given to all survey participants. All principals in the study were in their 1st
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 62
Table 2
Alignment of Participants’ Criteria and Research Questions (RQs) to Items on Survey and
Interview Guide
Item Survey questions Interview guide
Participants’ criteria 1–5 None
RQ1: How are principals supporting elemen-
tary school teachers in urban schools in
addressing the needs of ELLs when imple-
menting the CCSS?
8–14 and 18–21 First set of questions: 2–
4; second set of ques-
tions: 1–3
RQ2: What professional developments do
principals provide for elementary school
teachers to support them in implementing
the CCSS for ELLs?
6, 7, and 15–17 First set of questions: 2–
5
RQ3: How do principals evaluate the
instructional delivery specifically when ad-
dressing the CCSS for ELLs?
22–25 Third set of questions: 1
and 2
Note. ELL = English language learner; CCSS = Common Core State Standards.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 63
Figure 4. Survey results on number of teachers having English language learners
(ELLs) in their classes.
official implementation year of Common Core and were selected for this study based on the same
criteria.
Findings
This section offers findings derived from a study of principals at urban elementary
schools addressing CCSS implementation challenges at their respective sites. Through the inter-
pretation of findings from this study, three main themes emerged that described the ways in
which principals provided to their ELLs meaningful access to the CCSS. Based on the outcomes
of the inquiry, it was found that (a) a variety of resources had been used to deepen understanding
and build capacity at the local level, (b) professional learning structures had been provided to
teachers to build their capacity to support student achievement of the CCSS, and (c) various prac-
tices for evaluating instruction delivered to ELLs aligned with the CCSS had made an impact on
the achievement of ELLs when addressing the CCSS.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 64
In order to address the demographic context of the challenge in urban schools in southern
California, as shown in Figure 4, a survey question was included to find out how many teachers
at the school site of each respective principal had ELLs in their classes. More than 56% of
principals selected that all teachers had ELLs in their classes. Similarly, as shown in Table 1,
Criteria 3, the principals interviewed responded that they had 29% to 70% of their student
population classified as ELLs. These results reflected national statistics predicting by 2025 ELLs
will comprise 25% of students in schools across the nation (National Center for English Lan-
guage Acquisition, 2011). The data corroborates the urgency to address the demographics of a
student population that is shifting with ELLs as one considerably large subgroup in schools
today.
Prior to addressing the research questions for this study, it was also necessary to gain
further information and insight on the principals’ experiences during their 1st official implemen-
tation year of the CCSS. Interviewed principals were asked to describe their experiences during
this transitional time and how prepared they felt to support the implementation of the new
standards. Principal C noted:
It is a trial process at a district level down to the principals. It has evolved to more spe-
cific issues regarding ELs [English learners]. I still don’t think our district nor our school
has yet to nail it to how we really support our ELs. We have more to support ELs in how
they tackle the rigor and the literacy skills in the Common Core. (interview, July 31,
2015)
Similarly, Principal A said:
We are at an emerging stage. We are implementing the standards, but the question is to
what depth we are. At the district level, we just started last year implementing the
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 65
Common Core so we are a little bit late in the game. So we are at a developing stage of
the process . . . we are at a beginning stage to intermediate stage. (interview, June 25,
2015)
One consistent and noted pattern that emerged from the five interviews in this study was
uncertainty regarding the new era of 21st-century skills being taught to a very diverse student
population, particularly the ELLs. Principal B shared something that she remembered and shared
with her staff: “Our superintendent sent the message very clearly. We have to be comfortable
with being uncomfortable. Many of our teachers were resistant to change” (interview, June 26,
2015). Principal E shared that the new standards were overwhelming for teachers but the rigor
was there. He strongly believed that the impact for the ELL population depends on the delivery
of instruction and the way the administration handles it (interview, August 17, 2015)
Research Question 1
How are principals supporting elementary school teachers in urban schools in addressing
the needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS? When participating principals in the survey
were asked to what extent they supported teachers in meeting the instructional goals in their
schools, more than 88% felt that they supported their teachers considerably or extensively. Cor-
roborating this view, all five interviewees shared multiple ways that teachers have been sup-
ported in their school sites. Principal A stated, “We provided materials, such as units of study to
use as a curriculum; we provide ELD time schoolwide (45 minutes); we provide technology,
document cameras, digital projectors, software, and student devices such as Chrome books”
(interview, June 25, 2015). Principal B noted, “I really believe in building internal capac-
ity—teachers learning from teachers. I just set the parameters. Teachers use their own materials
for ELLs, but use the same strategies” (interview, June 26, 2015). The interviewed principals
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 66
Figure 5. Survey results on question regarding the influence that LCFF had on
the allocation of resources.
shared a plethora of supports put in place at their sites, including but not limited to demonstration
lessons, training sessions on shared strategies, and staff technology training, among others.
Supports influenced by LCFF. The literature considers the LCFF a new policy that
causes a major shift in the way that principals provide support to teachers in addressing the CCSS
through the development of a LCAP (CDE, 2015d). Principals were asked to share some ways in
which the new LCFF has influenced their decisions regarding allocation of resources at their
schools. This study showed that 80% of the surveyed participants felt that the new LCFF consid-
erably or extensively influenced they way they allocated resources in their schools (see Figure 5).
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 67
According to Digital Chalkboard (2015b), “for students to achieve the CA [California]
CCSS, teachers need effective preparation and ongoing professional learning to support their
own success as learners and, in turn, support their students’ learning” (para. 1). When the
principal participants in this study were asked to identify some support systems put in place in
their corresponding schools to support teachers’ implementation of the CCSS, 100% of them
indicated providing PD and grade-level collaboration. These responses were corroborated with
the information provided by the interviews. Principal C shared the following:
I think our focus is just implementing the LCFF to get us Common Core proficient. What
we are doing is upgrading technology—find curriculum resources that we feel fit our
community . . . it’s been about technology. Also, AVID [Advancement via Individual-
ized Determination] strategies, Close reading strategies [methods used in reading to
determine text meaning]. The textbooks are not aligned to the Common Core so teachers
are creating units of study used from the LCFF dollars top down with expectation.
(interview, July 31, 2015)
Similarly, Principal B stated:
It’s definitely a shift in the way our money is being looked at and spent. I know that ELLs
and foster youth are the focus or the target groups for the LCFF. It really hasn’t changed
my perspective on providing strategies and focus for our ELLs. I was an ELL growing
up. The LCFF provided me a tool to bring back to my staff. By law, we need to provide
certain amount of minutes of ELD instruction, and sometimes it is forgotten. (interview,
June 26, 2015)
Principal B added that due to the categorical funding shifts and requirements, she now
feels that she can make teachers accountable for the specific time required for ELD instruction
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 68
targeted to the ELL population. This policy gives her the confidence to remind her staff that ELD
instruction is not an option, nor can it be imbedded during their day of instruction, but it should
be well planned with specific academic goals for ELLs (interview, June 26, 2015).
An additional shift that the LCFF has influenced is the supports that principals provide to
teachers through the development and adoption of the LCAP as part of the LCFF. The LCAP has
influenced school leaders to consider the achievement of ELLs by targeting eight areas of state
priority. When survey participants were asked to select which of the eight areas of state priority
were targeting the ELLs in their school plan, student achievement, student engagement, and
implementation of the CCSS were selected as the top three responses (see Figure 6). These three
state priorities require schools to set annual goals to measure the success of the numerically
significant student subgroups in the school (California LAO, 2013).
Collaboration as a valuable support. Research has shown that teachers and principals
felt that increased collaboration had a direct effect on student success and that they shared
responsibility for the achievement of all students (Markow et al., 2010). The participants of this
study were asked to rate from very important to not important at all a list of factors during the 1st
year of implementing the CCSS in their schools. Confirming the belief that the collaboration of
teachers, principals, and students increased the success of student achievement, the results
showed that 83% of the principals felt that providing teachers with grade-level collaboration time
was very important, thus rating it the second most important factor in addition to providing PD.
The literature supported the belief that school site administrators who increase the amount
of time they spend working directly with teachers significantly strengthen their role as instruc-
tional leaders (Jaquith, 2013). One of the interview guide questions asked: “In your opinion, how
does the collaboration between staff and administration make an impact on the instruction that
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 69
Figure 6. Survey question on state priority areas that have targeted the
achievement of English language learners (ELLs).
teachers deliver to ELLs, if at all?” Principal E responded, “I believe that administration should
put effort in collaborating with teachers. I have some teachers who consider me and look up to
me and have a lot of respect for the pedagogy of instruction” (interview, August 17, 2015). To
the same question, Principal D responded:
Collaboration can be difficult with some team members, but it brings things up that need
to be brought up. They get in the routine to do data analysis and planning. We have staff
meetings weekly. The teacher leaders lead the collaboration with a focus. What’s my
role? Here is the time, and here is what I expect. (interview, August 14, 2015)
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 70
Principal C similarly stated:
We have PLC [professional learning community]. All K–6 teachers have time to collabo-
rate. There has been acceptance. It’s a practice. I don’t micromanage these groups. True
PLC is a way of thinking. I want to see the outcomes in students. I am part of these col-
laboration groups. I suggest vertical collaboration. [It’s about] building bridges and
relationships. Be in tune as an administrator with your teachers and listen. (interview,
July 31, 2015)
These responses reflected principals’ belief that teachers need and value this collaboration
time to make an impact on the instruction delivered to their students. At the same time, through
the interpretation of their responses, it was clear that principals stay at the margin of this collabo-
ration strategy. The responses of the other interviewed principals indicated that they believed in
the importance of being part of the collaboration group, but just as facilitators.
Research Question 2
What PDs do principals provide for elementary school teachers to support them in imple-
menting the CCSS for ELLs? Based on the interview responses, two patterns and themes from
the data collected about PD were consistent in the findings of this study. Principals were clear to
differentiate the PD they provided to their teacher through districtwide PD and onsite PD. All
principals interviewed shared their experiences with both types of PD as well as the benefits of
each.
District PD. Principal A noted that “district-level training has provided a foundation”
(interview, June 25, 2015). In his response, Principal A explained that his staff has learned the
basic knowledge of the implementation of CCSS through the PD provided by the district.
Principal E referred to this PD as “generic,” a type of training that should fit the general
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 71
population for the district: “The district training is more generic. They provide the foundations”
(interview, August 17, 2015). These principals added that sometimes the district PD was pro-
vided as a way to start an initiative, such as the implementation of the CCSS, but that this type of
training would provide the general guidelines and it was up to the school sites to meet the needs
of their unique demographics. Principals D and A, who led schools with large numbers of ELLs
(70% and 67%, respectively), expressed the need to modify their onsite PD to meet the needs of
their schools, although these needs did not necessarily reflect the population of the school
district.
School PD. On the other hand, when the surveyed principals were asked about the PD
provided in their schools as a way to support teachers in implementing the CCSS for ELLs, their
top two responses were that ELL teacher PD (84%) and ELL inservice training (64%) were
provided at the school site. For the same question asked of interviewed participants (Question #1
of set 2; see Appendix A), Principal B responded, “I think teachers get the most effective training
from within our onsite training and on their own research. I believe in internal capacity. District
training is not as frequent as we need it, and I can’t tweak that” (interview, June 26, 2015).
During the interviews, many of the principals expressed receiving more benefit from onsite PD
due to the awareness of local needs. When Principal C was asked about the benefits of the PD
for his specific ELL population, he stated:
Part of the allocated PD days has included locally developed training to implementing the
Common Core, and there has been some discussion [about] integrating the ELLs. . . . We
need to have clearly defined goals, and the job becomes easier. The goals have been
unclear in the past couple of years. (interview, July 31, 2015)
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 72
Principal D noted the benefit of delegating leadership and the concept of a gradual release
of responsibility in order to implement the objectives of district PD at a local level:
Leadership should be dispersed. I created a position for one lead teacher per grade level,
two lead teachers for ELA-CC and two teachers for math-CC. These teachers got district
training. They came to back to our site, present to our staff, and teachers train teachers. I
have to support those teachers with whatever they need. I create a school information
booklet with intervention, procedures, and readings. I consider this site training or in-
house training from grade-level leads and ELA and math leaders. I provide PD articles I
want teachers to go through (read and discuss) as a staff. This is a way to continuing PD
growth, through the information learned from these articles. Building culture and aca-
demic resilience because we are in a very, very urban school. (interview, August 14,
2015)
Principal E corroborated the message sent across the interviews:
The most important training is where the rubber meets the road. When they do grade-
level planning. The school training meets the needs of our students. The in-house PD
that we provide is more helpful because I [the principal] think like a teacher. (interview,
August 17, 2015)
Although the responses from the study participants seemed to value the support provided
in the form of PD, whether from the district or onsite, one important factor was noted from the
data collected from the survey and the interviewees’ responses. They seemed to value more or
equally as much the support provided to teachers in the form of curriculum materials or resources
that supported the implementation of CCSS. This rather atypical survey result, as shown in
Figure 7, is that principals believed curriculum material (68%) to be the most important factor
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 73
Figure 7. Survey question question on the important factors that contributed to the
success of English language learners (ELLs) with the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
contributing to the success of ELLs with CCSS compared to PD (64%). Likewise, interviewees
often referred to the support they provided in the form of CCSS materials such as units of studies
created by the teachers, supplemental CCSS resources, and ELD resources. Overall, principals
interchangeably referred to the support provided to teachers as being either for the benefit of the
general student population or for the ELLs. These findings seemed to be consistent with the
literature reviewed in Chapter Two in relation to two of the three Quay’s (2010) recommenda-
tions to consider for the successful implementation of the CCSS at the classroom and school
levels: (a) standard-aligned curriculum frameworks and instructional materials and (c) effective
teaching and instructional capacity.
Research Question 3
How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs? For Research Question 3, it was assumed that the instruction delivered to ELLs
could be better evaluated during the ELD instructional time.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 74
As indicated by the CDE (2015a), schools are required to provide ELD services to all
ELLs regardless of proficiency level, until they have been reclassified to RFEP. Students should
receive ELD services that are appropriate to their respective English proficiency levels. There-
fore, principal participants of this study were asked about the ways in which they evaluated the
instruction delivered to ELLs when addressing the CCSS during ELD time. As stated in the
ELA–ELD Framework, “in such complex settings, the notion of shared responsibility is particu-
larly crucial. Teachers need the support of one another, administrators, specialists, and the
community in order to best serve all students” (CDE, 2015a, p. 881).
According to the California Administrative Performance Expectations based upon the
CPSEL, principals must use their knowledge of K–12 academic standards and appropriate
instructional practices to observe and evaluate classroom planning and instruction in accordance
with the LEA’s policy and practices (CTC, 2014). Based on the survey responses related to
Research Question 3 (see Figure 8), 96% of the principals indicated that they considered ELD
instruction as including opportunities to apply academic language as well as opportunities for
structured student talk when evaluating the instruction delivered to ELLs. Seventy-six percent of
the participants also indicated considering as part of their evaluation the group of students by
language proficiency level during ELD instruction.
Informal versus formal evaluations. Considering that all principals evaluate teachers
through classroom observations, whether formally or informally, principals were asked about the
frequency of their classroom observations during ELD instructional time. The responses indi-
cated that 72% of principals observed teachers delivering instruction to ELLs on a weekly basis.
In addition, one of the interviewed principals shared his frustration with the lack of time to
devote to classroom visitations. Principal E complained about the number of responsibilities
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 75
Figure 8. Survey question on the evaluation of English language development (ELD)
instruction delivered to English language learners (ELLs).
that absorb his time and take away from his planned time to visit classroom for unannounced
visitations. He explained his beliefs on formal evaluations:
I believe evaluation is not authentic—not an accurate assessment of their daily teaching.
Teachers put on a show. Informal observation is more valuable than formal evaluation.
My plan is to visit each teacher once per week, but that’s just the plan for now. (inter-
view, August 17, 2015)
Two of the principals discussed using the ELL descriptors as their way of evaluating the
instruction delivered to ELLs. Principal A met with teachers to discuss the academic objectives,
their way that they measured student learning, scaffold strategies used, knowledge of students’
language levels, and how to differentiate instruction. Principal B noted that “ELL descriptors are
used to evaluate the achievement of ELLs” (interview, June 26, 2015). She also used i-Ready
®
Diagnostic and Instruction (Curriculum Associates of California, 2015) to determine exactly the
focus of the instructional time. Similarly, Principal C expected to see teachers use equity cards
when he observed classrooms. Teachers created equity cards for each student with their ELL
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 76
level and used them during instructional time to align the language level expected for each
student during questioning and answering.
Evaluation and feedback impact on learning. As part of a principal’s role as instruc-
tional leader and as outlined in the California Administrative Performance Expectations (CTC,
2014), principals should be able to analyze evidence of teachers’ effectiveness and provide
feedback to help teachers improve their instructional practices. The benefit of evaluations,
formal or informal, was echoed in every interview when principals were asked to share their
experiences on whether they believed that evaluation and feedback made an impact on the ELLs’
learning. Results from a survey question indicated that 68% of principals provided both verbal
and written feedback after observing teachers deliver ELD instruction to ELLs. When Principal
C was asked to share the type of evaluation procedures he used to determine whether the instruc-
tion delivered to ELLs was effective in addressing the CCSS, he indicated practicing transitional
leadership: “I’m going to give you a positive review if you do ‘this’” (interview, July 31, 2015).
He explained that if he wants change from a teacher, he negotiates the “gives” and “takes” with
teachers and ultimately has teachers buying into the change that is needed to improve instruction
(interview, July 31, 2015).
To the question on whether evaluation and feedback made an impact, Principal E replied,
“Yes. We can give feedback and suggest improvement to their lessons and align them to what
the goal was at the beginning” (interview, August 17, 2015). Principal D, on the other hand,
shared a technique that she used to offer feedback to teachers. She held monthly classroom
visitations by a rotating group of teachers, who learned from the teaching strategies and offered
feedback. She referred to these visitations as learning walks:
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 77
We have learning walks protocols and procedures. We have a feedback template. It is
nonevaluative. They present that to the staff. It’s a layer of evaluation that doesn’t come
necessarily from the principal; it comes from their colleagues. Data is powerful; data
speaks; and data indicates our focus on ELs has paid off because our ELs met all our
CELDT [California English Language Development Test] goals. (interview, August 14,
2015)
When Principal B was asked whether she felt that the feedback and evaluation made a
impact on the ELLs’ learning, she stated, “Absolutely! Sometimes I’ve met with resistance—it
depends how it is provided to the teacher. It has to be aligned to the vision of the school.
Teachers must be validated just like administrators” (interview, June 26, 2015).
A pattern in the responses from principals on the impact that evaluation and feedback had
on student learning was common across the five interviews. Even though there were some dis-
crepancies on the evaluation procedures utilized by each principal to learn about whether the
instruction delivered to ELLs was effective in addressing the CCSS, all principals corroborated
the benefits of evaluation in the form of classroom observations, lessons designs, curriculum
planning, or one-on-one conversations with teachers. The practice of providing feedback—writ-
ten, verbal, or electronic—was communicated to be equally valuable, even when coming from
colleagues.
It is important to consider that one of the core principles guiding the development of the
ELA–ELD framework (CDE, 2015a) is that schooling should help all students to achieve their
highest potential. Under the concept of access and equity, as outlined in Chapter Nine of the
ELA–ELD framework, “schools and districts are responsible for ensuring that all ELs have full
access to an intellectually rich and comprehensive curriculum, via appropriately designed
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 78
instruction, and that they make steady—and even accelerated—progress in their English language
development” (CDE, 2015a, p. 888). When school principals assess the value and the impact
that the instruction delivered to ELLs makes when addressing the CCSS, they are attempting to
level the playing field for those students already playing catch-up in the educational game,
thereby creating access and equity for all.
Summary
Through this mixed-methods inquiry, findings and results disclosed evidence that sup-
ported the important role that principals play in the academic achievement of ELLs in urban
schools that are facing the challenge of achieving the CCSS. The greatest value of this study was
learning about the experiences of 30 principals leading schools in urban settings with large
numbers of ELLs during their 1st official implementation year of the CCSS through a qualitative
and quantitative investigation. The study highlighted the perceptions manifested through numer-
ically represented survey responses (see Appendix D) and the interpretation of interview re-
sponses about a current educational reform as it attempted to explain a worldview through a
principal’s perspective.
The outcomes of the inquiry identified that even though principals expressed accepting
this transitional period as an emerging stage where everyone is learning, the majority demon-
strated considerable support for the implementation of the new standards. One emerging theme
was that a variety of resources had been used to deepen understanding and build capacity at the
local level, influenced by the new LCFF. A second emerging theme was that although profes-
sional learning structures in the form of district PD and school PD had been provided to teachers
to build their capacity to support student achievement of the CCSS, school PD was highly valued
because it met the specific needs of the school demographics. Finally, data revealed that
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 79
practices for evaluating and providing feedback to teachers on instruction aligned to the CCSS
have made an impact on the achievement of ELLs. The experiences of these principals indicated
the insight of a group of individuals who shared their experiences and feelings that could be
representative of many others principals in the same situation.
The new set of national standards in the American education system has revolutionized
the schools. Many times principals are held accountable for the radical changes reflected in their
job as leaders of their organizations. In urban elementary schools, where the population is larger
and more diverse, these experiences are more challenging when principals not only have to
monitor the instruction delivered to students to meet the new level of rigor required with the
CCSS in mind but also have the responsibility to address the needs of a large subgroup of ELLs
within their schools. The present study explored the meaning of this phenomenon for principals
across the nation.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 80
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Education in the United States is facing several challenges to prepare students to be
globally competitive. One of these challenges is to make sure all students achieve the new
CCSS. The official implementation of the new standards, as of 2014, has been strongly influ-
enced by the new LCFF enacted in 2013–2014 (CDE, 2015d). These two new factors are revolu-
tionizing education and are affecting student achievement in different ways. Larger states in the
nation, such as California with a very ethnically and racially diverse student population, face the
particular challenge of providing equitable access to students in order to achieve success.
California with almost 1.4 million ELLs feels the sense of urgency about these chal-
lenges. The CDE (2015c) expects ELLs to achieve the same rigorous grade-level academic
standards that are expected of all students. To ensure equity and access for this group of stu-
dents, supports must be put in place at the district and local levels. At a local level, school prin-
cipals are accountable to develop and implement a school plan, referred as the LCAP under the
LCFF, which meets the needs of its student population. To address the level on inequity of some
students, principals are expected to provide and plan supports needed for the students whom the
school is serving.
This research study considered the role that principals played in urban schools as they
supported the implementation of the CCSS while keeping in mind the needs of ELLs. The study
explored the insights of 30 principals in southern California about their experiences during the
1st official implementation year of the new standards. The following three Research Question
led a mixed-methods inquiry:
1. How are principals supporting elementary teachers in urban schools in addressing the
needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS?
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 81
2. What PDs do principals provide for elementary teachers to support them in imple-
menting the CCSS for ELLs?
3. How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs?
To gain a clear picture of the attitudes and perceptions regarding principals’ experiences
during this transitional time, a qualitative investigation was conducted with five interviews of
principals. This research study combined a quantitative investigation to provide an in-depth
examination of numerical statistical data by conducting 25 surveys that allowed the findings from
the study to be unbiased and generalized toward a larger population. Internal validity was
addressed by triangulating the data through the interviews and surveys. The study was limited to
30 California urban elementary principals, the selection of whom was based on the following
criteria:
1. A principal of an elementary school with a minimum of 3 years of experience,
2. A principal leading an elementary school with a population of 400 students or more,
and
3. A principal leading an elementary school with at least 25% of the student population
classified as ELLs.
The current literature has dealt with the implications of CCSS on ELLs and the ways in
which today’s educational reforms could impact the way that principals address this change;
“significant resources and PD for teachers are needed, especially for those working with the
growing number of ELLs” (TESOL International Association, 2015, p. 10). The literature
addressed these concerns and supported the need for this research study. This qualitative and
quantitative analysis looked specifically at the way that principals dealt and coped with a new
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 82
challenge, considering the complex educational setting of urban schools today. The study also
explored the different ways in which principals provided support to teachers with large numbers
of ELLs so as to effectively meet the needs and improve the ability to close the achievement gap
of this subgroup. Finally, this study investigated the ways in which principals evaluated the
instruction delivered to ELLs when applying the CCSS.
Through the making and interpretation of the findings from this study, the emersion of
three main themes describing the ways that principals provide meaningful access to CCSS for
their ELLs were revealed. Based on the outcomes of the inquiry, it was found that:
1. A variety of resources had been used to deepen understanding and build capacity at
the local level;
2. Professional learning structures had been provided to teachers to build their capacity
to support student achievement of the CCSS; and
3. Various practices for evaluating instruction delivered to ELLs aligned to the CCSS
have made an impact on the achievement of ELLs when addressing the CCSS.
Summary of Findings
The summary and discussion of the findings of this study are organized and presented in
response to the three research questions that were the aim and scope of this study.
Research Question 1
How are principals supporting elementary school teachers in urban schools in addressing
the needs of ELLs when implementing the CCSS? Based on the interpretation of the data
collected from interviews and survey responses, it was found that principals provided a variety of
resources to deepen the understanding and build capacity at the local level as a way to support the
implementation of the CCSS when addressing the needs of ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 83
Supports influenced by LCFF. One finding that emerged in response to the first
research question was that principals have been strongly influenced by the new LCFF requiring
districts and schools to develop and adopt a LCAP. As an important component of the LCFF, the
LCAP describes how to meet annual goals for all students, with specific activities to address state
and local priorities. It was found that principals leading schools in urban areas that had a consid-
erable number of ELLs had been influenced specifically by three of the eight state priorities: (a)
student achievement, (b) student engagement, and (c) implementation of CCSS. In order for
schools to meet the goals in each of these areas, support systems must be put in place. Inter-
viewed participants and survey responses identified technology, curriculum materials, ELD
supplemental resources, grade-level teacher collaboration time, close reading strategies, planning
time to create units of study, PD, CCSS materials, standard and lesson study sessions, among
others, as part of the provided support.
Collaboration. A second finding responding to Research Question 1 was that principals
regarded collaboration time between teachers and administrators as a valuable form of support
for teachers when implementing the CCSS for ELLs. Supported by the literature, teachers and
principals felt that increased collaboration time has a direct effect on student success and that
they share responsibility for the achievement of all students (Markow et al., 2010). The results of
this study confirmed this assertion and found that 83% of the surveyed principals considered
specifically grade-level collaboration as a very important factor in the 1st year of implementing
the CCSS.
In addition to grade-level collaboration being considered as a valued form of support,
collaboration between administrators and teachers was also regarded as important. It was found
that the presence of an administrator during the collaboration time was not always easy, but it
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 84
made a difference by “building bridges and relationships” as stated by Principal C (interview,
July 31, 2015). Through the interpretation of the interview responses, it was clearly inferred that
the participation of principals during the collaboration time was mostly welcomed and valued
when their presence was marginal rather than being active participants. Principals were a more
effective support when they played a facilitator role during the collaboration time. Similarly, the
literature supported the belief that school site administrators who increased the amount of time
that they spent working directly with teachers significantly strengthened their role as instructional
leaders (Jaquith, 2013, pp. 56–61).
Research Question 2
What PDs do principals provide for elementary school teachers to support them in
implementing the CCSS for ELLs? Research Question 2 inquires about the specific type of PD
that principals provided as a mode of support for elementary teachers to implement the new
standards. The findings of this study asserted that principals provided professional learning
structures to teachers to build their capacity in order to support student achievement of the CCSS
in two forms, district PD and school PD.
District PD. Based on the CPSEL, school principals are expected to support the school
community in understanding the new standards and be able to articulate the principles of effec-
tive instruction to teachers. The study found that principals have, in fact, provided their teachers
with many opportunities to participate in district PD to build their capacity with the implementa-
tion of the CCSS. However, the findings in this study indicated that district PD has not fully
prepared teachers, especially with respect to meeting the specific needs of the school. Principals
identified the district PD as a form of support that prepared their teachers only for the basics or
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 85
fundamentals of CCSS but did not provide enough preparation in how to differentiate instruction
on the implementation of the CCSS for ELLs.
School PD. Another finding that emerged from this study in response to Research
Question 2 was that principals seemed to value school PD over district PD. The literature rec-
ommended effective teaching and instructional capacity for the successful implementation of the
CCSS at the classroom and school level (Quay, 2010). Based on the principals’ responses in this
study, instructional capacity provided in the form of school PD or school inservice seemed to
better meet the needs of the unique demographics of the school, particularly for school sites with
very high numbers of ELLs. As was clearly restated by Principal E, “the most important training
is where the rubber meets the road . . . the in-house PD that we provide is more helpful” (inter-
view, August 14, 2015).
These findings corroborated that principals leading schools in urban settings have created
many forms of support for teachers during the initial stage of the implementation of the CCSS. A
plethora of support has been put in place, ranging from resources to collaborating time. Some
supports have been considered more beneficial than others; however, it was evident that clear
differentiation of support to address the specific needs of ELLs was not noted in the findings.
Research Question 3
How do principals evaluate the instructional delivery specifically when addressing the
CCSS for ELLs? Data from this study indicated that practices for evaluating instruction deliv-
ered to ELLs aligned to the CCSS have made an impact on the achievement of ELLs when
addressing the CCSS.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 86
Informal versus formal evaluation. The importance of evaluating instructional delivery
when addressing the CCSS for ELLs is reflected in the literature and the findings. One finding
that emerged from this study indicated that principals leading schools in urban settings with
considerably high numbers of ELLs believed in the importance of conducting both informal and
formal evaluation consistently and frequently in their school sites. One barrier that principals
identified to be challenging was the lack of time that administrators have to accomplish a desired
amount of classroom visitation to evaluate instruction during ELD time. This finding was
significant to the study because it reflected why many supports, although effective, might not be
feasible to school leaders dealing with multiple responsibilities and a limited amount of time.
The literature emphasized that principals must use their knowledge of K–12 academic standards
and appropriate instructional practices to observe and evaluate classroom planning and instruc-
tion in accordance with the LEA’s policy and practices (CTC, 2014). In the case of two of the
interviewed participants, this practice took the back seat in the priority list when other more
important responsibilities took up their administrative time.
Evaluation and feedback. Another finding significant to the study, relevant to Research
Question 3 was that principals considered evaluation and feedback to make an impact on the
academic achievement of ELLs. The data collected indicated that principals found valuable the
use of verbal and written form of feedback provided to teachers, even when coming from col-
leagues. Some principals shared facing resistance from teachers to suggestions, especially with
the implementation of CCSS, but there was always room to negotiate and compromise for the
benefit of the students. Principals felt they had the responsibility to communicate and suggest
instructional changes when instruction was not meeting the need of the students. As part of the
ELA–ELD framework, schools have the responsibility for ensuring that all ELLs receive
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 87
appropriately designed instruction in order to provide access and equity (CDE, 2015a). This
expectation makes principals accountable for ensuring that these practices are taking place in the
classroom.
Ancillary Findings: An Emergent Stage
In addition to the three research questions that guided the study, one resonant finding
emerged from the data collected from the five interviews with principals. All principals shared
that their districts had not focused a particular support system to address the needs of ELLs.
Through the interpretation of the responses from the interviewed principals, it can be asserted
that principals did not feel that their districts have differentiated the preparation provided to
specifically address the needs of ELLs. All participants agreed to some degree that at a district
level, the fundamental and basic type of training to prepare teacher to implement the CCSS has
been offered without clear specifications on how to modify instruction to help the ELLs. This
message was echoed across interview responses by the principals participating in this study. One
principal in particular admitted that his district was a little bit late in the game as far as imple-
menting Common Core was concerned, compared to others districts. As part of the emerging
stage of the new shifts in curriculum and instruction, the need to address the resistance to change
has taken priority. Principals felt that specific district training focused on the achievement of
ELLs will come next, but currently it is the responsibility of the schools sites to make those
efforts.
Limitations
A limitation to this study, in addition to limitations previously mentioned in Chapter One,
is that the survey questions did not ask the principal participants to differentiate between the
benefits of district and school site PD. The findings presented in the analysis of the data about
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 88
district PD and school PD were limited to only the information similarly expressed by the five
interviewees. A second limitation to this study is that the responses of the surveyed principals
regarding the types of supports provided for the implementation of CCSS were limited to a
selection of preselected answer choices, which could have limited their responses of other types
of support offered.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study are significant because they lead to several implications for
various stakeholders in the educational arena: teachers, site administrators, and district-level
administrators.
One of the implications for an effective instructional practice that directly affects teachers
is for them to acknowledge the importance of maintaining a collaborative school culture in order
to ensure high-quality teaching and learning for all students. Teachers are an integral part of this
collaborative culture. The findings of this particular study and the literature presented in Chapter
Two indicated the importance of collaboration at all levels. Teachers and principals should con-
sider the value behind the effort to allocate collaboration time as a mode of support for teachers
to plan instruction, share professional practices, create units of studies, and share successful
specialized practices that provide ELLs with full access to a rich curriculum.
Additionally, the findings emerging from this study provide valuable information, par-
ticularly for principals leading schools located in urban settings with a considerable number of
ELLs. Principals should consider the demands of the LCAP to address the state priorities and
find supports for the specific targeted populations of their schools. The development and adop-
tion of the LCAP require schools to identify measurable means of support that will directly help
close the achievement gap of numerically significant subgroups in the school such as ELLs.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 89
Based on the findings of this study, principals should also consider the value attached to
the school PD, as expressed by the study participants. Principals should allocate resources and
provide more opportunities for teachers in order to capacitate them to better meet the needs of
their unique school populations. Another practical approach resulting from this study is for
principal practitioners to consider the benefits of prioritizing evaluation time and provide feed-
back to help teachers improve their instruction. All in all, it is important to underscore the need
for school administrators to make the necessary shifts to ensure educational access and equity for
ELLs. These shifts should include supports to build teachers’ capacities.
Finally, district-level administrators should consider the findings of this study. The
findings clearly demonstrated that principals felt that district PD did not provide the necessary
training for schools to meet the particular needs of ELLs when trying to meet the CCSS. The
interpretation of the principals’ insights with regard to district PD indicated the lack of district
support in meeting the demands of making the new standards accessible to ELLs. With the infor-
mation obtained from the findings, district personnel should plan to include more specialized PD
that meets the specific need of the numerically significant subgroups at district level.
Recommendations for Future Research
The educational problem presented in this study addresses elements that lead to recent
transformational changes in the school system. The recent implementation of the CCSS, the
consideration of the new LCFF, and the increased diversity in student demographics have created
a combination of elements that are major factors influencing the achievement of students in
urban schools. Due to the novelty of the issues, limited research can be found in the form of
evaluation and effectiveness. This study attempted to describe the way that the combination of
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 90
these elements affected the achievement of ELLs from a principal’s perspective. Two recom-
mendations for future research would potentially extend and enhance this study:
1. Inquire about the factors that inform how educators support ELLs in achieving school
success through the implementation of the California ELD standards in tandem with the Califor-
nia CCSS. The state of education has recently adopted a new ELA–ELD framework published in
2015 (CDE, 2015a). This new adoption takes into consideration the double responsibility that
ELLs have: (a) the need to become proficient in academic English and (b) the need to learn the
same rigorous standards expected from all students. An analysis that studies the effect of special-
ized instruction that simultaneously develops English language acquisition while learning the
content standards would provide more actionable information about what students are learning.
2. To further help to identify specific gains in the understanding of ELLs’ academic
achievement, investigate what factors help ELLs to be more successful by analyzing the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium’s (SBAC; n.d.) results. Aligned with the CCSS, the SBAC
can be utilized to measure students’ achievement and growth in English language arts and
mathematics. These results can provide more accurate information about how students are
learning and how to help students succeed.
Conclusion
This research study attempted to provide insights on how principals leading schools in
urban areas were dealing with the challenge of implementing new, rigorous standards in schools
with considerable numbers of ELLs who have been historically facing perpetual achievement
gaps. The findings of this study can inform other principals who are facing similar experiences
about how a representative sample of principals undertook this venture and supported teachers
the 1st year of implementation of CCSS. It is important to consider the findings of this study
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 91
because a new era is emerging in the educational system that brings many changes for progress.
It is the responsibility of researchers, educators, and scholars to gauge this progress from every
angle through academic research and inquiry.
This study only surfaced the tip of an iceberg from one very small lens, which was the
principal’s perspective on how to support student achievement and prepare students to be glob-
ally competitive in today’s diverse and changing democratic society. An imbedded intention of
this research study was to encourage others to contribute to search ways to support the achieve-
ment of ELLs and expose the problem presented here from other lenses.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 92
References
Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics
issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0803_02
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in
large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 25(4), 36-46.
Achieve.org. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The role of the elemen-
tary school leader action brief. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/publications/
implementing-common-core-state-standards-role-elementary-school-leader-action-brief
Achieve.org. (2013). New guides help school leaders support Common Core State Standards
implementation. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/new-guides-help-school-leaders-
support-common-core-state-standards-implementation
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J. E., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2009). Developing teacher
capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional
linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31, 295–322.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
California Department of Education. (2013). California school directory. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2015a). Chapter Nine of the English language arts/English
language development framework for California public schools, kindergarten through
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 93
Grade Twelve. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/elaeldfwchapter9
.pdf
California Department of Education. (2015b). DataQuest. Available from http://www.cde.ca
.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp
California Department of Education. (2015c). Facts about English learners in California—
CalEdFacts. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2015c). Local Control Funding Formula overview:
Information about the funding and accountability provisions of the Local Control Funding
Formula. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Department of Education. (2015d). SBE-adopted ELA/ELD framework for California
public schools: Kindergarten through Grade 12. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/
rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office. (2014). Academic Per-
formance Index (API). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2013, December). Updated: An overview of the Local
Control Funding Formula. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/
lcff-072913.pdf
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2014a, December 4). Cal facts: 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/calfacts/calfacts-2014.pdf
California Legislative Analyst’s Office (2014b, November 19). The 2015–16 budget: Califor-
nia’s fiscal outlook. Retrieved from http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3152
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2012). The Common Core challenge for ELLs. Principal
Leadership, 12(5), 46–51.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 94
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2014). California professional standards for education
leaders (CPSEL). Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/CPSEL-
booklet-2014.pdf
Common Score State Standards Initiative. (2015a). About the Standards. Retrieved from http://
www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015b). Application of Common Core State Standards
for English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/
application-for-english-learners.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015c). Preparing America’s students for success.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2015). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso
.org/Who_We_Are.html
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
proaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curriculum Associates of California. (2015). i-Ready
®
: Built for the Common Core. Retrieved
from http://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/iready/iready-builtforcommoncore
.aspx#
Day, C. (2007). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. In T.
Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher education: Globalization, standards and
professionalism in times of change ( pp. 597–612). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Digital Chalkboard. (2015a). Home page. Retrieved from https://www.mydigitalchalkboard.org/
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 95
Digital Chalkboard. (2015b). Question 1: What professional learning structures build educator
capacity to support student achievement of the CA CCSS, and how can I help establish
and maintain a culture of continuous improvement in my school/district? Retrieved from
https://www.mydigitalchalkboard.org/portal/default/Content/Viewer/Content;jsessionid=i0-
SojUXvbHQMiIyrJ+MVQ**?action=2&scId=515812&sciId=20102
Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural
approach. Retrieved from http://ed491.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/6/1/8461140/rethinkingeld-
dutromoran.pdf
Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make
a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7, 291–299.
Ed-Data. (2014). California public schools: English learners. Retrieved from http://www.ed-data
.org/state/CA
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2013). Findings from a national survey of
teacher perspectives on the Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/
epe_survey_teacher_perspctives_common_ core_2013.pdf
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washing-
ton, DC: Pew Hispanic Center: Hispanic Trends.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 96
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional devel-
opment needs. Available from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491701
Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006). Urban school principals and their role as multicul-
tural leaders. Urban Education, 41, 560–584.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Stu-
dents Placed at Risk, 10, 363–385.
Gewertz, C. (2013, February 27). Teachers say they are unprepared for Common Core. Education
Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/27/22common_ep.h32
.html
Gruenert, S. (2000). Shaping a new school culture. Contemporary Education, 2(71), 14–17.
Gruenert, S. (2008). School culture, school climate: They are not the same thing. Retrieved from
https://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2008/M-Ap56.pdf
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development.
Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73–76.
Hassel, E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. M., & Steiner, L. M. (2009). School
restructuring: What works when—a guide for education leaders. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507797.pdf
Heibert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common
Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Re-
searcher, 42(1), 44–51. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459802
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 97
Hudley, A. H., & Mallison, C. (2011). Understanding English language variation in U.S.
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jaquith, A. (2013). Instructional capacity: How to build it right. Educational Leadership, 71(2),
56–61.
Langer, G., Colton, A., & Goff, L. G. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work: Improving
teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED481154)
LeMoine, N. (2007). Meeting the needs of standard English learners: Scaffolding access to core
instructional curricula. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 10–14.
Lomotey, K. (1993). African-American principals: Bureaucrat/administrators and ethno-
humanists. Urban Education, 27, 395–412.
Markow, D., & Pieters, A. (2011). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Preparing
students for college and careers. New York, NY: MetLife,
Markow, D., Pieters, A., & Harris Interactive. (2010). The MetLife survey of the American
teacher: Preparing students for college and careers—Part 2, Teaching diverse learners.
Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/contributions/foundation/american-
teacher/MetLife_Teacher_Survey_2010_Part2.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 98
MetLife. (2013). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Challenges for school leadership.
Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf
National Center for English Language Acquisition. (2011). The growing number of limited
English proficient students 1998–96/2008–09. Available from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
files/uploads/9/growingLep_0809.pdf
National Education Association. (2015). Diversity toolkit: English language learners (ELLs).
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/tools/30405.htm
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. (2011). Center divisions. Retrieved
from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-divisions.html
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Reaching higher: The Common Core State Standards validation commit-
tee. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CommonCoreReport_6.10.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Quay, L. (2010, April). Higher standards for all: Implications of the common core for equity in
education (Research Brief). Retrieved from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Education
_Roundable_Standards_Brief_4_10.pdf
Rivera, M. O., Francis, D. J., Fernandez, M., Moughamian, A. C., Jergensen, J., & Lesaux, N. K.
(2010). Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from five states speak.
Houston, TX: University of Houston, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and
Statistics, Center on Instruction.
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 99
Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English
language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness.
Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/
ell_report.pdf
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). Latest news. Retrieved from http://www
.smarterbalanced.org/
TESOL International Association. (2013). Overview of the Common Core State Standard initia-
tives for ELLs (TESOL Issue Brief). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/advocacy/
overview-of-common-core-state-standards-initiatives-for-ells-a-tesol-issue-brief-march-201
3.pdf?sfvrsn=4
TESOL International Association. (2015). The Common Core State Standards and English
learners: A resource page. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/
standards/the-common-core-state-standards-and-english-learners
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older,
more diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education
and Regional Assistance. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional
decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED506645.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). The condition
of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display
.asp?id=96
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 100
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences. (2015b). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States:
1972–2012 (NCES 2015-015). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015015.pdf
WestEd & Association for California School Administrators. (2004). California professional
standards for educational leaders. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/
cpsel_standards.pdf
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 101
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Introduction:
This study seeks to understand the ways in which principals of elementary schools in
urban settings are currently supporting teachers implementing the CCSS. I am a doctoral
student at USC, and I am interviewing five principals in urban schools who have supported
teachers in the implementation of CCSS and who have a considerable number of ELLs in their
student population. Because principals are important in the decision making of the school, your
information will help me and others understand your experiences during this time of change.
I would like to ask for your permission to record this interview so I can capture important
information that I might miss in my notes.
Interview
I would like to start by asking you some questions about your experiences as a principal
during the first official implementation year of the CCSS, keeping in mind the population of
ELLs:
1. In your opinion as a principal, what’s it been like for your school to implement the
CCSS while making them accessible to all students, including the ELLs?
2. Could you tell me about the ways in which the new funding system (LCFF) has influ-
enced your decisions to create support systems that will meet the needs of ELLs, if at
all?
3. Can you describe the ways in which you feel the implementation of the CCSS has
impacted the academic achievement of the ELLs in your school, if at all?
4. How are your experiences as an administrator different from what they used to be
before the CCSS?
The next questions are aimed directly at learning about the support that teachers re-
ceived when implementing the CCSS at this school:
1. Can you describe what capacities have been put in place in your school to support
teachers who have a large number of ELLs in their classroom?
2. Do you believe the training that teachers received prepared them to successfully
deliver instruction to support ELLs to meet the demands of the CCSS?
• If yes, why do you believe so?
• If no, what was missing from this training?
3. In what other ways do you believe that the administration has supported teacher, if at
all, when implementing the CCSS?
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 102
4. In your opinion, how does the collaboration between staff and administration make an
impact on the instruction that teachers deliver to ELLs, if at all?
5. Where do you believe your teachers received their most effective training for imple-
menting the CCSS to ELLs, if any? (district training/PD, mentor/partnership, per-
sonal research, prior teaching experience, university-based programs, online training,
none)
The last two questions are aimed to learning about the ways that principals evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the instruction teachers deliver to ELLs:
1. Can you describe the type of evaluation procedures you, as the principal, used to find
out whether the instruction delivered to ELLs is effective in addressing the CCSS?
2. Do you think, if at all, teacher evaluations have an impact on the academic achieve-
ment of ELLs when trying to meet the CCSS?
As a part of our wrap-up, is there anything I have not asked you that would help me understand
your experience as a principal during this implementation year of the CCSS?
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 103
Appendix B
SurveyMonkey Questionnaire
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 104
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 105
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 106
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 107
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 108
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 109
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 110
I thank you for your time spent taking this survey. If you are interested in receiving copies of
this dissertation, including the findings from this survey, please contact me at [email address].
Yours truly,
Yadira S. Perez
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 111
Appendix C
General Recruitment Email Cover Letter
May, 2015
Dear [Name],
My name is Yadira S. Perez, and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at
USC. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation process under the direction of
Dr. Pedro Garcia. My study focuses on the different ways principals in urban elementary schools
are supporting teachers implementing the Common Core State Standards while keeping in mind
the English Language Learners. You have been identified as someone who may be eligible to
participate. Participation would require one survey taking up to 15 minutes.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity will remain confidential at all
times. Your relationship with USC will not be affected whether or not you participate in this
study.
If you have questions, please contact me via email or phone: Yadira Perez
[email address] or (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Thank you for your participation,
Yadira S. Perez
University of Southern California
You may access the survey at the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8SN5NFB
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 112
Appendix D
Summary of Data
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 113
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 114
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 115
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 116
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 117
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 118
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 119
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 120
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 121
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 122
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 123
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 124
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 125
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 126
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 127
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 128
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 129
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 130
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 131
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 132
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 133
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 134
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 135
ELLs, CCSS, AND PRINCIPALS 136

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In recent years, educational reform has been strongly influenced by a new set of national standards and a new funding formula that changes the way that school administrators allocate resources to support teachers. The purpose of this study was to learn about ways in which principals at urban elementary schools with high numbers of English language learners (ELLs) provided support to teachers when implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The study was based on a mixed-methods approach and investigated this topic through interviews and surveys. Five principals from various districts located in urban communities in southern California were interviewed on their experiences and the types of supports put in place for teachers during their 1st official implementation year of the CCSS, while considering the needs of ELLs. In addition, 25 surveyed principals shared the various supports that they provided to teachers to implement the CCSS. Findings from this study indicated that principals allocated a plethora of resources such as teacher collaboration time, professional development (PD), curriculum materials, technology, and others in order to assist elementary school teachers during this transitional time. The study found that support aimed at addressing the requirements of ELLs was evident only at a local level based on the needs of the site’s demographics. Finally, this study found that principals’ evaluations influenced the effectiveness of the instruction delivered to ELLs with respect to achievement of the CCSS. Possible implications for future research would include investigating the effect of the newly adopted English language arts-English language development framework on the achievement of ELLs. A 2nd consideration for future research would be to analyze the results from the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium to better identify factors that influence the academic achievement of ELLs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

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

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012

PDF

Principal leadership -- skill demands in a global context

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Schoolwide structures, systems, and practices that are closing the achievement gap at a Southern California high-performing, high-poverty urban public elementary school: a case study

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

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

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

The principal's perspective of current tenure practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Yadira S. (author)

Core Title English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/15/2016

Defense Date 02/22/2016

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

Tag CCSS,ELLs,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,support,urban elementary

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Orloff, Sergei (committee member)

Creator Email yadirape@usc.edu,ysperez@mylusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-220672

Unique identifier UC11277103

Identifier etd-PerezYadir-4200.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-220672 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PerezYadir-4200.pdf

Dmrecord 220672

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Perez, Yadira S.

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