Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
(USC Thesis Other)
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
1
AN EXAMINATION OF SMALL, MID-SIZED, AND LARGE SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE STRATEGIES THEY EMPLOY TO IMPROVE
THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
George A. Herrera
_____________________________________________________________________
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 George A. Herrera
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to three beloved human beings who were my inspiration and
driving force throughout this endeavor. Lessons learned from them are the foundation of my
character and humanity. Although two of them are no longer of this world, remembrances of
them and their passion for life will forever illuminate the path upon which my soul walks.
First and foremost my dedication is to the most influential English learner in my life, my
late brother Filiberto Herrera whose teachers were unsuccessful in connecting with him and
influencing his destiny. His curiosity about life and sense of wonder never ceased to amaze me.
This study was accomplished in his honor as a heartfelt contribution to all “Filibertos ” in the
school system today. His resilience in the face of adversity combined with his sense of
compassion and talent for artistic expression will forever inspire and uplift me.
Next, I wholeheartedly dedicate this dissertation to my beloved late father Gustavo
Herrera Saenz. An accomplished intellectual, he bequeathed to me a legacy of passion and love
for learning. He instilled in me self-worth, confidence, tenacity, faith, and an insatiable quest for
greatness and humility. This dissertation fulfills the final “promesa ” I made to him.
Last but not least I dedicate this dissertation to my loving mother Cruz Terrazas
Brancato. Early on she instilled in me a solid work ethic and a strong sense of integrity. Her
support, encouragement, and unconditional love have nurtured me throughout my life. Her
sacrifices and prayers have made it possible for me to obtain honor and success.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writing of this dissertation has been one of the most rewarding and challenging
experiences of my academic career. The written word cannot possibly express my profoundest
gratitude to all of the individuals who throughout the years have contributed to my personal,
academic, and professional development. I was deeply humbled and motivated by the abundant
words of encouragement received during my entire doctoral experience at the University of
Southern California. Thank you for making my journey meaningful and endurable.
First and foremost “mil gracias ” to my lifelong mentor Dr. Isaac Cardenas who believed
in me from the inception of our first meeting. The opportunities and experiences he bestowed
upon me continue to enrich my life beyond measure. Project BEST was the experience and gift
of a lifetime! I am eternally indebted to his generosity and proudly call him my mentor, role
model, and friend. Similarly, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jean Heard Bazemore who was
instrumental in helping me find my voice and in doing so validated my existence and sense of
purpose. The moonlight of her gentle spirit continues to influence my path.
My deepest gratitude goes to my dissertation committee. Dr. Rudy Castruita’s
commitment to share his knowledge and wisdom afforded me an exceptional learning
experience. Dr. Maria G. Ott is equally worthy of my sincerest appreciation. She planted the
seed in me of pursuing a doctoral education at USC. Without her guidance and persistence this
accomplishment would not have been possible. Last, but not definitely not least, I thank Dr.
Pedro E. Garcia for his dedication and insightful contributions to my dissertation.
It is also important to acknowledge Carlos Ochoa for his unwavering support and
encouragement during this venture. He afforded me the experiences and flexibility necessary to
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
4
fulfill the requirements of the doctoral program. A very special debt of gratitude to Dr. Rosario
Ordonez-Jasis for the wealth of knowledge she has contributed to my quest for learning.
My USC classmates have made this experience worthwhile. Isaac Huang and Henry
Romero in particular deserve my utmost respect and admiration. Their teamwork, spirit and
collaborative efforts are unparalleled. This shared experience forever bridges our pathways. I
am proud to call them colleagues and friends.
I distinctly want to recognize the superintendents who took the time to participate in the
survey as well as those who accepted my request for an interview. Their candor and insights
were vital to my research. I am eternally grateful to them for opening the doors to their districts
and welcoming me so graciously.
I especially acknowledge my family and many friends who supported me throughout the
process. My respect goes to Helen Benavides for continuously challenging me. Her high
standards are admirable. A sincere thank you to Elsa Melendez who encouraged me daily and
helped me organize my research and literature articles. I recognize Yolanda Gasca as well for
her steadfast commitment to ensuring my spiritual and physical sustenance. Finally a
distinguished and heartfelt recognition goes to R. Ruiz and Pochis H. for their patience and
loyalty. In the midst of the storm they were my serenity and greatest cheerleaders.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...3
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………. ...7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...8
Preface……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...10
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study……………………………………………………………...11
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...11
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...15
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...17
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...17
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………. ...17
Assumptions…………………………………………………………………………. ...18
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………... ...18
Delimitations………………………………………………………………………… ...19
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………. ...20
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...20
Historical Background of English Learners…………………………………………. ...21
Recent Policies Influencing English Learner Education…………………………….....23
Profile and Journey of English Learners…………………………………………….. ...27
Long Term English Language Learners……………………………………………......33
Factors Influencing Underachievement of English Learners………………………... ...39
Theoretical Framework of Leadership Influencing English Learner Achievement…....45
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...49
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. ...50
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...50
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...52
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...52
Rationale for Mixed Methods Study Design…………………………………………...52
Research Design……………………………………………………………………... ...53
Sample Population……………………………………………………………………...53
Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………....53
Data Collection Protocols……………………………………………………………....56
Data Analysis Procedures……………………………………………………………....58
Summary…………………………………………………………………………….. ...59
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
6
Chapter 4: Findings………………………………………………………………………….. ...60
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...60
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………. ...61
Response Rate……………………………………………………………………….. ...61
Quantitative Demographic Data……………………………………………………... ...62
Qualitative Demographic Data………………………………………………………. ...68
Research Question 1…………………………………………………………………....70
Research Question 2………………………………………………………………......101
Research Question 3………………………………………………………………......111
Research Question 4……………………………………………………………….. ...119
Summary…………………………………………………………………………… ...126
Chapter 5: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….. ...132
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… ...132
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………... ...134
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………….. ...135
Research Questions………………………………………………………………… ...135
Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………....136
Methodology……………………………………………………………………….. ...138
Findings…………………………………………………………………………….. ...139
Implications………………………………………………………………………… ...144
Recommendations for Future Study………………………………………………......146
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………… ...146
References………………………………………………………………………………….. ...148
Appendix
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Alignment…………………………......163
Appendix B: Survey Instrument……………………………………………………...166
Appendix C: Interview Protocol……………………………………………………...169
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter…………………………………………………....170
Appendix E: Interview Letter………………………………………………………...171
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate…………………………………………….. ...61
Table 2. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender……………………………………....62
Table 3. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity………………………………….....63
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age……………………………………….....64
Table 5. Quantitative Survey: Highest Degree Earned…………………………………… ...64
Table 6. Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience………………………. ...65
Table 7. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District…………… ...66
Table 8. Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics……………………………………. ...67
Table 9. Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts……….. ...69
Table 10. Superintendent Rating of Factors that Influence the Strategies used to…………....71
Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Table 11. Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important to His/Her………………... ...87
Implementation Plan Towards the Improvement of ELL Academic
Achievement
Table 12. Superintendent Rating of Stakeholders that Function as Obstacles Toward ...101
the Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Table 13. Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Allocating Resources ...112
Toward the Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Table 14. Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Monitoring and ...120
Evaluating the Academic Achievement of ELLs
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
8
ABSTRACT
The implications of the achievement gap between ELLs and native English speaking
students can no longer be overlooked. The inability of California’s public school system to meet
the needs of ELLs exasperates the widening of the achievement gap by failing to provide all
students equal access to curriculum and desired educational outcomes, with the end point being
high school graduation (Bennett, 2001; Bensimon, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Valencia, 2002). Moreover, as the district leader, superintendents are charged with
implementing strategies to improve the academic achievement of all students (Fuller, et al.,
2003).
The broader joint research investigated small, mid-sized, and large districts.
Distinctively, this study explored the strategies that superintendents of small school districts in
California used to support the academic instruction of English language learners (For mid-sized
districts, please see Huang, 2016 and for large districts, please see Romero, 2016).
The research questions used to guide the study were: What strategies do small school
district superintendents in California employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?;
what do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest obstacles to
improving the academic achievement of ELLs?; how are resources allocated by small school
district superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?; and how
do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to improve the
academic achievement of ELLs?
The methodology for this study was a mixed-method design. There were quantitative and
qualitative data collected and analyzed. Surveys were received from 29 superintendents in small
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
9
California public school districts. From the surveys returned, five superintendents were selected
for one-on-one interviews.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
10
PREFACE
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflected in real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative partnership between three doctoral students,
George Herrera, Isaac Huang, and Henry Romero . We jointly created the survey and drafted
interview questions that were to be directed to superintendents of small, mid-sized, and large
districts respectively. As a result, three dissertations were produced by this inquiry partnership
(See Herrera, 2016, for small districts; Huang, 2016, for mid-sized districts; and Romero, 2016,
for large districts).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
11
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Authors: George Herrera, Isaac Huang, Henry Romero
1
California as we know it today, embodies an ever-changing fusion of culture and
individuality (Cascio & Lewis, 2012; Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
The term “melting-pot” has never fit a description so well. Recent statistics from the U.S.
Department of Commerce (2011) depicts this cultural transformation to be an occurrence on the
national scale as well. Research denotes that out of 291.5 million people aged 5 and over,
around 61 million people (21% of this population) speak a language besides English at home
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011). According to this data, 62% of the 61 million people
feature Spanish as the primary language (U.S. Department of Commerce). Perhaps no other
government agency has felt this impact more drastically than the state and local public school
system where a pronounced achievement gap persists between ELLs (English language learners)
and their English-speaking counterparts (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010;
Jones, 1977; Spears, 2011).
Furthermore, the implications of the achievement gap between ELLs and native English
speaking students can no longer be overlooked, or dismissed. More specifically, the dropout rate
of ELLs in the class of 2012 was 23.7%, compared to the dropout rate of all students in the class
of 2012 at 13.2% (CDE). Exasperating this dilemma, Olsen (2010b) asserts that the majority
(59%) of secondary school ELLs are long-term English learners (LTEL’s); these are ELLs who
1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to
this project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all
those listed.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
12
have been formally educated in the U.S. for six or more years but have been unable to make
adequate linguistic and academic progress to meet district reclassification criteria and exit
English learner status. From this standpoint, one can clearly see that the feeble attempts by
California’s public school system to meet the needs of ELLs are, simply put, widening the
achievement gap by failing to provide all students equal access to curriculum and desired
educational outcomes, with the end point being high school graduation (Bennett, 2001;
Bensimon, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valencia, 2002). This is an important
problem that needs attention because it reveals an achievement gap amongst a disproportionate
number of ELLs (Bennett, 2001; Connor, 2009; Johnson, 2006; Salazar, 1997; Valencia, 2002).
After all, the American Dream—educational opportunity, prosperity, home ownership—is
deeply rooted in the belief that the attainment of a quality education can lead to a successful
career (Jones, 1977; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). However, one’s prospect of ever actualizing this
“Dream” is severely limited should he/she not complete the high school requirements for
graduation.
Accountability under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for ELLs
Since the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, literacy has
emerged as a primary measure of achievement for all students (Callahan, 2006; Rios-Aguilar,
Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012; and Saunders, Foorman, & Carlson, 2006).
Furthermore, accountability measures have been put in place, as a result of NCLB, to ensure that
all schools meet established annual progress objectives for every student, including ELLs
(Callahan, 2006; Rios-Aguilar, Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012; and Saunders,
Foorman, & Carlson, 2006). In this accountability system, annual achievement objectives are
measured by the percentage of students meeting challenging academic standards. For all
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
13
students, but most notably ELLs, meeting challenging academic standards involves developing a
strong command of the English language, especially in terms of its academic uses (Saunders,
Foorman, & Carlson, 2006).
The authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) called for the transformation
of public school systems into more effective learning institutions to meet the diverse needs of all
students, especially the most at-risk (The White House, 2002). Likewise, the driving force
behind NCLB centered upon the accountability measures it placed on educators for providing
quality teaching to every student, in an effort to ensure the academic achievement of all students
(as demonstrated through high-stakes standardized testing), with the heightened burden being
placed on the district leader—the superintendent.
Moreover, the presence of state and federal accountability measures are now a staple of
the American public school system (Remland, 2012). In 2003, a report from the Council of
Great City Schools commissioned all school leaders to make changes in their school, affirming
that, “The challenge facing school leaders is that of convincing a complacent school culture that
continuing to do business-as-usual courts disaster” (Buchanan, 2006, p.30). Furthermore, a lack
of sufficient funding for the needed programs that are designed to promote the achievement
NCLB is looking for often go hand in hand with the accountability issues revolving around
NCLB (Remland, 2012). Needless to say, the pressures of meeting accountability targets do not
disappear simply due to a scarcity of resources or a lack of proportional funding.
The significance of literacy development is two-fold for ELLs, under NCLB. ELLs are
not only monitored for their English proficiency under Title III, but also for their grade-level
language arts achievement under Title I. Equating literacy to academic achievement has
instructional implications for all students, especially ELLs. It becomes evident then that Title I
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
14
of NCLB blurs the line between these two competencies: equating academic achievement to
performance on English Language Arts assessments. Currently, the federal government requires
state accountability systems to include ELLs in high stakes testing, thus holding teachers,
students, and schools accountable for their academic progress, even if students cannot read the
test they are taking, or even if students have not been exposed to the academic content on which
they are being evaluated (Rios-Aguilar, Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012).
Closing the achievement gaps, both academic and linguistic, as outlined by Title I and
Title III under NCLB, is also of paramount importance because of its ties to federal funding
(Rios-Aguilar, Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012). Fiscal pressure can lead district
administrators, more specifically the superintendent, to adopt quick fixes to boost the
achievement of students performing below grade-level, subjecting ELLs and other at-risk
students to reactionary, rather than proactive changes in instructional programs.
The Impact of Superintendent Leadership
In this era of accountability and standards, superintendents are charged with making
visible and rapid improvements in the academic achievement of the nation’s most
vulnerable children. (Council of Great City Schools, 2010)
There is little debate that school superintendents possess one of the most challenging and
significant jobs in America’s public education system (Buchanan, 2004; Newcomb, 2004: Orr,
2006). In fact, the evolution of the role of superintendent, from a mostly managerial function to
that of an instructional leader, highly capable of leading district reform efforts, is no small feat
(Beam, 2004; Berlau, 2011). As a result, school boards today now have an expressed interest in
hiring superintendents with a proven background in curriculum and instruction, and who also
possess a track record of increasing student achievement levels for all students, especially ELLs
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
15
(Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Peterson & Young, 2004). Due to the hands-on nature of the
modern day superintendent, school boards have the expectation that the superintendent will work
actively with principals and teachers in the curriculum work (development and implementation)
and the standardized-test growth targets to close the achievement gap among student groups,
particularly those classified as ELLs (Black, 2007; Gandara & Rumberger, 2003).
Additionally, much research regarding urban education points to the harsh reality that
despite a long history of large urban school districts performing poorly, little continues to be
done to ameliorate the situation, notwithstanding the previous decades of reform initiatives
(Fusarelli, 2002; Hess, 1999). Hess contends that success in driving reform is directly correlated
with the length of service for a respective superintendent. In other words, higher rates of student
achievement are closely linked to the degree in which a respective superintendent is able to see
his/her proposed reforms followed through over an extended period of time. The Center on
Reinventing Public Education (2003) maintains that while some superintendents have flourished
in their ability to raise student achievement at the elementary school level for low-socioeconomic
students, few have experienced prolonged growth over time. Furthermore, a superintendent’s
ability to effectively play a part in the enhancement of student achievement, most notably for
ELLs, is greatly improved when he/she is provided a reasonable length of service to affect
change at the systemic level (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Hess, 1999).
Statement of the Problem
Student achievement in the US has taken a back seat to those of other developing
countries over the past decade (Hanushek, Peterson & Woessmann, 2012). Specifically, in
addressing the academic achievement of ELLs educated in the US compared to that of native
English speakers has further perpetuated the achievement gap. Although historically, the high
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
16
school dropout dilemma has steadily improved throughout the years, wide disparities by race,
Hispanic origin, and foreign-born status continue to persist (Doll, 2010; Spears, 2011; Tavitian,
2013). For example, the U.S. government reported that the high school dropout rate for
Hispanics is nearly ten times as high as native speakers of English, at 27.8% (NCES, 2002).
Moreover, the Hispanic Dropout Project published a report that pinpointed a 30-35% dropout
rate for selected groups of Hispanics at the completion of the project, many of whom were ELLs
as well (U.S. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, 1998). Since
Hispanics constitute the most sizeable U.S. population of ELLs, this has significant implications
for the ELLs in California.
Equally important, between 2000 and 2010 the Latino population increased from 35.3
million to 50.5 million and is projected to increase by 17.8% by 2020. In addition, by 2050 the
population for this group is expected to spike by 24.4% to 102.6 million (Aud et al., 2012).
Likewise, the report accentuated that between 1990 and 2010 the Latino public school
enrollment escalated from 5.1 million to 12.1 million students, rising from 12% to 23% (Aud et
al., 2012). Similarly, Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly and Callahan (2003) illuminate the
concept that public schools are symbolic of the diverse communities in which they serve, and
therefore, have the important responsibility of providing equal educational opportunities to all
students, regardless of race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
Moreover, the total number of enrolled public school students in the United States is 48
million, and of that number, 4.7 million are ELLs (Aud et al., 2012). Better yet, the percentage
of this population moved up two percentage points between 2000-01 to 2009-10—from 3.7
million to 4.7 million. As it stands, California has the largest concentration of ELLs, amounting
to 29% attending public schools (Aud et al., 2012). Sadly enough, research has also uncovered
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
17
that one’s identification as an ELL puts he/she at high-risk of eventual high school dropout
(August & Shanahan, 2006; Bowan-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010). For this reason, it is
critical to examine the impact that superintendent leadership bears on the academic achievement
of ELLs.
Purpose of the Study
This study seeks to investigate how strategies employed by small school district
superintendents in California improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. What strategies do small school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by small school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the growing body of academic literature on the impact superintendent
leadership exerts on the academic achievement of ELLs. As such, its findings have the potential
to assist school superintendents with strategies in addressing second language learners. More
notably, the study provides additional findings as to the effect a superintendent’s professional
background and experiences may have on student outcomes, specifically ELLs. Thus, the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
18
findings will contribute information to school boards with supplementary information that could
prove useful in making future superintendent appointments. Additionally, the study will provide
some guidance to aspiring superintendents on the types of professional experiences they should
obtain in order to increase their chances of becoming district leaders who successfully improve
the academic achievement of ELLs. Lastly, the study also documents some strategies that
proved effective in bolstering the academic achievement of ELLs in various California districts.
Assumptions
Four assumptions were made in this study:
1. Superintendent leadership is essential to the academic achievement improvements of
ELLs.
2. Gains experienced by selected districts were directly influenced by or related to
superintendent leadership.
3. Responses submitted by superintendents were true and accurate of their views and
experiences when leading their respective school districts; and
4. The range of school districts and superintendents selected is representative of small
school district superintendents in California.
Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1. The sample size for interviews was limited by the need to find similar pairs of
districts with respective small school district superintendents and similar
demographics; and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
19
2. Superintendents who have been at their posts for less than two years were excluded
from the studies to ensure academic achievement results of ELLs were reflective of
their tenure and not that of their predecessor.
Delimitations
Data collection was limited to:
1. Small district superintendents of California with 700-5,000 students.
2. Districts with an ELL population at or above the state average of 22.7%. Therefore,
implications for districts below this average are not investigated in this study. For
example, districts with very low LCFF funding received a resource allocation that is
compromised to the degree that it is not adequate to meet the needs of ELLs.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Authors: George Herrera, Isaac Huang, Henry Romero
2
Language acquisition in the U.S. has a complicated history linked to social status and the
truth that some selected European languages are more highly valued then others (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). The anti-immigrant sentiment has had a well-established presence in the United
States. Terrell and Lindsey contend that language acquisition converges with issues of race,
ethnicity, and national origin and has a tendency to be focused on recent arrivals. The anti-
immigrant sentiment impacts a high number of English learners because it is a continuation of
the anti-Latino attitudes and dispositions cultivated in the late nineteenth century (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). For English learners in the United States, their level of academic achievement
has historically trailed significantly behind native English speakers (Genesee, Lindhold-Leary,
Saunders, & Christian 2006). Kindler (2002) asserts that in a 41 state study only 18.7% of ELLs
met the state norm for reading in English. Terrell and Lindsey (2009) argue that the rate of
undocumented immigration to the United States coupled with the interrelated economic and
political cross-border relationships and migration patterns of the late twentieth and early twenty-
first centuries have contributed to language acquisition being a critical issue in schools today.
A review of the literature will provide in-depth context for instructional leaders to
address the complexity and diversity of English language learner needs. There are a total of six
sections delineated in in this literature examination. The first section provides a historical
2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to
this project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all
those listed.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
21
background of English learners in the United States and in the state of California. The U.S.
overview provides important context for the state of California. The second section examines the
most impactful recent policies, which have shaped English learner education. These policies and
court cases continue to shape education for ELLs today. The third section focuses on the profile
and journey of English learners. This segment discusses pathways and important data providing
background for understanding the underachievement of this population. The fourth section
examines Long Term English Language Learners who have been unable to reclassify and exit
ELL status. The fifth section surveys factors influencing the underachievement of English
learners. This section provides important context for organizational leaders to address these
factors at different levels of the organization. The sixth and final section presents a theoretical
framework of leadership necessary to influence English learner achievement. Superintendents, as
the highest organizational leaders in school districts, are entrusted with the moral charge of
creating the conditions for all students to succeed academically and socially.
Historical Background of English Learners
The academic needs of English language learners (ELLs) have been historically
neglected in the United States. Since the early 20
th
century educators segregated ELLs due to
perceptions and assumptions about their English speaking capabilities (Valencia, 2002).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, since 2002 California has maintained
the largest percentage of K-12 public school students participating in programs for English
language learners. The most recent percentage of ELLs located in California was calculated at
28% for 2011. Calderón, Slavin, and Sánchez (2011) assert that currently Caucasian students are
a minority in numbers in most urban districts. The 2013 California Department of Education
Language Census reports that 21.6% of the total state enrollment is comprised of English
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
22
learners and the primary language of 84.67% of the English learner population is Spanish. Next
to Spanish, the most prevalent languages are 3% Vietnamese and 1% Filipino (Hill, 2012).
Traditionally, language was used as a rationale to segregate ELLs of Mexican descent from the
English speaking mainstream (Valencia, 2002). Segregation impacted the ability of some ELLs
to reclassify as Fully English Proficient (FEP) thus propagating their ELL status. FEP students
are former ELLs who have developed the English academic language necessary to be on par
academically with mainstream English speaking students. English learners unable to meet
reclassification criteria remain English language learners well into secondary. This cohort of
Long Term English Learners (LTELs) had previously been overlooked and neglected. Olsen
(2010a) explains that several other labels, some pejorative, are used informally for this
demographic including: ESL lifers, Threes Forever, and protracted ELLs. In California, many
ELLs become stagnant at the intermediate level of the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT). Olsen (2011b) maintains that the vast majority of LTELs are
trapped at the Intermediate English levels and below. California has recently adopted new
English Language Development (ELD) standards and condensed five language development
levels into three. The new levels are labeled emerging, bridging, and expanding. This means
that a significant number of LTELs will now be trapped at the “bridging” level.
Language minority groups have a history of being educationally and linguistically
disenfranchised in the United States. In addition to the language, English learners tend to have
additional factors that put them at risk for educational failure. These elements include poverty,
immigration status, and health (Genesee et al., 2006). As part of the efforts to bring to a close
the educational access gap, it was determined by the courts that schools in the United States have
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
23
a duty and responsibility to attend to the barriers that preclude English learners from accessing
equal opportunities available to mainstream students (Olsen, 2010b).
Recent Policies Influencing English Learner Education
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
John F. Kennedy’s efforts to pass civil rights legislation securing equality for every
American irrespective of race culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law by
President Lyndon Johnson. It purposefully designated the term National Origin to protect people
from discrimination based on their birth country (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). In 1966 the United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare commissioned a report to gauge the equity
of educational opportunities available to children of different color, race, religion, and national
origin. This became known as the “Coleman Study.” This study serves as a model of the
utilization of a social survey as a catalyst for national policy-making. This study was initiated in
direct response to provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Coleman, 1966). Terrell and
Lindsey (2009) contend that while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to confront
historical inequities, having schools be successful for all students remains an unfulfilled vision.
The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII
An important step for English language learners was the Elementary and Secondary Act
of 1968. Specifically, Title VII of that act, recognized as the Bilingual Education Act (BEA),
instituted federal policy for bilingual education. The Act specified financial assistance provided
by the federal government for groundbreaking bilingual programs. This specification was
reinforced by its recognition of the large numbers with limited English-speaking ability in the
United States and their special educational needs (ESEA, 1968). Funding would be provided for
development and implementation of programs, professional development, and sustainability.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
24
Oboler and Gonzalez (2005) assert that the enactment of the Bilingual Education Act has always
been associated with controversy and discord. The intent was to better the lives of English
Language Learners by improving their educational experience. Efforts to fully fund and
implement the act have been characterized by disagreement between policy makers and
educational authorities about how to fulfill the goals of the Bilingual Education Act.
Stewner-Manzanares (1988) contends that there have been at least four amendments to
Title VII known, indicating the changing needs of limited English speaking students and society
in general. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was first amended by Congress in 1974 to shed
light on the design and intent of programs whose English ability was limited (Stewner-
Manzanares, 1988). In 1978 there was a second amendment to the BEA, which expanded the
definition of students qualified to receive services. The 1978 amendments made a key shift in
support of the English learners schools serve today. Stewner-Manzanares (1988) contends that
the amendment expanded the eligibility of services from students of “limited English speaking
ability” to students who were “limited English proficient.” The necessity for increased flexibility
at the district level to meet the needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students was addressed
by The Bilingual Education Act of 1984 (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). In 1994 it was
reauthorized as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act. The fundamental purpose
continues to be to provide access to bilingual programs for children of limited means. Stewner-
Manzanares (1988) asserts that two of the most significant events to influence the amendments
of the BEA were the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 and the landmark case of Lau V.
Nichols.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
25
Significance of Lau vs. Nichols Case
The Lau v. Nichols ruling facilitated the broadening of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by
maintaining that limited English speaking students should not be subjected to a “sink or swim”
educational approach (Terrell, 2009). The Supreme Court decision (Lau v. Nichols, 1974)
asserted the educational and access rights of students whose primary language was not English.
The ruling is justified in Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). It
persists as an important precedent concerning the educational rights of language minorities. In
1968 The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare asserted that schools are responsible for
assuring the rights of students of a particular race, color, or national origin to receive an equitable
education comparable to other students in the system (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). In 1970 it further
clarified its assertion by compelling federally funded districts to remedy the language deficiency
in order to provide access to students with linguistic deficiencies (Pottinger, 1970). ELLs need
language development programs that allow them to advance academically while they are
developing the English language. The Supreme Court decision (Lau v. Nichols, 1974) asserted
the educational and access rights of students whose primary language was not English. Lau v.
Nichols (1974; as cited in Nieto, 2004) explicitly prohibited discrimination in academic
institutions based on national origin and English learner status. The Supreme Court ruled that
school districts are required to deliver special services to ELLs to ensure equal educational
opportunity (Carrera, 1992). The court stated in its ruling:
… there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,
textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are
effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Basic English skills are at the very
core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
26
can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired
those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do
not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly
incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. [414 U.S. 563 (1974)]
Terrell (2009) maintains that within the education profession and in society in general one of the
enduring outcomes of the Lau ruling is the polarizing effect of acquiring the English language.
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind was the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which was characterized by increased accountability. It purposefully included
ELLs in accountability systems at the state level by compelling schools receiving federal funds
to test all students in grades 3-12 in reading and math (Genesee et al., 2006). NCLB dictates the
unfeasible task that all significant student subgroups must make adequate yearly progress and be
proficient by 2014 (Bracey, 2004). According to Valencia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court
acknowledged the inadequacy of the educational experience of ELLs due to their lack of
understanding of the English language. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001 determined that
English language learners were a “significant subgroup,” thus placing a federal focus on their
needs as well as school and district accountability for their progress. Many of the studies concur
that although NCLB put the attention on ELLs and brought them to the forefront without
providing resources, the LTEL sector of ELLs continued to increase and fall further behind
academically.
While NCLB had some supporters, it also had some detractors. In 2004 the Virginia
House of Delegates referred to NCLB as an unfunded federal intrusion (Bracey, 2004). NCLB
dictated the unfeasible task that all student subgroups must make adequate yearly progress and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
27
be proficient by 2014 (Bracey, 2004). Opponents of NCLB contend that this requires systemic
capacity on behalf of school districts without providing the necessary resources. Bracey (2004)
characterizes the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law as highly restrictive law with an
overabundance of regulations which set public schools up to not make the grade and be
privatized. Though NCLB continues to have its adversaries, conscientious educational leaders
are using the legislation as a catalyst to address the academic needs of subgroups such as ELLs
(Terrell and Lindsey, 2009).
Profile and Journey of English Learners
Reclassification to Fully English Proficient
One of the crucial goals of English learner programs is for English learners to attain
sustainable academic English fluency to reclassify from English language learners to
Reclassified Fully English Proficient (RFEP). For English learners academic language
proficiency is reported by school districts as being the greatest obstacle to reclassification
(Parrish, Linquanti, Merickel, Quick, Laird, & Esra, 2002). The level of language required for
academic success is complex and attaining linguistic mastery takes from four to seven years to
master (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Empirical literature that specifically addresses the
reclassification process is scarce. Grissom (2004) argues that the reclassification rate of 30 to 32
percent after five years of United States schooling raises questions about the process itself and
merits the discussion of whether ELLs are being reclassified at an acceptable rate. Hill, Weston,
and Hayes (2014) maintain that it is difficult to compare reclassification rates and outcomes
throughout the state due to the fact that districts determine their own reclassification criteria.
Hill, Weston, and Hayes (2014) further characterize state law as being rather broad and
ambiguous about district policies to reclassify ELLs as long as they incorporate English
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
28
proficiency assessment, appraisal of basic English skills, teacher input, and some form of
communication with parents. Hill, Weston, and Hayes found that upwards of 90% of surveyed
districts reported using more rigorous criteria than recommended by the State Board of
Education guidelines. The literature suggests that there is a correlation between rigorous
reclassification criteria and low reclassification rates. Reclassifying English learners means a
change of instructional setting, which is usually characterized by a reduction in or loss of English
language development services which could adversely impact student achievement (Robinson,
2011).
The pathway for ELLs towards becoming a LTEL begins in elementary school and the
obligation to reclassify ELLs during this critical stage cannot be oversimplified. Educational
changes on the horizon might have important implications for reclassification of students. The
population of ELLs will be impacted by two significant policy shifts in K-12 education. The
assessments and criteria for reclassification will change in the coming years due to new
assessments being developed to align with the Common Core State Standards (Hill, Weston, &
Hayes, 2014). The Local Control Funding Formula may reduce districts’ motivation to
reclassify students by increasing funding for large English learner populations while neglecting
funding for RFEP students (Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014).
Statistics and Demographics
The demographics of K-12 students have changed dramatically in recent history. Non-
English speaking students represent the fastest growing segment of the United States student
population (Genesee et al., 2006). From the early 1990’s to the beginning of the new millennium
the nationwide demographics of ELLs expanded by 84% while the K-12 population increased by
only 10% (Walqui, 2006). According to Genesee et al. (2006) from 1991 to 2002 the number of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
29
ELLs in K-12 grew 95 percent while total national enrollment increased by only 12 percent. The
diversity of ELLs consists of more than 400 languages. The largest concentrations include 80
percent Spanish speakers, Vietnamese two percent, and Hmong 1.6 percent (Genesee et al.,
2006). English learners are entering U.S. schools at every grade level at different times of the
year creating a significant challenge for schools trying to meet their English language
development needs (Genesee et al., 2006).
Between 2000 and 2010 the Latino population increased from 35.3 million to 50.5
million and is projected to increase by 17.8% by 2020. In addition, by 2050 the population for
this group is expected to spike by 24.4% to 102.6 million (Aud et al., 2012). Likewise, the report
accentuated that between 1990 and 2010 the Latino public school enrollment escalated from 5.1
million to 12.1 million students, rising from 12% to 23% (Aud et al., 2012). Similarly, Gándara,
Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly and Callahan (2003) illuminate the concept that public schools are
symbolic of the diverse communities in which they serve, and therefore, have the important
responsibility of providing equal educational opportunities to all students, regardless of race,
gender, and socioeconomic status.
Moreover, the total number of enrolled public school students in the United States is 48
million, and of that number, 4.7 million are ELLs (Aud et al., 2012). Better yet, the percentage
of this population moved up two percentage points between 2000-01 to 2009-10—from 3.7
million to 4.7 million. As it stands, California has the largest concentration of ELLs, amounting
to 29% attending public schools (Aud et al., 2012). It is fairly common for ELLs to have missed
several years of schooling. Ruiz de Velasco and Fix (2000) uncovered that 12 percent of all
middle school and 20 percent of high school English learners have missed two or more years of
schooling. Research has also uncovered that one’s identification as an ELL further puts he/she at
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
30
high-risk of eventual high school dropout (August & Shanahan, 2006; Bowman-Perrott, Herrera,
& Murry, 2010).
Underachievement
At a national level, English learners along with blacks continue to perform in the bottom
quartiles of achievement in English and math from elementary through secondary. In the 2003
NAEP reading assessment given to fourth graders, black and Hispanic students scored at the
bottom of performance results significantly below white students. Bracey (2004) affirms that 39
percent of white students scored proficient, while only 13 percent of Hispanics and 10 percent of
blacks. This is an important statistic because according to Genesee et al. (2006) 80 percent of
ELLs are Hispanic. For over a decade, California has led the nation in number of ELLs. There is
a 75% likelihood that an English learner who enrolls in kindergarten in California will not
reclassify to FEP and ultimately become an LTEL (Olsen, 2010a). By the time English learners
arrive to secondary there is a significant disparity between their social language skills and their
academic discourse skillset. They have weak academic language and substantial deficits in
reading and writing skills (Olsen, 2010b). While English language learners (ELLs) are the
fastest growing segment of the secondary school population, there is a significant portion of
Latino ELLs who are not factored into the equation due to the fact that they drop out of high
school (Calderón et al., 2011). Research shows that there is an achievement gap between native
English speaking students and ELLs (English language learners). More specifically, the dropout
rate of ELLs in the class of 2012 was 23.7%, compared to the dropout rate of all students in the
class of 2012 at 13.2% (CDE).
An issue that permeates much of the scholarly literature on the underachievement and
high school dropout rate of ELLs is the problematic system of tracking students (Olsen, 2010b;
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
31
Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valdés, 2004). According to the research, English learners are too often
clustered with other ELLs of the same language level, therefore creating an atmosphere of
alienation from the general body of students. This realm of disconnect from other native
speakers, or those at a higher proficiency level, can essentially place sole responsibility on the
teacher to model the language skills necessary for students to interact with the language and
experience it through authentic situations (Olsen, 2010b). Furthermore, Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students were, and in some areas continue to be, grouped in a manner that
assumes their backgrounds, experiences, and collective needs are similar. The reality is very
different and consists of a variety of language, academic, and social needs. By middle school
years, students become self-aware of their placement tracks, and if they are consistently placed in
low-level or remedial classes, a demoralization effect can occur, robbing him/her from engaging
in their academics to their full potential (Barth & Haycock, 2004; Lopez, 2003).
Recent findings from the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth (2006) offer a possible explanation for the poor performance of ELLs in low-level ELD
classes or remedial courses: a lack of motivation. In other words, if students are grouped with
the same peers for most of their day, and instruction is dumbed down or uninspired, the low
expectations set by teachers will breed low student performance (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Conversely, the increased literacy development of ELLs in high-level classes will yield higher
levels of student performance and self-efficacy. This research suggests that the differences in the
literacy development of ELLs at similar levels of academic proficiency, who are enrolled in
different tracks, may well be due to the quality of rigorous instruction focused on complex
literacy skills (provided in high-level classes) as compared to an overall emphasis on word-level
skills (in lower-level classes) (Lesaux & Geva, 2006). Simply put, students who are challenged
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
32
and confronted with rigorous learning objectives and are provided ample support structures, are
more motivated/engaged to reach proficiency in the content areas than if they are placed in lower
level classes where the instruction is un-engaging, teacher directed, and focused solely on
language development.
California’s public school system attempts to meet the needs of ELLs are widening the
achievement gap by failing to provide all students equal access to curriculum and desired
educational outcomes, with the end point being high school graduation (Bennett, 2001;
Bensimon, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valencia, 2002). Olsen (2010a) found
that during the last decade the achievement gap between English learners and English speakers
has widened. Exasperating this dilemma, Olsen (2010b) asserts that the majority (59%) of
secondary school ELLs are long-term English learners (LTELs); these are ELLs who fail to meet
the exiting criteria of a district-adopted English Language Development (ELD) program within a
six-year span.
Factors that have been linked to ELLs becoming LTELs are free and reduced lunch
status, student gender, suspension, retention, mobility, and math achievement scores at grade 8
(Kim, 2011; Olsen, 2010b). These factors tend to play a crucial role in determining whether or
not an ELL eventually drops out of high school, or whether he/she perseveres through these
obstacles by way of an institutional agent (Kim, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Additional
factors that contribute towards ELLs transitioning into LTELs are limited access to the full
curriculum, a history of inconsistent placements, minimal English language development
support, and social and linguistic isolation (Olsen, 2010a).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
33
Long Term English Language Learners
Although the concept and identification of LTEL students is not new, addressing their
language development and academic needs as a constituency has recently been called out by
ELL researchers, research institutes, and education advocates of state and national prominence.
Such organizations include the National Council of Teachers of English, Californians Together,
and the Public Policy Institute of California. Meeting LTEL needs systemically continues to be a
challenge. As far back as 1995, a California Tomorrow publication put forth five classifications
for secondary ELLs, which included the term LTEL and is, in part, responsible for the term
being more widely used in education today (Olsen, 2010b).
Adding complexity to the issue of LTEL students is the reality that there is no uniform
state or national definition for what constitutes a long-term English learner. Still, there are
enough similarities across studies that create a general understanding that LTELs have been in
United States schools upwards of at least five or six consecutive years. Olsen (2010b) found that
in addition to number of years trying to reach proficiency, struggling academically with minimal
if any language development progress were essential to the definition of an LTEL student.
Characteristics
A Long Term English Learner (LTEL) is a student who has been attending United States
schools for a minimum of six years, has become stagnant in the progression towards English
proficiency and is struggling educationally (Olsen, 2010b). The literature on LTELs hovers
around systemic issues, instructional practices, and transiency. Until recently, a disproportionate
amount of the literature had been focused at the elementary level. Researchers have started to
take note of this previously discounted group of ELLs. Recent findings are uncovering the
diversity as well as the wide-ranging needs of LTELs. The United States has a history of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
34
neglecting the needs of language minority students. Verdugo (2006) argues that in the history of
the United States, language has been a barrier to success that Latino English learner students
must overcome which becomes more impenetrable with each succeeding year of schooling. This
is especially true in secondary where the majority of LTEL students can be found.
Despite the fact that LTEL students prefer to speak English and can pass for native
English speakers socially, they lack the necessary language to develop more in-depth social and
academic conversations (Menken & Kleyn, 2009). It is not uncommon for them to go
undetected as LTELs in mainstream social circles. They also lack preparation for rigorous
literacy tasks and discourse, which will be essential for CCSS. According to Olsen (2010b), the
long time educational belief was that by focusing on English Learners in the primary grades, by
the time they reached secondary they would be able to function academically on par with English
proficient students. This might have been possible if ELLs were consistently and systematically
receiving quality ELD instruction. The assumption was that English language learners, in
middle and high school, would be a small cohort of new arrivals. Olsen (2010b) found that the
vast majority of English Learners in secondary were born in the United States and have attended
United States schools since kindergarten. About 59% of California’s English learners in
secondary are long-term English learners who after at least six years of United States schooling
are not yet academically proficient (Olsen, 2010a). While researchers have addressed the
characteristics and experiences of LTEL students, very few studies have focused in-depth on the
causes that contributed to their truncated language development process.
LTEL students with an understanding of the culture and command of the social language
have significantly different needs than newly arrived immigrants (Jacobs, 2008). They can blend
in socially with the English-speaking mainstream and their academic deficiencies often go
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
35
undetected outside of the classroom. This is particularly true in middle and high schools where
the vast majority of LTEL students begin to surface in significant numbers.
Proliferation
The rapidly growing population in secondary of LTELs at a national level, combined
with the impact of the educational system’s failure to meet their needs, is cause for urgent
concern and action. Although the term Long Term English Learner (LTEL) is relatively new in
the lexicon of United States education, the challenge is not. The Urban Institute report of 2005,
estimated that more than half of English language learners in secondary were U.S. born.
In California, ELLs who enroll in kindergarten have a 75% chance of becoming a Long
Term English Learner (Olsen, 2010b). Seventh through twelfth grade English language learner
students are the fastest growing segment of the student population characterized by lower
academic proficiency and graduation rates than white native students (Calderón, Slavin, &
Sanchez, 2011). With the new implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in
most of the states including California, the depth and rigorous language demands for LTEL
students will be significantly increased. The new CCSS heighten the complexity of the use of
the English language in interdisciplinary work, which will raise specific challenges for English
learners already struggling with rudimentary English (Hill, 2012).
Unquestionably the most academically neglected sector of ELLs is the LTEL
demographic. Their needs have been historically and systematically ignored. It has been easy to
overlook LTEL students because they tend to be quiet, well behaved, and blend effortlessly into
the background. Teachers comment that LTELs in general do not have discipline concerns and
are better behaved than native English speakers (Olsen, 2010b). Studies have recently focused on
this previously overlooked sub-group of the English language learner population. The scope of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
36
these latest studies is extending beyond the LTEL terminology. They are uncovering the
complexity, diversity, and challenges of LTEL students in secondary.
For example, in secondary schools, LTEL students are frequently placed either in the
same classes as recent immigrants who don’t speak English or in mainstream classes without
support. The basis for this placement is their command of the social language and culture. It is
frequently assumed by teachers that their social and conversational English skills parallel their
academic English skills. Olsen (2010b) found that English learner placement in regular English
classes without assistance produced the worst academic performance results. ELLs in secondary
are notoriously grouped in ELD classes with no native English role models and one teacher left
to differentiate language instruction and facilitate language development for exceedingly varied
levels of English proficiency (Calderón et al., 2011).
According to linguistic research on second language acquisition, English learners in
linguistically secluded communities and classrooms are missing a critical motivation component,
which is the ability to interact with native speakers (Olsen, 2010b). The LTEL population is a
likely result of numerous students lacking academic assistance to develop the English language
in the context of core subjects (Torlakson, 2012). This implies that existing structures and
instructional practices are inadequate to support the development sustainability of academic
English language, thus truncating LTELs possibilities of reclassifying as FEP and exiting ELD.
This has major implications for ELLs in secondary because their time in ELD and SDAIE
classes will often preclude them from fulfilling course requirements necessary for high school
graduation.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
37
Academic Performance Statistics
At a national level LTEL students continue to characterize the lowest quartiles of
academic achievement (Olsen, 2010b). The academic gaps begin to surface in grades fourth
through sixth. Eighth grade ELLs are consistently at the bottom of the performance bands.
Shedding light on secondary ELLs, Olsen (2010b) detailed that “by eleventh grade, 74% of
English Learners are at Below and Far Below Basic levels in Algebra 1, and 78% in language
arts” (21). It is essential to mention that the majority of ELLs in secondary are LTEL students
who have not been able to meet reclassification criteria. School districts in California determine
their own reclassification criteria (Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014). Hill (2012) argues that the
urge for reclassification implies that the education and scholarly advancement of ELLs is
compromised by their status when in fact reclassification does not always guarantee or translate
into increased access to rigorous academic content for second language learners.
Effective Instructional Practices
Since few districts have formal approaches to serving LTELs, this subgroup of ELLs
receives varying degrees of language support, if at all, most notably at the secondary school
levels (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Olsen, 2010a). As a point of contention,
Lucas et al., (2008) maintains that “conversational language proficiency is fundamentally
different from academic language proficiency, and it takes many more years for an ELL to
become fluent in the latter than in the former” (363). This point is significant because it places
careful consideration on the necessity for a student to move beyond casual conversational skills
that require minimal levels of formal register, and in turn, is provided access to comprehensible
input that is just beyond their current level of competence, with opportunities to produce output
for meaningful purposes (Lucas et al., 2008). Effective instructional practices are necessary to
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
38
prevent ELLs from becoming LTELs and to support ELLs once they have become LTELs. Olsen
(2008b) suggests the following basic principles to guide an effective ELL/LTEL instructional
program:
1. Specialized language development courses
2. Clustered placement in heterogeneous and rigorous grade-level content classes
(including honors, A-G) mixed with English proficient students and taught with
differentiated instructional strategies
3. Explicit language and literacy development across the curriculum
4. Native speaker classes (articulated sequence through Advanced Placement levels)
5. Placement for accelerated progress and maximum rigor paired with formal systems
for monitoring success
6. School-wide focus on study skills, metacognition, and learning strategies
7. Data chats, CELDT preparation and support, and testing accommodations
8. Inclusive, affirming school climate and relevant texts.
It is evident that if a school district is to seriously address the needs of their ELLs, especially
those who are in danger of becoming LTELs, it must seek to implement some if not all of the
aforementioned principles into the educational structure. After all, the role of a school district is
to ensure high quality programs for all students, including ELLs.
Factors Influencing Underachievement of English Learners
Socioeconomic Factors
In addition to race, language, and gender, most NCLB and state-level accountability
structures require student achievement data to be disaggregated by socioeconomic status thus
making poverty a viable subject of discussion in schools (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Students
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
39
living in impoverished communities seem to lack the caliber of learning experiences available to
students in affluent communities. Terrell and Lindsey (2009) affirm that a disproportionate
number of African American, Latino, and Native American people are below the “poverty line”
in the United States. Olsen (2010b) contends that facility and curriculum inequities in poor
community schools are hindering the academic language development of ELLs due to
compromised educational experiences. Bensimon (2004) addresses the dichotomy of many
institutions regarding equity, a highly valued principle philosophically while simultaneously not
having accountability structures in place for the academic outcomes of particular groups of
students. Poverty seems to be a cause for transiency as parents migrate from one place to
another in search of work. For English learners whose families are struggling financially,
schools may be their only opportunity to break the cycle of poverty (Calderón et al., 2011).
According to Hill (2012), poverty rates for K-12 ELLs in California range from 74% to 85%
compared to the overall poverty rate of 21%.
Motivation Factors
English Learners do not believe they are capable of developing academic language in
English. This lack of self-efficacy impacts the mental effort they are willing to invest in the task.
Self-efficacy is students’ conclusions about their potential to do what is necessary to build
capacity. It is a critical motivational variable for English learners that impact their success.
Closing or even narrowing the self-efficacy motivation gap is complex and requires an extended
period of time. In the area of academic motivation, self-efficacy beliefs are prominent and have
received increasing attention in educational research (Pajares, 1996). Beliefs about an
individual’s ability take time and skillfulness to reframe. It is not uncommon for ELL students
especially in secondary to regress in their California English Language Development Test
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
40
(CELDT) scores due to a variety of factors including a significant lack of motivation. English
learners on the way to becoming LTEL students develop some characteristics and behaviors that
further impact their academic development and progress. According to Olsen (2010a), by the
time they get to secondary they have become unmotivated, disengaged, and invisible in school
settings.
Motivation research provides a clear framework for addressing the motivation
performance needs of English Learners thus creating the conditions for them to be proactive on
their own behalf. It has been established that motivation performance is comprised of three
elements. Zoltán (1998) emphasizes that researchers and educators have broadly accepted the
notion that motivation is one of the fundamental elements that influences successful development
of a second language. There is a consensus amongst researchers that there are three indicators of
motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice is
an individual’s willingness to actively pursue an objective. Utility value can impact active
choice. If students do not see the relevance of a skill or task to their current and future personal
goals, they will not make the choice to actively pursue the skill or task. Persistence is the
disposition and ability to stay focused in the face of distractions. Mental effort is characterized
by cognitive discipline and determination.
Long Term English Learners do not see the value of developing their English language
skills. This is indicative of an active choice problem in the area of motivation performance.
Often times ELLs on their way to becoming LTELs do not believe there is any utility value to
developing academic language in English. In other words, students do not see the relevance of
this undertaking to their current and future personal goals. As a result, at-risk ELLs do not make
the choice to actively pursue the academic development of the English language. The lack of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
41
initiating the pursuit of this goal constitutes an active choice problem. English Language
Learners lack the belief that they are capable of cultivating their academic language skillset in
English. This indicates there is likely a motivation performance problem in the area of mental
effort. Self-efficacy is students’ conclusions about their potential to do what is necessary to
build capacity. Students’ lack of English language development self-efficacy in developing
academic language represents a mental effort hindrance.
The issue of student motivation is another layer to the learning process that an
educational leader can tap into to dramatically improve the educational experience of an ELL.
Research suggests that school connectedness is one of the most powerful indicators of student
motivation that exists (Maxwell, 2012; Skokut, 2010). In addition, one of the most frequently
cited reasons that students listed for dropping out of school, according to a survey by Ekstrom
and colleagues, was simply “did not like school” (Skokut, 2010). Similarly, research conducted
by Rumberger, found that dropouts from white, black, and Hispanic ethnic backgrounds all cited
“disliked school” most frequently out of a survey of options for why they dropped out of school
(Skokut, 2010). Moreover, scholars suggest that the disassociation from school experienced by
Latino students is likely related to the marginalization that they often experience in schools and
society at large (Kim, 2011; Skokut, 2010). The link between liking school and feeling
connected to school has also been shown to be a positive influence on school completion (Kim,
2011; Skokut, 2010).
English Language Development Programs
Feasibility and relevance of content, classroom instruction and teacher beliefs play a
significant role in student achievement. According to Olsen (2010b), substantial research
literature cites the significance of linguistic and culturally responsive pedagogy, which delineate
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
42
the value of eliciting students’ life experiences for the purpose of developing student identity and
voice. Pedagogy that draws on students’ daily-lived realities affords students the opportunity to
connect new knowledge and abstract language to that which they already know. Children bring
to school cultural awareness, community information, and discourse used for negotiating
everyday life effectively (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 1992; Vásquez, Pease-Alvarez, &
Shannon, 1994).
District and school structures are not developed to meet the diverse needs of linguistically
disenfranchised students. While ELL students on their way to becoming LTELs share some
characteristics, they are not a homogenous entity. They have been categorized into two major
classifications, which include transnational students, and students whose United States schooling
is inconsistent (Menken & Kleyn, 2009). The experience of transnational students is
characterized by moves between their home country and the United States. They go back and
forth between U.S. schools and schools in their home country. Menken and Kleyn (2009)
contend that LTELs with inconsistent schooling are the recipients of incoherent instruction or
disjointed language development within or across schools. Students with inconsistent schooling
have often moved through a variety of programs and districts within the United States (Menken,
Kleyn, & Chae, 2012). Often times these inconsistencies are within the same school due to the
lack of program coherence and/or fidelity.
Instructional methodology and pedagogy are critical elements in addressing the
underachievement of ELLs. Learning experiences for English Language Learners need to be
designed to offer opportunities for students to be successful in core classes with academic
language while simultaneously challenging them. With ELLs there is a fine line between
building dependency and building capacity. Carefully designed and calibrated tasks will ensure
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
43
students are building capacity. The motivation solution self-efficacy principle states that well-
defined feedback, as well as actual success on challenging tasks will positively influence
learners’ perceptions of competence. Practice, which is goal-directed and combined with clear
and relevant feedback, is essential to the learning process (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Genesee et al. (2006) assert that English learners come to the United States with non-
traditional and traditional literacy resources in their primary language. An educational leader can
efficaciously contribute to the positive self-identity of a student through the strategic
implementation of multicultural education to promote the richness of diversity, and to affirm all
cultures and learning styles (Bennett, 2001; Chavez & Guido-DiBrito, 1999; Friere, 1993;
Gorski, 2008; Smith-Maddox & Solórzano, 2002). Bennett’s (2001) “Conceptual Framework of
Research Genres” addresses curriculum reform, equity pedagogy, societal equity, and
multicultural competence, all of which places the responsibility on the educational leader to set
the “stage” for an equal distribution of instructional support, by which all students are actively
engaged in the content, and have equitable access to positive educational gains.
Within Bennett’s (2001) framework, specifically through the equity pedagogy and
societal equity clusters, the instructional leader has the potential to facilitate even greater
movement towards equity by utilizing Freire’s (1993) methodology of “problem-posing
education.” In using this method of multicultural education, students are encouraged to identify
social problems, analyze the causes of those social problems, and subsequently identify solutions
to the social problems (Smith-Maddox & Solórzano, 2002). This powerful dialogue not only
holds the educational leader accountable with understanding the diverse experiences of his/her
students, but it also empowers the students with a realization that they do not have to quietly
accept the oppression put upon them, but instead, they collectively (educational leader and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
44
students) construct an awareness by which they must challenge, create, and recreate knowledge
that can empower the oppressed to better resist their subordinate status (Bennett, 2001; Chavez
& Guido-DiBrito, 1999; Lopez, 2003; Smith-Maddox & Solórzano, 2002).
Teacher skillset and disposition play a critical role in the academic achievement of
disenfranchised students. Several of the studies reference the dissonance in public education
between what is reported and promoted and the reality of what happens in the classroom on a
daily basis. In an overburdened system, esteemed programs and instructional approaches are a
direct reflection of what is valued in the organization. Compliance audits from the California
Department of Education revealed that one of the most widespread violations in school districts
is the insufficiency of English language development (Olsen, 2010b). Failure to swiftly meet the
multi-dimensional social and academic needs ELLs and the rapidly increasing subgroup of
secondary LTEL students might result in the dead-end future that courts were trying to thwart.
Teachers of ELLs need to be well versed in differentiating curriculum to welcome
students’ life experiences and cultural knowledge in a manner that connects students to the
content. Welcoming funds of knowledge into schools and classrooms that students have
accumulated through their daily lives and social interactions validates their culture and language
(Moll & Spear-Ellinwood, 2012). To build teacher capacity, staff development on deciphering
language demands of each task and lesson will be necessary to expand content specific academic
vocabulary of LTEL students. This is an important step in improving rigorous learning
experiences and academic achievement for English learners and preventing them from becoming
Long Term English Learners. This is essential for reclassification to fully English proficient and
a prerequisite for long-term academic success.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
45
Orchestrating experiences and opportunities for LTEL students to develop personal
connections with the Institutional Agents and opportunities for personal identification and
involvement with schools is essential. Personal connections impact student engagement and
active choice. They are especially important for at-risk English learners. For often-neglected
LTEL students, adult mentorships make a difference in academic achievement (Olsen, 2010b).
Research has shown that a strong positive relationship with school staff can increase the
likelihood of raising a student’s academic and postsecondary aspirations (Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Tavitian, 2013). Teacher expectations influence professional efforts. Moss and Puma (1995)
report that a congressional study revealed that ELLs are considered by their teachers to have
lower academic abilities and receive lower grades. Teachers play a critical role in targeting
differentiated teaching strategies to address the academic gaps of ELLs, and to support student
access to the content (Bennett, 2001; Johnson, 2006; Olsen, 2010a; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Planning for each lesson should be inclusive of the language demands of the content being
taught, and lead to focused language objectives, which are separate from content objectives
(Olsen, 2010a).
Theoretical Framework of Leadership Influencing English Learner Achievement
Social Justice and Equity
National, state, and district student achievement data indicate access barriers for specific
groups of students. Terrell and Lindsey (2009) argue that insightful conscientious leaders are
necessary to shift the focus from “it is the fault of the student” to “how can we change as an
organization to better meet student needs.” Equity consists of access to resources in proportion
to identified student needs (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Quite often the needs of underserved
student subgroups are addressed with substandard materials and inexperienced personnel.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
46
Resources utilized in the name of equity need to include high quality human expertise (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). Critical research advocates for the equitable educational outcomes of all
students, regardless of race, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status, through the judicious use
of institutional agents for which he/she can gain access to the critical resources necessary for the
furthering of his/her educational goals and aspirations (Bensimon, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Bennett, 2001; Iverson, 2007). Terrell and Lindsey (2009) argue that for two generations the
quest to provide equitable access to education has been in motion. In regards to this model, the
inequality of educational outcomes functions as a learning problem traced back to the
“institutional actors,” namely faculty members, administrators, teachers, counselors, who are
responsible for either offering up or withholding social capital (Bourdieu) which could largely
determine whether an underrepresented student experiences educational success or not
(Bensimon, 2005).
For the past fifty years it has been an ongoing national struggle to provide equitable
educational opportunities to English learners and students from low socioeconomic levels
(Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Achievement disparities correlate with poverty, gender, and students
being fluent in a language other than English (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). This research asserts
that as educational leaders concerned with the equity/equality of all students, especially the
underrepresented and/or disenfranchised, it is paramount that he/she strives to even the score for
these students by serving as the institutional agent who will provide access for them to use the
“freeways” toward academic success (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). No Child Left Behind and many
state measures and initiatives necessitate moral district and school level leadership to address the
enduring access and achievement gaps for disenfranchised students. Access and equity efforts
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
47
can be supported by certain aspects of NCLB, which allows for addressing social justice issues
on a regular basis (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Cultural Proficiency
Culturally proficient leaders understand, value, and utilize students’ cultural backgrounds
and languages to fulfill the commitment to high levels of learning for all students (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). Cordasco (1969) argued that the intent of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968
was for education institutions that serve young students in an equitable society to build on the
strengths they bring to the classrooms. Culturally proficient educational leaders have made the
paradigm shift from the mainstream culture of tolerating problematic underperforming student
subgroups to a commitment to pedagogy of social justice and equity (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Stanton-Salazar (1997) contends that Institutional Agents such as teachers and counselors play a
pivotal role in the diffusion of resources and opportunities for low-status students. ELL students
are frequently intimidated by the unknown power structures in the system of education.
Realizing the governing “culture of power” within the school environment is especially difficult
for many minority children and youth (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Cultural proficiency is a global
perspective reflecting specific principles, language, and norms for professional practice and
interpersonal communication (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Policy, Governance, and Leadership
Across the nation and more specifically in California, ELLs are a significant and rapidly
growing group making it an urgent concern for school leaders to take notice and develop a plan
to meet their needs (Kleyn & Menken, 2009). This includes education policy makers and
instructional leaders at all levels of the educational system. Essential to planning effective
education for ELLs and the LTEL subgroup of secondary students is correlating language
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
48
domains with systematic reviews of current findings and using results to bridge articulation
between educators and researchers (Genesee et al., 2006). In various aspects of education, there
has been a long standing lack of communication and disconnect between researchers and
practitioners. Staff development and alignment of policies and procedures in public education
are in urgent need of reform. Any degree of reform at this stage must be buttressed with a
comprehensive plan for sustainability. Protocols for classification and placement of ELL students
and the adults responsible for their learning and language development are important factors to
address at all levels of the K-12 system.
Successful superintendent and site-level leadership can be examined through the four-part
model delineated by Bolman and Deal (2008). It provides a four-frame representation of
leadership to recognize distinctive lenses and skills needed by organizational leaders for different
purposes. Bolman and Deal (2008) assert that the four frames comprised of structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic components, are intended to support organizational leaders in
being effective. They support organizational ethics by embodying excellence, caring, justice,
and faith. Marzano and Waters (2006) assert that the expertise and talent of organizational
leaders to respond to organizational and stakeholder demands positively influence student
achievement. An organizational leader such as a district superintendent needs to foster site-level
trust and leadership to fulfill the strategic plan of the district by promoting collective
responsibility (Miller, 2004). Flexibility on behalf of organizational leaders to operate within all
four frames of Bolman and Deal (2008) will capitalize on their effectiveness by selecting the
suitable frame for the purpose at hand. The talent to navigate the four-frames would afford
district superintendents to address English language learner needs at all levels of the
organization.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
49
Conclusion
In order for educational leaders to meet the diverse and complex language acquisition
needs of English learners, they need to establish capacity building systems to develop English
learner instructional expertise among teachers and principals (Olsen, 2010b). NCLB at
minimum provides the impetus for educational leaders to have courageous conversations
necessary to address the language acquisition needs of the rapidly growing population of
students in K-12 (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Recognizing that public schools are not meeting the
needs of all students equitably may be the most enduring legacy of the Lau decision (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). Organizational leaders need to be well versed in systemic and instructional
practices impacting achievement of English learners. The inability of ELLs to reclassify and join
the mainstream adversely impacts their future success. At the district-level, it is the moral and
ethical responsibility of the superintendent to ensure the academic achievement of English
learners.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
50
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The role of a school superintendent is crucial to the direction of a school district. As
leader, the superintendent plays various roles in interacting with differing stakeholders to achieve
success. The superintendent is held responsible for successfully managing human resources,
fiscal responsibilities, safety of those within the district, and student achievement.
Superintendents are charged with implementing strategies to improve the academic achievement
of all students (Fuller, et al., 2003).
According to a 2010 report from the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), which
represents the largest urban schools districts across the United States, the average tenure of a
superintendent associated with CGCS was 3.64 years. Grissom and Andersen (2012) discovered
that 45% of the 216 superintendents they studied left within three years. Considering this, it
critical for a superintendent to maximize the efforts of the district in meeting its goals and vision
towards the success of all students, including ELLs.
There is limited information on the leadership of California school superintendents and
their impact on student academic achievement in both English Language Arts and Math.
Whitsett (2007) asserts that much has been written on the subject of business management
leadership, but very little research has been conducted on educational leadership. This is of
particular importance as the district superintendent spearheads the district’s vision and strategic
plan addressing the needs of various student groups, included the educational needs of ELLs. In
addition, an organizational leader such as a district superintendent needs to foster site-level trust
and leadership to fulfill the strategic plan of the district by promoting collective responsibility
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
51
(Miller, 2004). Previous studies have investigated the leadership styles of school principals
(DeMoss, 2002; Pepper, 2010; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2010), but not of superintendents. Studies
that have involved school superintendents have mainly focused on districts outside the state of
California (Bird &Wang, 2013; Fenn & Mixon, 2011; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Trevino, Braley,
Brown, & Slate, 2008).
One particular subgroup that requires the attention of school superintendents is the ELL
population. In the United States, nearly 61 million people (21% of the overall national
population) ages five and older, speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 2011). The state of California has one of the largest English Language Learner
(ELL) student populations in the nation. From 2011 to 2014 there were between 1.4-1.6 million
ELLs who represented 22- 25 percent of the overall student population in California schools
(Garcia Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011; Hill, Weston, Hayes, 2014). For all students, but most
notably ELLs, meeting challenging academic standards involves developing a strong command
of the English language, especially in terms of its academic uses (Saunders, Foorman, & Carlson,
2006). Currently, the federal government requires state accountability systems to include ELLs
in high stakes testing, thus holding teachers, students, and schools accountable for their academic
progress, even if students cannot read the test they are taking, or even if students have not been
exposed to the academic content on which they are being evaluated (Rios-Aguilar, Gonzalez-
Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012). For these reasons, the strategies a superintendent implements to
support the academic performance of ELLs is critical to both the students’ and district’s overall
success. Chapter 1 discussed the overview of the study and Chapter 2 provided a review of the
literature regarding the research topic. This chapter provides an outline of both the study and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
52
methodology. It specifically includes the purpose of the study, research questions, research
design, sample population, instrumentation, data collection protocols, and data analysis process.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the strategies large district superintendents in California
employed to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies do small school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by small school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Rationale for Mixed Methods Study Design
Maxwell (2013) states that the purpose of the study is a key component of the research
design. With this in mind, a mixed methods approach was used because it allowed the collection
of data in both quantitative and qualitative forms and provided a more complete understanding of
the research problem than the use of a singular form (Creswell, 2014). The quantitative portion
of the study design provided the opportunity to place a numeric value on the attitudes and
opinions of the sample population where inferences could be drawn. Qualitative data obtained
through interviews enabled the researcher to obtain a rich understanding of how participants
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
53
interpreted their experiences, thoughts, feeling, and decisions (Merriam, 2014). The
triangulation of the data through the use of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews
reduced the weaknesses found if using a singular study method (Creswell, 2014).
Research Design
This study was designed using a mixed methods approach. The quantitative portion of
the design provided the opportunity to place a numeric value on the attitudes and opinions of the
sample population where inferences could be drawn to assist with the purposeful selection of
participants for the qualitative portion of the mixed methods study. The qualitative portion of the
mixed methods approach was used to better understand the perceptions that small school district
superintendents in California had about his or her leadership strategies and its relationship to
meeting ELLs academic achievement.
Sample Population
The study used purposeful sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2014), which allowed the
researcher to select active superintendents who have served at their current position for at least
two years. This population of superintendents served small school districts in California with a
student population of 3000-5000 students and whose district is over the state average EL
percentage of 22.7%. Superintendents for the qualitative interviews were purposefully selected
based on their responses to improving the academic achievement of ELLs on the quantitative
portion of the mixed methods approach.
Instrumentation
The qualitative and quantitative instruments listed below facilitated the research and
ensured that a consistent approach was used in collecting the data for the inquiry process. The
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
54
alignment between the four research questions and the quantitative and qualitative questions used
for the study is outlined in Appendix A.
Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative data was captured through Google Form, an online survey tool. 42 questions
were selected for the survey based off a review of the literature. The survey questions addressed
the following focused areas with regards to ELL academic achievement: (a) strategies used; (b)
superintendent’s implementation of plans; (c) stakeholders as obstacles; (d) allocation of
resources; and (e) monitoring and evaluating academic progress. The quantitative survey was
comprised of the following types of questions: (a) six demographic questions; (b) one question to
determine the willingness to participate in a follow up interview; and (c) 35 Likert style
questions (Appendix B) associated with the four research questions.
Superintendents in this study were able to rate their response to the survey questions on a
scale of 1-4 where “1” signified strongly disagree, “2” signified disagree, “3” signified neutral,
“4” signified agree, and “5” signified strongly agree. This format allowed the researcher to
quantify the level of support for each specific survey item.
Qualitative Instrumentation
A semi structured interview (Appendix C) protocol with ten open-ended questions was
selected for the study. This format enabled the interviewer and participant to stay focused within
the fixed amount of time (1 hour) and provided an easier means to data analysis (Creswell, 2014;
Patton, 2002). In addition, Merriam (2014) asserted that interviews are a means of gathering
data when the researcher seeks to understand how people interpret the phenomenon or when the
behavior cannot be observed. Weiss (1994) reiterated the notion by stating that interviews are a
means by which a researcher can learn what people perceive and how those perceptions are
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
55
interpreted. The semi-structured interview format generated a consistent structure that was
focused on the research questions while providing the flexibility to move in a direction that may
have not been initially recognized by the researcher. For this study, multiple questions, leading
questions, and yes-or-no questions were removed. According to Merriam (2014), multiple
questions are when the researcher asks multiple questions in a single question, leading questions
are when the researcher reveals a bias or assumption within the question, and yes-or-no questions
are those which only require a yes or no response. Probes were inserted to provide an
opportunity for rich details to emerge. These questions allowed the researcher to dig deeper by
attaining further clarity or elaboration on a particular response about the research topic. The
questions were designed to give the participants an opportunity to share the successful strategies
implemented to increase the academic achievement of ELLs.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Strategies outlined in Maxwell (2013) were used to address credibility and
trustworthiness issues. Methods such as triangulation, rich data, numbers, and comparison were
selected as methods to ensure the credibility of the findings. Triangulation of the survey and
interview data was conducted to cross reference codes and categories noticed in each data set.
Rich data was compiled for this study through transcribed interview notes that were also
recorded. The third method of using numbers enabled this study to calculate the evidence in the
data that bears on a specific conclusion of threat (Maxwell, 2013). Finally, a comparison of
multiple subjects was conducted to address any validity threats. Although not absolute, the
addition of multiple participants allows for an increase in internal generalizability.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
56
Data Collection Protocols
Data Collection was divided into two discrete stages. The first stage was composed of
the quantitative data collection, consisting of survey data of the participating superintendent from
the online tool Google Forms. The second stage required the collection of qualitative data from
interviews with select participants. An application was submitted to the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California to ensure those research subjects were
protected throughout the course of the study. All subjects in the study were made aware that
participation was voluntary. All identifiable data was protected beyond this study and the use of
pseudonyms was employed to protect the identity of each participant.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to superintendents in the state of California who met both the district
size and ELL population criteria. Google Forms was the online data tool used to convey and
collect survey data. Survey requests were delivered by email and included a cover letter that
described the purpose of the study and the potential impact on participation (Appendix D).
Superintendents who wished to participate followed a survey link found within the email to
access the survey questions found on Google Forms (Appendix B). The researcher sent a
courtesy phone call and follow up email to participants who failed to respond within 10 days to
the initial request.
Qualitative Data Collection
The researcher conducted interviews with five California small-sized school district
superintendents who met the sampling criteria. Superintendents who indicated their willingness
to participate in a follow up interview on the survey and whose survey responses indicated a use
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
57
of highly effective strategies to improve ELL academic achievement were selected to participate
in the hour long interview.
A single interviewer used the interview protocol (Appendix C) to conduct the interviews
with the selected participants. Subjects were informed of the purpose of the interview (Appendix
E) and were asked to confirm their consent to record the conversation. Superintendents who
were interviewed were given the opportunity to receive a final copy of the dissertation.
The interview data was captured through handwritten notes. A digital tape recorder was
used to record the interviews and the files were professionally transcribed for further analysis.
Weiss (1994) asserted that having the interview recorded is a benefit to the researcher because
verbatim quotes can be captured while the researcher focuses on the overall process as well as
the physical cues displayed by the participant. A conversational approach was attempted through
all the interviews. Morgan (1997) described an interview as a purposeful conversation to gain
information from someone. Expanded notes were added to the raw data as soon as possible.
Ethical Consideration
Various ethical concerns were addressed using Patton’s (2002) Ethical Issue Checklist.
The first method used to ensure ethical practices was done in the both the survey and interview
process. An explanation of the purpose of the study (Appendix D and E), as well as the
requesting of permission to record the conversation (Appendix E), was conducted at the start of
each data collection process. The ethical concern over confidentiality was also addressed. The
participants were informed that pseudonyms would be used for the study and that all personal
and identifying district information obtained through the surveys and interviews would remain
confidential. A final ethical concern of transparency was addressed throughout the process to
limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam, 2014).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
58
Data Analysis Procedures
For this study, the researcher critically analyzed both the quantitative and qualitative data
gleaned from the responses of superintendents in small school districts to identify the strategies,
obstacles, resource allocation, and program evaluation related to improving the academic
achievement of ELLs. The research findings were compared to the body of literature to further
validate the significance of the study.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Thirty surveys were captured by Google Forms, an online survey program, and the
results from the data were disaggregated using the online tool. The mean scores for each
question were compiled allowing the researcher to determine the level of agreement with each
research question. The information gleaned from the initial results were rated and interpreted to
determine which superintendents (who indicated a willingness to participate in an interview)
were ideal candidates for the qualitative portion of the study.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The four-step process outlined by Harding (2013) was used in the analysis of the
interview data. The first step was to identify the initial categories based on reading the interview
transcripts. Key phrases were underlined to obtain a general sense of what the data was saying.
The second step was to write codes alongside the transcribed interview notes. The researcher
followed Harding’s (2013) recommendation to summarize, select, and/or interpret the data into
manageable codes to help the researcher see beyond the details. In an effort to be thorough, the
researcher went back through the transcripts to check for codes that may have emerged from
later data sets that were analyzed. The third step was to review the list of codes and determine
which codes appear in which category. To facilitate this process, the researcher took the codes
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
59
and placed them into an excel spreadsheet. From there, codes were assigned into categories,
which ultimately determined the foundation to overarching themes. This was the fourth step to
the process.
In addition to the methods outlined in Harding (2013), the researcher also used strategies
found in Corbin and Strauss (2008) to move from open codes to analysis. The use of questioning
was used as an analytic tool to help the researcher become acquainted with the data as well as
think outside the box (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). By asking questions, the researcher was able to
better understand the problem from the participant’s perspective and was also able to analyze the
data at a deeper level by avoiding shallow findings. In addition, theoretical questions were asked
to help make connections between concepts derived from the data.
Summary
This chapter detailed the study’s purpose, research design, sample population, data
collection protocols, and data analysis processes. The overarching research goals dictated the
mixed methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection.
Surveys and interviews of California Superintendents in small school districts with an ELL
population over 22.7% were deemed applicable to the study based on purposeful, criterion-based
sampling. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the data collected as well as the major findings.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
60
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collection from the study that sought to
identify the strategies small district superintendents in California utilize to improve the academic
achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs). Research findings have the potential to abet
current and aspiring school superintendents with strategies in addressing the needs of second
language learners. Moreover, the study will provide some guidance to aspiring superintendents
on the nature of professional experiences they should acquire in order to increase their
probability of becoming district leaders who effectively improve the academic achievement of
ELLs.
This chapter represents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 29 California school district superintendents of districts with
less than 5,000 students enrolled and qualitative interviews conducted with five small district
superintendents, which served to guide this study with the following research questions:
1. What strategies do small school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by small school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
61
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify the strategies small district superintendents in
California employed to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Response Rate
Based upon the design criteria utilized for this study, 213 superintendents of small school
districts in California, with an enrollment of less than 5,000 students qualified to participate in
the quantitative survey. The survey was distributed through Google Form (an online survey
tool) to 60 superintendents of small school districts in California meeting the following criteria:
a) a student population of less than 5,000; b) at or above the state average ELL percentage of
22.7%; c) at least two years of experience as superintendent of their current district. Table 1
indicates that of the 60 potential participants, 29 opted to participate. This result yielded a
response rate of 48% of superintendents, which fulfilled the goal of the researcher (a response
rate of 40% or greater based on the average return rate for a survey conducted through email)
(Dillman, 2000).
Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to Participate No. Participated % Participated
Superintendents 60 29 48
Of the 29 superintendents who opted to participate in the quantitative survey, 16 agreed
to an interview, and 5 were selected by the researcher to participate in a qualitative interview.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
62
Interview participants were selected based on the following criteria: a) representative of a unique
county in California, b) gender, and c) participant availability for an interview.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 2 presents the gender of the 29 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Of the 29 superintendents that responded to the online survey, 58.6% were male, and
41.4% were female.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of Superintendents 17 12 29
% of Superintendents 58.6 41.4 100
These values deviate from the results of a national survey of superintendents, in which
24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated were women (Kowalski, McCord, Peterson,
Young, & Ellerson, 2011). The results of the quantitative survey yielded a variance of 17.3%.
Research has shown that the race/ethnicity of superintendents has been predominantly
White (Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Grogan, & Brunner, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2010). Table 3
reports the ethnic breakdown of the 29 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Superintendents surveyed were 3.44% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.44% Black/African
American, 31.03% Hispanic, 55.2% White, 6.89% multiracial.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
63
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
Black/
African
American Hispanic White Multiracial Total
No. of Superintendents 1 1 9 16 2 29
% of Superintendents 3.44 3.44 31.03 55.2 6.89 100
In a research report, Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that 94.1% of the 1,800 respondents
in their superintendent survey were White; however, when the percentage of ethnic students
served increased, the number of ethnic superintendents also increased (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Since the focus of this study is on superintendents serving small school districts in California
with an ELL population of at least 22.7%, the selection criteria may have influenced the ethnic
distribution of superintendents and altered the number of non-White superintendents in the
sample upward from the overall national trend.
Table 4 shows the distribution of superintendents by age, segmented into 10-year bands.
Of the 29 superintendents surveyed, 3.4% were 30-39, 13.8% were 40-49, 55.2% were 50-59,
and 27.6% were 60-69.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
64
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure
29 or
under 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69
70 or
over Total
No. of Superintendents 0 1 4 16 8 0 29
% of Superintendents 0 3.4 13.8 55.2 27.6 0 100
As can be seen in Table 4, very few superintendents were 39 and under and none were 70
and over. The number of superintendents over 60 in this study did not align with the research of
Kowalski et al. (2011), who reported that only 18.1% of the 1,867 superintendent respondents in
their nationwide survey were older than 60. The superintendents in this study were 9.5% more
likely to be over 60.
Table 5 represents the highest level of education by the 29 superintendents who
participated in the quantitative survey. Superintendents with a master’s degree were 41.4%, and
doctoral degree was 58.6%.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Highest Degree Earned
Measure
Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Other
Professional
Degree
Doctoral
Degree Total
No. of Superintendents 0 12 0 17 29
% of Superintendents 0 41.4 0 58.6 100
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
65
Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in their
nationwide survey, only 45.3% had earned doctoral degrees. This finding indicates that the
superintendents identified for this study earned doctoral degrees at a rate of 13.3% above
projected national rates.
Table 6 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent, reported by
the 29 respondents. Slightly more than one-fifth (20.7%) of superintendents surveyed had three
years or less of overall experience in the superintendency, in comparison with the 27.58% that
had more than 10 years of superintendency experience.
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience
Measure 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 or more Total
No. of Superintendents 6 8 3 4 8 29
% of Superintendents 20.7 27.6 10.3 13.8 27.6 100
Superintendents had an average of 7.9 years of experience. This result is significant
because it indicates, on average, that superintendents surveyed had taken their positions during
the era of high stakes accountability for student achievement as introduced through NCLB in
2003.
Table 7 indicates the distribution of years of experience as superintendents in their
current district, as reported by the 29 participants. Interestingly, nearly one-third (31%) of
superintendents surveyed had an experience level of 3 years or fewer in their current district.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
66
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District
Measure 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 or more Total
No. of Superintendents 9 11 1 3 5 29
% of Superintendents 31.1 38 3.4 10.3 17.2 100
On average, superintendents reported 6.3 years of tenure in their current district. This
numeric value is slightly higher than the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), which indicates that
the 1,867 superintendents who participated in a nationwide survey had an average tenure of 3.6
years.
Table 8 provides the enrollment and percentage of English language learners for each
district whose superintendent participated in the quantitative survey and opted to identify their
district. These districts surveyed ranged from 713 to 4,809 students in attendance and had an
average enrollment of 2,495. Percentage of English language learners ranged from 23% to
60.60%, and had an average of 37.98%.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
67
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Total Enrollment % Englishlanguage learners
1 4,809 47.40
2 4,509 44.60
3 4,296 25.80
4 3,397 26.60
5 3,178 23.80
6 2,887 35.00
7 2,829 44.50
8 2,742 39.70
9 2,595 60.60
10 2,299 27.30
11 2,247 24.70
12 2,201 42.80
13 1,962 30.00
14 1,620 45.40
15 1,471 30.90
16 1,232 46.50
17 1,220 23.00
18 1,206 57.00
19 713 46.10
Average 2,495 37.98
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
68
Qualitative Demographic Data
Qualitative data was gathered using one-on-one interviews with five superintendents of
small California public school districts. Of the 29 superintendents who responded to the
quantitative survey, five superintendents were selected and interviewed. Interview participants
were selected based on the following criteria: a) representative of a unique county in California,
and b) participant availability for an interview. The five superintendents that participated in the
interview have been referred to as Superintendents A-E. The researcher made sure that the
confidentiality of each superintendent was protected throughout the entire process.
A semi-structured interview protocol with ten open-ended questions was selected for the
study. This format enabled the interviewer and participant to stay focused within the fixed
amount of time (45-60 minutes) and provided an easier means for data analysis (Creswell, 2014;
Patton, 2002). In addition, Merriam (2014) asserted that interviews are a means of gathering
data when the researcher seeks to understand how people interpret the phenomenon or when the
behavior cannot be observed. The semi-structured interview format generated a consistent
structure that was focused on the research questions while providing the flexibility to shift in a
direction that may have not been initially recognized by the researcher. Probes were inserted to
provide an opportunity to surface rich details. These questions afforded the researcher the
opportunity to dig deeper by pursuing further clarity or elaboration on a particular response about
the research topic.
A mixed-method data approach was conducted using data from the surveys and
interviews. The triangulation of the data through the use of quantitative surveys and qualitative
interviews minimized the weaknesses found if using a singular study method (Creswell, 2014).
All of the data collected was preserved and safeguarded for confidentiality.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
69
Table 9 shows the demographic profile for each superintendent who participated in a
qualitative interview along with the characteristics of the district he/she led. This information
provides a snapshot of the leaders interviewed and lends context to the responses provided.
Table 9
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Profile District
A Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Age: 40-49
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 2
Yrs. in current position: 2
Enrollment: 3,397
English learner: 26.60%
B Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino
Age: 50-59
Education level: Masters
Yrs. as superintendent: 4
Yrs. in current position: 4
Enrollment: 1,232
English learner: 46.50%
C Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 9
Yrs. in current position: 3
Enrollment: 3,178
English learner: 23.80%
D Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino
Age: 50-59
Education level: Masters
Yrs. as superintendent: 12
Yrs. in current position: 12
Enrollment: 1,206
English learner: 57.00%
E Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 23
Yrs. in current position: 23
Enrollment: 1,220
English learner: 23.00%
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
70
Of the superintendents interviewed, three were female and two were male. The ethnic
distribution was as follows: three White, and two Hispanic/Latino. One superintendent was 40-
49 years old, three were 50-59 years old, and one was 60-69 years old. Two of the
superintendents possessed master’s degrees, and three had earned doctoral degrees. Overall
years of experience in the superintendency ranged from 2-23 years. Collectively, they had an
average experience of 10 years as a superintendent.
Four of the five superintendents were in their first superintendency. One superintendent
had a tenure of 2 years, one had a tenure of 3 years, one had a tenure of 4 years, one had a tenure
of 12 years, and one had a tenure of 23 years. They had an average tenure of 8.8 years in their
current position.
Research Question 1
What strategies do small school district superintendents in California employ to improve
the academic achievement of English language learners?
Table 10 depicts superintendent responses to the following statement: Please rate how
the following factors influence the strategies used to improve the academic achievement of
English language learners. Superintendents were asked to indicate level of agreement using a
Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates strongly disagree, “2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates
neutral, “4” indicates agree, and “5” indicates strongly agree.
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.17 to 4.55. “Teacher
expectations for ELL performance” and “Professional development focused on ELL instruction”
were rated most favorably (4.55), whereas “bureaucratic accountability” received the lowest
response mean (3.17).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
71
Table 10
Superintendent Rating of Factors that Influence the Strategies used to Improve ELL Academic
Achievement
Factor
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Response
Mean Total
Bureaucratic
accountability
2 5 10 10 2 3.17 29
Demands from the
community
2 4 10 8 5 3.34 29
Culturally
responsive
curriculum
0 1 1 20 7 4.14 29
Standardized
assessment design
0 3 8 13 5 3.69 29
Teacher
expectations for
ELL performance
0 0 4 5 20 4.55 29
Data-driven
decision making
0 0 3 10 16 4.45 29
Professional
development
focused on ELL
instruction
0 0 4 5 20 4.55 29
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance
“Teacher expectations for ELL performance” tied for the highest response mean recorded
(4.55) from superintendents. All five superintendents interviewed underscored the connection
between beliefs, teacher expectations, and ELL student achievement. Moreover, superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
72
spoke to expectations they as district leaders have of their teachers as well as the impact of
teacher expectations on student learning. Expectations are often rooted in beliefs.
Superintendent B asserted that, “My beliefs first of all are that it doesn’t matter what your
background is, what your language is. I feel every student has the ability to learn and has the
ability to be successful if given the right opportunity.” Superintendent C added further
clarification by stating, “English learners are capable learners like every other student we have.
We should have expectations that match that and there are no excuses. Our product should
match our customer.” Superintendent A further amplified this idea by stating:
My belief and the bottom line in what I talk about with anyone who will listen is that
English learners can absolutely achieve at the same level and the same rate of speed as
everybody else. We know that they’re English learners, but that’s not a deficit. It’s
actually an enhancement. Kids come to us at least knowing 2 languages. We don’t see
that as a deficit. We see that as something exciting and our whole goal is to ultimately
have these students leave our system bilingual biliterate.
Superintendent E affirmed that, “I believe English learners can and should achieve as much, if
not more than our non-English language learners. They have the ability I have seen them
achieve.” Along the same lines, Superintendent D noted that in addition to high expectations for
students, high expectations for teachers were also essential. Superintendent D further
emphasized that in order to afford English learners the opportunity of success, high expectations
for teachers, support to fulfill those expectations, and vetted instructional methodology needed to
work in combination. Superintendent D proclaimed that, “If you have high expectations, but
with support. Some people have high expectations, but they don’t support. High expectations
with support, training on how to deliver the best pedagogy for students, I think that students who
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
73
come from any background will succeed.” Two of the five superintendents spoke about the
influence of educator mindset in ELL achievement or lack thereof. The role of the
superintendent is pivotal in changing mindsets. Superintendent A claimed that, “The mindset
that we’re trying to work with, with our teachers, all of our staff, classified, certificated and
administrative, is that having the capacity for two languages is a great thing.” Mindset is a key
element in beliefs and expectations for ELL achievement. One superintendent spoke about the
role of administrators in addressing teacher mindsets unfavorably impacting ELL success.
Superintendent B declared, “You’ll get teachers where they don’t think that a child can be
successful, and that’s our job as administrators, to work with those teachers, provide those
teachers training, but the mindset has to be that every single student has the ability to learn.”
Three out of the five superintendents expressed the importance of having the right staff for
students. Superintendent C addressed her approach to hiring the right teachers for ELLs by
explaining:
If you have successful experience teaching in poverty schools, you are getting an
interview. If you are biliterate in a language of value to the district, which doesn’t mean
French or German, you are getting an interview. If you have experience working with
second language learners or additional credentialing, you are getting an interview. Sixty
percent of my staff at one of my schools this past year was new. They were largely
biliterate English/Spanish, second language after Spanish is Punjabi, and after that
Vietnamese. They came with experience. I don’t want the cheapest teachers, I want the
best teachers. I want the best of my best teachers in my schools where my kids need
them the most.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
74
Two superintendents recognized the connection between poverty and limited English proficient
students. Superintendent C talked about the importance of having teachers that are well versed
in meeting the needs of students of low socio-economic means. Superintendent D affirmed:
I was a migrant worker, an English learner, and poor. To some extent background does
matter because to some extent your social or economic status is going to dictate
somewhat your prior knowledge, your experiences. I think it does contribute to an
additional challenge for the English learner. Is it the main determining factor? I don’t
think so. I think the main thing is having quality instruction and high expectations every
day.
Still, the self-fulfilling prophecy of expectations was present in different degrees in all five
superintendent interviews. Superintendents spoke of both administrator expectations of teachers
and teacher expectations of students specific to the achievement of ELLs. Superintendent A
explained:
If I’m teaching you and something tells me, oh so and so just doesn’t have it, it is not
going to happen. If I truly believe that it doesn’t matter where you come from, what your
language barriers are, it doesn’t matter. You’ll be successful. If I work with you and do
everything that I am taught, you’ll be successful. I am a big believer in that.
Effecting sustainable change that supports ELL achievement was a theme in the majority of the
interviews. One of the superintendents talked about the ease of making change in a small
district. He compared change in a small district as being akin to turning around a small vessel as
opposed to turning the Titanic around. Superintendent B revealed, “Turning the little motorboat
around and making quick changes is a benefit in a small district. I think it would be a lot more
difficult if we were a bigger district because again, the more people, the more people we have to
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
75
convince.” Superintendent D bemoaned the generation to generation of low expectations in the
district, which resulted in generation to generation of low performing students. Superintendent
D reflected, “I talk about our legacy. I dream that when I leave, that I leave a legacy of high
expectations and high support for English learners and all students and that the high performance
continues from generation to generation.” Superintendents acknowledge the challenges faced by
teachers and administrators in meeting the needs of all students. That is why it is imperative to
have the right administrators and teachers at the right schools. Superintendent E developed an
Individual Plan for Student Achievement specific for English Language Development. This plan
allows teachers and administrators to keep track of the individual language development of each
student. Superintendent E stated, “The government has us do all this paperwork for Special
Education to monitor their achievement. We thought that the same kind of system should apply
for our English language learners so that we could monitor their achievement.” All
superintendents talked of the potential of the position of superintendent to enact change.
Leadership sets the themes and tone for how the organization is going to function and what it is
going to prioritize. In terms of high expectations for ELL’s Superintendent C affirmed, “There
are no excuses.”
Professional Development Focused on ELL Instruction
“Professional development focused on ELL instruction” also tied for the highest response
mean (4.55) from superintendents. All five superintendents interviewed concur that professional
development dedicated to improving the academic achievement of ELL students is a significant
factor influencing the academic success of English learners. All superintendents emphasized the
importance of retaining and hiring educators with the skill and passion to support the academic
achievement of ELLs. Furthermore, the importance of having a district and/or site plan for
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
76
addressing the needs of English learners was underscored. In addressing the importance of
having a district plan for ELLs Superintendent D disclosed that, “We just developed our new
strategic plan at the board level. English learners are on it because I have been telling the board
that we have to meet their needs. I keep telling them. They’re starting to talk about it. It’s the
elephant in the room. In reflecting on one of the factors that has contributed to their English
learner achievement, Superintendent A acknowledged, “We have asked all of our principals to
focus on English learners and to figure it out, so they have all created a professional development
plan around English learners.” Some superintendents had a more philosophical approach to
professional development. Superintendent B asserted, “We have a target. There is a
professional development chart we created where in the middle we have student achievement.
That includes all students. Every lesson of every single class should be intentional making sure
all students are engaged.”
Superintendents addressed the importance of the process of identifying and selecting
professional development areas. A collaborative approach with site level administrators,
teachers, and parents was pointed out as being essential to the buy-in process. Still, there are
times that necessitate an autocratic approach to selecting professional development for ELLs.
Superintendent E revealed, “My approach is sometimes collaborative. Occasionally I am
authoritative, and I just make the decision. It depends on the professional development issue and
the circumstances surrounding it.”
Four of the five superintendents interviewed stressed the importance of conducting a
needs assessment with teachers, students, and parents to determine areas of need for English
learner achievement. Superintendent C stated:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
77
We look at precisely what our needs are, in terms of where our teachers are at. What
does our data look like? Then we look around to see what we think is going to be the
most effective. We are not looking for the cheapest professional development, we are
looking for professional development that is going to hit our needs spot on. If it costs me
$10,000 to have Ruby Payne here for the morning or it costs me $15,000 to have Mike
Mattos here, then that’s what we are doing.
A different superintendent further emphasized the importance of conducting an analysis
grounded in student needs and aligned to the vision of the district. Superintendent D averred
that, “Our vision has to be aligned to the needs of students. What is the root cause analysis?
Why is it that or Long Term English learners are not progressing? We need to get to the cause to
find the solution.” In addition to conducting a needs-assessment of teachers, one superintendent
underscored assessing the needs of parents of English learners to support their children.
Superintendent E stated, “We consult our English Learner Advisory Committee. We talk about
not just professional development for teachers, but professional development for parents. We
solicit input from them, ‘What kind of professional development do you need?’ They let us
know.” Professional development needs specific to teaching and differentiating instruction for
English learners are varied. District and site professional development needs can be wide-
ranging. Superintendent A voiced the importance of meeting people where they are at and
differentiating professional development to meet the diverse needs of school sites and individual
teachers by stating:
There are a couple of different processes for selecting professional development. We
have instructional coaches in this district, and one of our instructional coaches is an
English learner guru. She has the heart and mind for English learners. Not only the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
78
heart, but she has the pedagogy. She can do professional development in a big group,
whole school, department, grade level, small group, and one-on-one. For example, my
middle school principal sat down with the site leadership team, representative of every
department, and created their professional development plan based on what they thought
the needs of the department were. However, they are not familiar with the ELD
standards. They are not familiar with language objectives, and so we need to meet them
where they are at, so that is where they started.
Formal and informal data analysis combined with stakeholder input were highlighted by
three superintendents as being vital in making professional development decisions that influence
academic achievement for English learners. In addition to hard data, walkthroughs,
observations, and anecdotal data were also cited as valuable pieces of the puzzle. Superintendent
E elaborated on the benefits of being a small district and being able to connect with teachers on a
personal level. Superintendent E acknowledged, “I ask the teachers what they need. In what
areas do they feel we need more professional development? I always do a little survey from
them. We go out and we ask the teachers what they want for staff development. What tools of
the trade do they need?” Superintendent C expanded on the notion of being a small district and
having the opportunity to be present at school sites and on committees by affirming:
First of all, I don’t spend a lot of time in this office. I am out and about. I make sure I
get out and speak to all of my stakeholder groups. I make sure to speak to my student
leadership groups and I ask them for their input. We look at our data. We have focus
groups for our teachers. We have a curriculum leadership group and a curriculum
council. We have those conversations in conjunction with date and anecdotal
information I pick up as I am out and about. That helps us whittle down and focus on
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
79
exactly where we need to go. Teachers have input on the professional development
needs as well, formally and informally.
Triangulation of data and a multi-faceted approach to collecting and analyzing data were
important concepts reiterated by superintendents. Maxwell (2013) contends that triangulation of
data reduces the risk of chance associations and biases. Superintendent D asserted, “We assess
our needs in several ways. Number one is walkthroughs with the principals. We observe
classrooms and identify areas where our teachers need help and decide if we need to bring in an
expert to help us. We survey teachers. Professional development surveys are important.”
Teacher expertise and teacher requests were highly regarded when determining professional
development opportunities.
In identifying professional development experiences some key questions were repeatedly
at the forefront of decision making. What do we need? Who will provide the professional
development? How will the professional development be delivered? Having hard data and
multiple stakeholders involved in the identification of needs was vital. Determining whether an
inside or outside expert was needed was also an important factor. Determining the “how” of
professional development delivery was essential to meeting the diverse needs of sites and
individuals. Two superintendents mentioned Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
embedded in the workday as fundamental to identifying needs and sustaining skillsets.
Superintendent B stated, “We have early release every Wednesday. Every other Wednesday is
for PLCs all through the year. Principals collaborate with the groups. Grade levels, departments
at the middle school.” The difficulty of changing a district’s culture was shared by
Superintendent C as follows:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
80
Going to minimum day Wednesdays and PLCs was a hard sell. We went to every
Wednesday a minimum day for PLC time. We’ve committed in writing what we are
going to do during PLC time. I have schools in various stages of development, but we
are coming along. We have Mike Mattos come in this year and he is coming back in a
year from now.
Superintendents mentioned infrastructure and resources as notable factors in determining
professional development opportunities. The consensus was that quality professional
development is worth the price. Superintendent C noted:
I have a lot less infrastructure than LA Unified. With school districts there is such a thing
as being too big. A school district between three and five thousand is a really nice size.
With this new LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) funding, we are able to do these
things (quality professional development) because we are 70% unduplicated we get more
funding. I have absolutely no excuse to not really strategically use my funding to meet
the needs of my learners.
Upon reflecting on the importance of utilizing resources to address the needs of the whole child
Superintendent E mentioned, “We are working so hard on the cognitive domain that we are
bypassing the affective domain. That is why I invested resources in Capturing Kid’s Hearts, a
three-day teacher training that was expensive but very well worth it.” In essence, infrastructure
and resources coupled with hard data and stakeholder input are necessary factors that necessitate
consideration when selecting professional development opportunities to advance the academic
achievement of English learners.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
81
Data-driven Decision Making
“Data-driven Decision Making” recorded the third highest response mean (4.45) from
superintendents. All five of the superintendents interviewed asserted that data should be a means
to assess and improve the academic achievement of all students, especially English learners and
children of poverty. According to Hill (2012) poverty rates for K-12 ELLs in California range
from 74% to 85% compared to the overall poverty rate of 21%. Each superintendent cited data-
driven decision making as vital to meeting the individual and diverse needs of English learners.
Superintendent C affirmed:
We don’t have excuses for achievement. Let’s look at our data and figure out what’s not
working and let’s change it so it does work. I think we need to be vigilant and continue
to impress upon our teaching staff that we have the expectation that they need to
understand the individual needs of their customers. We’re analyzing data and making
determinations about where we are going and why, and we aren’t going to take excuses.
The need to look at formative assessment data and respond to English learner needs in real time
was reiterated by the majority of interviewees. Superintendent C further acknowledged, “We
aren’t waiting for benchmark test data to catch a learning problem. We are catching it in the
middle of learning so they can grasp it and move on. We are moving in the direction of all
students being able to get assistance in real time.” Data driven decision making necessitates that
critical stakeholders such as site administrators and teachers are well versed in analyzing data.
Superintendent C underscored, “Data is a tool you shouldn’t be afraid of. It’s a tool we are going
to discuss universally to make sure that we get English learners and all of our students where
they need to go (academically).” Analyzing demographic data is also an important component of
data-driven decision making. Superintendent D shared:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
82
Our Latino population in this district is 99.9%. Close to 60% of our students are English
learners. Over 90% of our students qualify for free and reduced meals. We always
disaggregate our data. Just to put things in perspective, even though we have challenging
demographics, we’ve never had a program improvement school, ever. We’ve made our
targets, but we are struggling with our English learners. The number of long-term
English learners keeps increasing and increasing. As a superintendent, I am not okay
with it. It’s very alarming. We are a school district that cannot ignore them because that
is over half of our students.
In addition to serving as an instrument to target instruction with precision, data can also inform
leadership of developing areas of need as shared by Superintendent D.
Disaggregating data resulting from pacing guides and assessing standards can serve as a
catalyst for collaboration focuses, structures, and processes. Superintendent D explained:
Everybody is assessing students because we maintain pacing guides. We agree on the
assessment time line and we administer the assessment. I provide principals with the
disaggregated data and I say, ‘Have your PLCs (Professional Learning Communities) and
start the discussion.’ Let’s say you’re my colleague and your students did very well on a
particular standard, well what did you do? Share with us some ideas because look you
English learners did very well. This is where best practices are shared. I did this or I did
that or I found this tool, etc. Then collaboratively smart goals are developed. It’s a
professional culture of learning.
Equally vital to improving academic achievement for English learners is data from informal and
formal classroom observations. Site and district leadership play a major role in linking the
connection from observational data to instructional support to improved teacher practices for
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
83
ELLs. Superintendent D affirmed, “I make sure principals are in classrooms observing ELD and
ELL support. I want my principals to focus on English Language development and English
learner support and to let teachers know that formal observations will include those components.
It’s doable in this district because we are little.”
A district culture of data analysis is an essential instrument to influence personnel
decisions. Data examination also serves as a barometer to calibrate support for site leaders to
respond to the demands surfaced by the data. The data being analyzed is as instrumental as who
is analyzing the data. Superintendent C upheld that:
Prior to my arrival the monitoring and evaluation of English learner progress was left to
classified individuals. That is one of the things that has changed in our data analysis and
will continue to change. It’s not a disrespectful point of view but really does require the
principal’s attention to monitor that situation and it shouldn’t be left up to the
paraprofessionals and the secretaries. The principals threw a fit. No, this isn’t a debate it
is what we are going to do.
Data analysis yields the greatest benefit when site leaders have the capacity to act on the data.
Working with principals one-on-one to match data analysis with leadership practices is a district-
level support fundamental to site leader success. Superintendent C asserted, “We really work
with principals one-on-one on their data analysis and their leadership practice with their sites in
particular. I meet with each principal once a month.” Site leaders under Superintendent C are
also sent to conferences to refine their leadership skills and consultants are brought in to work
individually with site leaders. The long-term success of data-driven decision making requires
hiring practices that identify the right people. Superintendent C affirmed:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
84
First of all, you choose good people from the start. We begin to drill down on not only
second language learner issues, but the learning needs of all of our at-risk learners. As
part of the interview process, we will give them some real data and ask them to tell us
how they are going to solve problem x. Get the right people on the bus.
Processes to hire the right people should to be juxtaposed with processes to release people who
are not contributing to the fulfillment of the district’s mission. Superintendent C further
contends that:
Our principals are having hard conversations with teachers. Looking at my quick and
dirty SBAC results I can see by site which of my teachers are cutting the mustard and
which ones aren’t. Quite honestly, we aren’t too shy about releasing you if you are not
going to cut the mustard and be what our students need. You’re gone, period.
Data analysis is also a means to measure, validate, and account for the academic progress
of English learners. Data results can conceivably authenticate or discredit strategies and
approaches intended for the academic achievement of English learners. According to
Superintendent C it is imperative to determinedly not write off English learners and children of
poverty. Superintendent C elaborated on the importance of measuring ELL progress to
substantiate the direction of the organization:
We are using CELDT, benchmarks, and accelerator reader amongst other things to
measure the academic progress of English learners. We were thrilled a week or so ago
when we got our ELL data and discovered we met our AMAOs (Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives) for the first time in five years. We are not done but there is
validation to what we are doing. Our data is beginning to show that our strategies are
working.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
85
Superintendent D referenced English learner reclassification rate and the Annual Performance
Index (API) as a metric to measure success of reclassified students. Superintendent D affirmed,
“We reclassify about ten percent of our English learners annually. Those reclassified students
outshine our English speaking students. The do extremely well academically. If I were to
compute the API for our English learners only, just prior to SBAC, it was over 800.” Data-
driven home-school reciprocal accountability was emphasized by Superintendent E who
affirmed:
We have the CELDT tests where we give parents of English Learners notification of how
their child is progressing. That (CELDT) is state accountability for us, but we use that to
communicate with parents and with teachers about how English learners are doing. Our
schools are responsible for providing the support and programs English learners need and
parents are accountable to making sure the child engages in the programs we are offering.
That’s parent-school accountability.
Use of data has the potential to impact numerous decisions at both the district and site levels. In
the context of academic achievement for English learners, data-driven decision making includes
resource allocation. One superintendent referenced the new Local Control and Accountability
Plan (LCAP) as a structure to ensure resource allocation includes ELL students. Superintendent
A explained, “One of the three student groups we are required to address through the LCAP
process is English learners. We would do it anyway, and we had roughly 25 to 30 stakeholders
in our LCAP steering group, who allocated monies based on the needs that were determined by
the data.” Identified needs included an instructional coach with expertise in ELL pedagogy,
collaboration support, and targeted professional development. The necessity to operate within
the parameters of a small district was addressed by Superintendent C who elaborated:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
86
To allocate resources we need to look at our data. What are we missing here? What are
our needs? Some needs are district wide and some are site specific. We have a lot less
infrastructure than a big district so we look precisely at what our needs are, in terms of
where our teachers are at. Then we look around to see what we think is going to be the
most effective.
Table 11 depicts superintendent responses to the statement: Please rate the degree to
which you believe the following are important to a superintendent ’s implementation plan for
improving the academic achievement of English language learners. Superintendents were asked
to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates strongly disagree,
“2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates neutral, “4” indicates agree, and “5” indicates strongly
agree.
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 4.45 to 4.90. “High
expectations for student achievement” was rated most favorably (4.90), whereas “On-site teacher
collaboration” and “alignment of instruction with curricula framework” both received the lowest
response mean (4.55).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
87
Table 11
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important to His/Her Implementation Plan Towards
the Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Factor
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Response
Mean Total
High expectations
for student
achievement
0 0 0 3 26 4.90 29
Collaboration
among stakeholders
0 0 0 5 24 4.83 29
Clearly defined
district-wide
academic goals for
ELLs
0 0 3 8 18 4.52 29
Instructional
leadership
0 0 0 7 22 4.76 29
Two-way
communication
between district and
school-site staff
0 0 1 11 17 4.55 29
Alignment between
district vision and
school vision
0 0 2 11 16 4.48 29
On-site teacher
collaboration
0 0 1 14 14 4.45 29
Alignment of
instruction with
curricula framework
0 0 2 12 15 4.45 29
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
88
High Expectations for Student Achievement
“High expectations for student achievement” recorded the highest response mean (4.90)
from superintendents. All 29 superintendents surveyed rated “high expectations for student
achievement” as the top factor leading toward the improvement of ELL academic achievement.
A predominant theme in education reform is the academic achievement of all students. It is
important to note that the outcomes as defined by this study of high expectations for ELL
students are reclassification within a 5 year window, rigorous academic learning at the same
level and rate of speed as their English only counterparts, and college and career readiness at the
completion of their K-12 journey. College readiness is defined by students being ready for
postsecondary education without the need for remedial coursework. The hallmark of career
readiness is students possessing the knowledge and technical skills necessary for employment in
their desired career field. Every one of the five superintendents interviewed was candid about
the complexity of developing and nurturing a culture of high expectations in an organization.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997) low expectations set by teachers will breed low student
performance. Expectations are rooted in beliefs which transmute into perceptions thus leading to
expectations. The connection between teacher mindset and student achievement was brought to
light by Superintendent B who stated:
I don’t care who you are, where you come from, everyone has the ability to learn and has
the ability to be successful if given the right opportunity. In some cases you will have
teachers, very few, but they don’t think that a child can be successful, and that’s our job
as administrators to provide those teachers training, but the mindset has to be that every
single student has the ability to learn and be academically successful.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
89
Superintendent interviews generated insightful information on their beliefs about ELLs and why
it is important to have high expectations for them. They also imparted their experiences
operationalizing a culture of high expectations in a school district.
Superintendent A substantiated her high expectations for English learner achievement by
first reflecting on her own beliefs. She stated that, “My belief and the bottom line in what I talk
about with anyone who will listen is that they (ELLs) can absolutely achieve at the same level
and the same rate of speed as everybody else.” Superintendent E also affirmed, “I believe they
(ELLs) can and should achieve as much, if not more than our non-English-language learners.
They have ability. Several superintendents also noted the advantages of being multilingual.
Superintendent A further explained, “We know that they’re English learners, but that’s not a
deficit. It’s actually an enhancement. They can achieve at the same rate if not even faster than
English only students because they have a greater capacity because they’re already living in the
world of two languages.” The language skills of ELL students are valuable assets to compete in
the 21st century global market. Superintendent A explained, “Students come to us at least
knowing of two languages. We see that as something exciting. An add-on, if you will. Our
whole goal ultimately, and we’ve created systems, is to have these students see this as a value-
added piece and hopefully, leave our system bilingual, biliterate.”
All superintendents offered insightful methods and means for fostering and supporting a
culture of high expectations. High expectations consistent with beliefs emerged as an important
concept. Superintendent C noted, “My belief is that they (ELLs) are capable learners, like every
other student that we have. We should have expectations that match our beliefs and there are no
excuses.” Messaging expectations to staff for ELL achievement was addressed by
Superintendent E who stated:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
90
Beliefs are communicated verbally and non-verbally. The IPSA (Individual Plan for
Student Achievement) plan that we’ve developed here is crucial. With the services
provided the staff realizes that the focus is being placed on the achievements of English
language learners. When we have staff development and services that focus on English
language development, it certainly sends the message that that is an important aspect of
learning. Going out of our way to provide support services for English language learners
communicates to our teachers the expectation of English language learner achievement.
Along the same lines, another superintendent underscored the importance of beliefs and
expectations about ELL achievement being present at the top and cascading to site
administrators. Ensuring the right site level administrators was cited as a significant factor in
promoting ELL student success. Superintendent C explained:
Some of our sites had stopped screening English learners for gifted and talented
education. The perception was they are second language learners, they are poor, what’s
the point? At one site we had to change leadership. The message apparently wasn’t
computing. We now have a biliterate, male principal who has already taken the place by
storm, raised expectations, understands what needs to happen for English learners and
will go there for us. The whole tone of the campus has changed. That’s a focus at all of
our sites.
Superintendents concurred that a culture of high expectations for all must be present at the top of
the organization. Having systems in place and support structures for all stakeholders to meet the
high expectations is fundamental. Superintendent D asserted:
The main thing is having quality instruction in classrooms every day. If you have
dedicated, well trained teachers on how to deliver the best pedagogy for students, an
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
91
administration that focuses on teaching and learning and you have high expectations with
support you will succeed. Some leaders have high expectations, but they don’t provide
support. If you have high expectations and provide the needed support, students who
come from any background will succeed.
Another important factor influencing the achievement of ELLs was the importance of the
principals or counselors connecting students on a personal level. Superintendent A stressed,
“The principal or a counselor just meeting with them (ELLs) five minutes will change them. It
changes their perspective and expectations because someone is intimately involved, and
concerned, and responsible. Students respond to that.” Students sense if teachers believe in
them. Beliefs determine perceptions which influence expectations. The power of deeply held
beliefs was brought forth by Superintendent B who noted:
Everybody has the ability to learn and be successful. You have to provide students with
the right setting and positive environment. If I’m teaching you and something tells me,
oh, he just doesn’t have it, it’s not going to happen. However, if I truly believe that it
doesn’t matter where you come from, what your language barriers might be, it doesn’t
matter. You will be successful. If I work with you and do everything that I am taught,
you will be successful. I’m a big believer in that.
The literature on academic achievement for ELL students is compelling on the fact that high
expectations are vital to ensuring they are able to meet reclassification criteria. Simultaneous
access to quality instruction in English language development and core content areas is essential
to ELL success.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
92
Collaboration Amongst Stakeholders
“Collaboration amongst stakeholders” recorded the second highest response mean (4.83)
from superintendents. According to superintendents interviewed, successful collaborations with
stakeholders are characterized by transparency, positive relationships, and purpose driven.
Having collaboration structures that are open to interested members sends the message that the
work of the committee is transparent. Being proactive in encouraging participation in this
endeavor is important. Superintendent A explained, “All of our committees are open, but we
always invite the people we know who will absolutely want to be on them. For example we have
our English Language Development committee and our technology committee which are open.
There are people who are committed to serving on those committees.” In small districts building
relationships between the superintendent and critical stakeholder groups is attainable. The
feasibility of recurrent face-to-face collaborative conversations with stakeholders is realistic.
Superintendent C affirmed:
I personally go and have those conversations with different groups. Here’s what has
happened in the district, what would you like to see? In a perfect world, what would our
program look like? What was interesting to me was that the top ten issues across all
stakeholder groups, they might have been in a different rank order but the top ten were
the top ten. I will go out again and again. Not only do we go out and ask for input, we
bring that input back and treat it very seriously as we are designing our budgets.
Small district superintendents have the flexibility to build understanding while collaborating with
critical stakeholder groups. Superintendent B elaborated, “Improving English learner
achievement, as I said earlier, you’ve got just a few people that you have to explain, let them
understand and absorb what you’re trying to accomplish. If they’re on the same page as you, it is
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
93
easy. It’s been for the most part easy so far.” Connecting and developing partnerships with
community stakeholder groups is a viable way to collaborate and institute reciprocal
relationships. Superintendent A stated, “We interface often and very, very effectively with foster
services in the county. We’re really developing those types of partnerships and integrating them
and reaching out to the community. The Center for Human Services is covering a lot of
social/emotional types of needs for us. They’re working with families.” Businesses in small
communities have a unique familiarity with neighborhood schools and districts. Superintendent
B asserted, “For the most part, our small business community feels you’re the school, you’re the
district. You know what’s right. You do what you got to do. They’ll get involved if you ask
them to.”
Proactively seeking input in a variety of methods and forums from stakeholders surfaced
as an important component of collaboration amongst essential partners. The superintendent
being the foremost hands-on solicitor of stakeholder input resonated with the majority of
interviewees. Superintendent E stated:
We meet with parents and teachers and give all of them the opportunity to have their
opinions solicited and be heard. We ask the teachers, ‘What do you want for staff
development? What tools of the trade do you need here?’ Parents are treated the same,
‘What is it we could do here to make the education better?’ They let us know.
Superintendent D further elaborated on this notion by affirming, “Because of the Local Control
Accountability Plan we take collaboration with our stakeholders very seriously. We do
professional development surveys. We consult our teachers, paraprofessionals, and of course the
board. We take into consideration all of the input, the needs of our students, and our vision. One
of the benefits of small districts is having smaller groups of constituents. In a small community a
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
94
large group can be especially influential. Superintendent B shared, “When I’m thinking about
making a change and I think about critical stakeholders, small district fewer stakeholders. I’m
thinking about teachers because they’re the most influential. We have a parent population that is
proud and cares but teachers are most influential.” Facilitating the process of stakeholders
providing input was evident in all interviews. When addressing the plan to improve the
academic achievement of English learners, Superintendent A emphasized, “People can provide
input through survey. Our surveys are translated into Spanish. You can provide input through
attending meetings or participating on committees. That’s really how stakeholders can influence
the plan.
Face to face collaboration with stakeholders was mentioned as a means to nurture
relationships, build understanding, and influence conversations. The English Learner Advisory
Committee (ELAC) and the District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC) were cited
as structures already in place to gather input in support of English learners on the LCAP. This
process was substantiated by Superintendent A, who stated:
All of our schools have ELACs, and of course, we have our DELAC. We ensured that
representatives from our DELAC are on our LCAP committee, and we develop our
LCAP, and we basically worked on that from January to May. That group was really the
decision-makers for what went into our LCAP.
The importance of ELAC and DELAC committee members on the LCAP committee was further
corroborated by Superintendent B, who affirmed, “As far as parents go, we have our ELAC and
DELAC committees. They’ve been very much involved in helping us with the LCAP which has
a very strong English language learner component. Parents and community, sometimes the
community is also the staff because it is such a small community.” Unions were repeatedly
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
95
referred to as one of the critical stakeholder groups. Superintendent A noted, “We make sure we
have union representation on our LCAP, and on all of our committees, they’re invited to
participate at every level. They don’t have more influence, but they have just as much influence
as any other stakeholder group.” Finding common ground was cited as a characteristic of
effective collaboration. Superintendent B emphasized:
You put the right leaders, the right middle managers at the school sites, strong yet
collaborative. The style of leadership has changed from back in the day when it was my
way or the highway. We have a principal here who has great skills at building
relationships and influencing people. When there are differences we’ve got to talk them
out. How can I get you to believe what I know is right or can I buy into what you’re
telling me is right? Having site leadership reach agreement with stakeholders is
successful collaboration.
Site leadership was noted as important in collaborating with stakeholders and influencing
decisions when possible.
Instructional Leadership
“Instructional leadership” recorded the third highest response mean (4.76) from
superintendents. Survey respondents agreed that “Instructional Leadership” was a significant
factor in executing the plan to improve academic achievement for ELL students. NCLB at
minimum sets the framework for educational leaders to have difficult conversations necessary to
address the language acquisition needs of the rapidly growing population of students in K-12
(Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). An organizational leader needs to develop site-level leadership trust
to actualize the strategic plan of the district by fostering collective responsibility (Miller, 2004).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
96
According to Superintendent C, “We work with principals one-on-one on their data and their
leadership practices at their sites in particular. Superintendent C explained:
My curriculum director has a dedicated one-on-one monthly meeting with each principal
each month. I also have a dedicated meeting with each of them each month where we
talk about their agenda. I bring agenda items too. We are walking around their site. We
are talking. Some support is a result of our observation some is at their request. Some of
it is by district need. We accommodate as much as we can.
In order for educational leaders to meet the diverse and complex language acquisition needs of
English learners, they need to establish capacity building systems to develop English learner
instructional expertise among teachers and principals (Olsen, 2010b). Superintendents who
value instructional leadership understand that fostering site leadership capacity plays a
significant role developing and supporting teachers. Superintendent A expounded upon this idea
by saying:
The best way that we support site leadership to serve EL students is really through one-
on-one mentoring. Myself, my assistant superintendent, and my director, throughout our
administrative careers have been very much immersed in ensuring that EL students
thrive. We are very well versed in the readings, the research, and the strategies for
English learners. We can have those conversations with our principals. Our whole goal
with our site leaders is building their capacity to support their teachers.
Furthermore, Superintendent A reiterated the logistics of developing and nurturing site
leadership by explaining:
Each one of the three of us mentors a principal specifically, which means we spend a
dedicated hour and a half to two hours a month. It’s scheduled, so that would mean if I
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
97
was your mentee or you were my mentee, I would take you to lunch because I want you
to get off your campus and have a lunch, and we would talk about your English learners
specifically because I know that that’s an area of development for you. Develop and
nurture. It’s one-on-one, because we’re small, and there’s three of us, and there’s really
three who need attention, it actually works out well.
Individual accountability was noted as an important element in ensuring support afforded to
principals to transform into site level actions. Superintendent C stressed:
One-on-one accountability is so powerful. I know what you know as a principal because
I have spent so much time with my principals. I know what they know, and I know what
they don’t know, and so in our (cabinet) conversations, myself, my assistant
superintendent, and my director, we talk enough about our principals to know who is
coming along and who needs a little bit more attention.
Superintendent D also addressed the role of accountability in developing site leadership by
asserting, “You have to make site leaders accountable for walking the talk. I can’t make them
accountable and never be here. I also have to walk the talk and I do. Communicating clear
expectations for ELL achievement was cited as an important factor of nurturing site level
leadership. According to Superintendent A, “I need principals to be invested in the success of
English learners. It is their responsibility to get them reclassified. They need to be versed in
instructional methodologies. They need to be invested in the progress of English learners,
because if they are, the teachers will be.
Marzano and Waters (2006) assert that the expertise and talent of organizational leaders
to respond to organizational and stakeholder demands positively influence student achievement.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
98
Superintendent C spoke on the power of collaboration amongst site principals by orchestrating
shared learning experiences. She stated that:
We really work with principals in terms of their leadership and collaboration. For
instance, this year I have a consultant coming in to do a principal’s leadership round table
with all of my principals. They will meet with him one afternoon a month and he’ll go
through different types of scenarios. They will do real life problem solving.
Superintendent C further explained the importance of building community, common
understanding, and common language amongst site leadership by sending them together to
conferences and trainings. She stated, “We sent them all (principals) to a PLC/RTI conference in
Las Vegas this summer. We also sent them to leadership training at a university.” These shared
experiences set the framework for site leaders to embrace collective commitments in support of
all students, namely ELL students. Superintendent D expanded on the notion of professional
development. He noted the importance of providing principals with autonomy in selecting
professional learning experiences by affirming:
I support the professional development of my principals. If they want to go to trainings, I
let them go. They are very conscientious and selective about what they go to. I let them
go to professional development that they know is going to enrich the things that we’re
doing. I have a good sense on what they need because we are so small that it’s very easy
for me to step into classrooms and observe what they’re doing.
Structures to support interaction and collaboration between superintendent and principals were
stated as being noteworthy to developing and nurturing site level leadership. Superintendent D
emphasized:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
99
We have management meetings every other week. We have a very close relationship.
We don’t have them weekly because we’re small. Every other week we devote four
hours. Prior to each meeting I ask them for their input and they send me things and I
develop the agenda. We discuss various things such as curriculum and technology. We
do professional readings and discussions.
Superintendent D further elaborated on the purpose and significance of having structured
meetings with principals. He explained:
Site level leadership to improve the academic achievement of English learners is
supported through my weekly meetings with the director of curriculum and the principal.
That meeting every single Tuesday is important to me. Monday afternoon I meet with
my director of curriculum and with my CBO (Chief Business Officer) for an hour each.
It gives us an opportunity to plan. Those every Tuesday admin meetings are important to
keep what we should be doing as a focus. I find that Tuesdays is a way to come back and
focus on what we need to be working on. That’s important for me.
Providing site leaders with resources and motivation were mentioned as being essential to
fulfilling the potential of academic achievement for ELL students. Superintendent D stated,
“Together we set the principal’s goals. A lot of their training right now is on ELD. Supporting
principals, providing them with resources, and encouraging them is at the top of my list.”
Creating conditions for site-level leadership to become empowered through various experiences,
roles, and opportunities was noted as being essential in small districts. Superintendent E
explained:
In a small district, site leadership is a bit of a challenge because I only have two
principals. Each grade level has a team leader. Sooner or later everyone is going to be a
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
100
team leader. We pass the baton around here. We give people roles and opportunities.
We have teachers who do staff development. We pair them and put them on stage so to
speak to further the development of English language learners. We expect everyone to
do their part to lead.
The underachievement of ELLs is pervasive. English learner pedagogy and instructional
methodology are critical elements in meeting their needs. Instruction for English learners needs
to be designed and calibrated for them to be successful in core content areas while
simultaneously developing academic language. Site-level instructional leaders are entrusted with
the moral imperative ensuring teacher and teaching proficiency.
Discussion
Small school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed conveyed support and
partiality for using creativity as well as a wide array of approaches and strategies to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners. Specifically, this study focused on teacher
expectations for ELL performance, professional development focused on ELL instruction, data-
driven-decision making, high expectations for student achievement, collaboration amongst
stakeholders, and instructional leadership. Superintendents offered insights into each category
respectively and discussed how they successfully foster creativity and implement strategies in
their districts.
Superintendents corroborated most of the strategies offered on the quantitative survey.
The qualitative interviews provided a first-hand account of survey responses and provided
concrete examples of superintendent creativity and strategies.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
101
Research Question 2
What do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
Table 12 depicts superintendent responses to the question: Please rate the degree to
which you believe the following stakeholders are obstacles to improving the academic
achievement of English language learners. Superintendents were asked to indicate level of
agreement using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates strongly disagree, “2” indicates
disagree, “3” indicates neutral, “4” indicates agree, and “5” indicates strongly agree.
Table 12
Superintendent Rating of Stakeholders that Function as Obstacles Toward the Improvement of
ELL Academic Achievement
Factor
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Response
Mean Total
Community members 16 8 4 1 0 1.66 29
District-level
personnel
14 9 6 0 0 1.72 29
Parents 16 5 7 1 0 1.76 29
School-level
administrators
11 9 8 0 1 2.00 29
Teachers 3 10 9 4 3 2.79 29
Unions 3 5 14 4 3 2.97 29
School Board 16 7 4 1 1 1.76 29
County office of
education
16 9 2 2 0 1.66 29
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
102
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 1.66 to 2.97. “Unions”
was rated the greatest obstacle (2.97), whereas “Community Members” and “County Office of
Education” both received the lowest response mean (1.66).
Unions
“Unions” recorded the highest response mean (2.97) from superintendents. More
specifically, 24% of superintendents surveyed rated unions as a potential obstacle toward the
improvement of ELL academic achievement. However, Bolman and Deal (2008) through a four-
part model of leadership provide the formula for a successful partnership between superintendent
and the union. Bolman and Deal (2008) assert that the four frames comprised of structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic components, are intended to assist organizational leaders
in successfully communicating and negotiating with stakeholder groups, such as unions.
Furthermore, Marzano and Waters (2006) contend that the expertise and talent of organizational
leaders to respond to organizational and stakeholder demands influence student achievement.
Transparency and trust seemed to be vital to a successful superintendent-union partnership.
According to Miller (2004), it is in the best interest of the organization for the leader to foster
site-level trust and collective responsibility for the purpose of actualizing the strategic plan of the
district.
This was underscored in my interview with Superintendent C. On this matter, she
explained, “The analogy I use when I talk to them is that we have to learn how to be naked in
front of each other and not be afraid. We are going to do this better.”
Superintendent C attributed the progress of her district to crafting strategic incremental
steps and honoring agreements with union members. She explained, “We’ve made a lot of
progress last year. Last year we got them used to the idea of a walkthrough tool to check for
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
103
quality teaching, on the agreement that we would only make positive comments.” The notion of
developing a culture of continuous improvement was also present in her conversation.
Discussing the importance of scaling up her efforts, Superintendent C continued, “This year we
are going to dial the ‘only positive’ comments back a little bit and we are going to say, ‘Have
you thought about?’ It is a culture shift.”
The majority of superintendents interviewed conceded that barriers to improving the
academic achievement of English learners are present in various forms through various
constituencies. Still, they underscored the importance of not affording barriers and obstacles too
much energy. Superintendent B asserted, “I don’t focus on barriers. It’s all about what we can
do and how we can do it. Don’t come to me with problems, come to me with solutions. My staff
does that. This creates more of an opportunity to change something.” Being a small district was
addressed as a plus to minimizing barriers. In reflecting, Superintendent E revealed, “I don’t
know if I focus on barriers. I don’t really see too many barriers in a small district. Things don’t
get lost in the cracks like they do in a big district, because I’m here nearby.” Leadership and
disposition were also mentioned as important attributes to overcoming barriers and navigating
through the obstacle course sometimes created by unions, teachers, and site-level administrators.
Superintendent C noted:
I think the greatest barriers are self-designed and self-made. I think if you think hard and
long enough about what your needs are, you can always find a way to get at something. I
think to the benefit of students. If you are going to be a superintendent, you’ve got to be
a little cocky. It doesn’t say that in the job description but it’s true.
Interviewees conceded that being a superintendent in a small district is less of a politician outside
the district and more of a hands-on leader within the district. Superintendent E disclosed, “I’m
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
104
not caught up with meetings at the Chamber of Commerce or elsewhere. I stay here, I stay at
home, and I don’t have to worry about going to grand openings. I’m not the politician. I think at
a big district, you become a politician.”
The focus of unions and their access to board members were cited as barriers to
improving conditions for English learners. According to Superintendent D, “The union
sometimes goes to the board and there are two board members who listen to the teachers
association, and sometimes their agendas are not really, even though they claim that they’re
student centered, they’re not student centered.” Superintendent B further elaborated on this idea.
He mentioned:
To some union leaders district efforts don’t matter. Something was brought up at the
table and I said, “We always have to remember students come first.” The response back
from the CTA representative was, “It’s not about the students. It’s about the employees.”
That’s her job as a CTA representative. She’s not one of our teachers, but she influences
our teachers. So adaptability is good.
Superintendent E further corroborated the union ideology of an adult-centered framework. She
asserted:
There was a mentality here that the schools were for the adults, not for the kids. That had
to change. We changed that. Our kids deserve better than that. People who didn’t like that
left. I was unpopular here for a little while. The union came with black armbands to my
board meetings because I was going after the people who weren’t serving kids.
Disposition and beliefs of the leader of the teacher’s union were noted as influential in
addressing the needs of all students, especially English learners. According to Superintendent D:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
105
The person who is the president of the union is not necessarily the easiest to get along
with. She’s calmed down a bit, but at first she came in with this attitude that she’s the
new Sheriff in town and she’s going to clean house. The reason she got that way is
because she knew she had to two votes that would support her in the board room.
Superintendent B further elaborated on the notion of only one union person representing teachers
in a small district as being pivotal to the success or failure of the superintendent’s efforts to
effect change on behalf of students. Reflecting on his experience, he noted:
One person is key and that’s kind of nice. Again, in a bigger district, you’ve got more
than one person to convince. Plus, they are all on separate pages. With the small district
we have, you convince one person and that person is strong, everybody else will follow.
Here, this person has been around long enough and has a very strong voice and is
reasonable. That’s what’s key. If this one person was just hard-nosed it would be
difficult. Before I came, there was a person like that here. Thank goodness that person
retired. This person can be hard-nosed, but she’s about kids and she’s reasonable. That
makes a difference.
Superintendent D provided an example of how unions can adversely impact efforts to improve
instruction. Commenting on a district initiative to provide academic coaches to support
classroom instruction he stated, “We had academic coaches but it became real political. Because
of the unions the board decided to do away with the instructional coaches.” Being collaborative
with unions was cited as being preemptive to possible opposition. Superintendent A affirmed,
“We make sure we have a union representation on all of our committees, they’re invited to
participate at every level.” This ensures that union representation has voice and ownership as
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
106
decisions are being made to improve the academic achievement of all students, especially
English learners.
Teachers
“Teachers” recorded the second highest response mean (2.88) from superintendents.
More specifically, 24% of superintendents surveyed rated teachers as a potential obstacle toward
the improvement of ELL academic achievement. Teachers play a vital role in the academic
achievement of all students, especially English learners. They are entrusted with using their
professional expertise on a daily basis to deliver sound instruction to all students. Their skillset
for differentiating instruction for at-risk students and subgroups is pivotal in making content
accessible to ELL students. According to Superintendent A, barriers to academic achievement
for English learners are sometimes teacher mindsets, misconceptions, and past practices.
Superintendent A stated:
Teachers of the old mindset, which is we just hold English learners and we protect them
and that only some teachers can teach EL kids. You can only love them into learning.
That’s not true. If you teach teachers the practical skills, and applications, and pedagogy
necessary, every quality teacher can teach EL students. You don’t have to be a speaker
of their native language, in our case, Spanish. We had to break that teacher away from
being the only teacher on campus to teach EL kids, which is not possible on a campus of
over 700 students and 500 are English learners. Not possible.
Superintendent A explained the downfall of teachers safeguarding past practices by stating,
“This whole concept of, ‘Well, that’s the way we’ve always done it.’ So what? We know the
world is changing so we need to change. We know more about bringing current research, and
we have more technology. The world is different that even 10 years ago.” In a small district
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
107
resistance to change works its way up to the board relatively fast. Superintendent A confided,
“The person I previously mentioned talked to a board member. Now, the board member is hung
up on why we are clustering English learners because that’s not what they did before. The board
member is under the misconception that they were being successful at that particular school.”
This type of situation necessitates the superintendent to be mindful of sharing research and data
to dispel misconceptions. Teacher buy-in was also noted as essential in meeting the needs of
ELL students. Superintendent B stated, “When I think about barriers, I still come back to do you
have staff members that are not buying into what’s best for ELLs?” If this is the case, then it is
important to develop a plan to address the circumstances.
Hiring and retaining the right teachers to meet the needs of all students was echoed by all
superintendents. Creating conditions to change teacher mindsets and dispositions when possible
was seen as a viable option. Superintendent C explained, “Our principals are having hard
conversations with teachers. We are having these discussions about English learners and other at-
risk students. We are making sure kids get services. We are providing extra help, as needed.
You have to tread lightly and skillfully.” There are some staff members who have not developed
the skill of adaptability. In this case it is vital to pursue other alternatives. Superintendent B
explained his approach:
If a teacher is a longstanding veteran, and has been doing something a certain way, yes,
it’s hard to change somebody who’s been doing something for many, many years. I put
out an incentive, a retirement incentive program two years ago. For a small district, I
think in the last two years, we’ve had about 12 teachers retire. For a small, two-school
district, that’s a lot of people that retired.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
108
School-level Administrators
“School-level administrators” recorded the third highest response mean (2.00) from
superintendents. More specifically, 31% of superintendents surveyed rated school-level
administrators as a somewhat conceivable obstacle toward the improvement of ELL academic
achievement. Three out of the five superintendents interviewed recognized the importance of
recruiting and hiring culturally proficient site-level administrators who know, appreciate, and
utilize students’ diverse cultural backgrounds and languages to facilitate high levels of learning
for all students (Terrell and Lindsey, 2009). Superintendent C explained:
Our product should match our customer. If you are biliterate in a language of value to the
district, such as Spanish, you are getting an interview. If you care about and have
experience working with second language learners, you are getting an interview. Sixty
percent of my staff at one of the elementary schools was new this past year. They were
largely biliterate English/Spanish. They came with experience. I want my best teachers in
my schools where my kids need them the most. We need to communicate with parents.
Superintendent D noted:
Somebody has to take the lead at the site-level to put a plan in place and hand-deliver
best practices to teachers for English learners. Of course, engage teachers and parents,
but someone has to understand English learners and take the lead.
Valuing English learner’s cultural backgrounds and languages was noted as essential to
advancing their English language proficiency for reclassification. Principals were seen as pivotal
in this endeavor. Superintendent A asserted:
I have a lot of formal and informal conversations and spend a lot of energy with my
principals around English learners. We have 5 schools. We’re small. I visit every school
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
109
every month, and I try to walk every classroom every month. Again, we’re small. In my
last round with my principals in my September round because October is CELDT testing,
I asked them to have a breakdown of English learner scores for me before I got there. I
want to see by grade level their CELDT levels. Then, I said, “What are you doing to
ensure that those fourth and fifth grade kids are aware that they need to reclassify right
now?” because we don’t want to send them to our middle school with a label.
With regards to school site level administration being a barrier to the academic
achievement for ELL students, mindsets and past practices emerged as patterns. According to
Superintendent A, “The attitudes and approaches of principals around English learners make a
difference. Barriers are mindsets based on misconceptions and determination to do things the
way they have always been done.” Structures sustained or enacted by site leaders influence the
success of English learners. Superintendent A provided a concrete example of this notion. She
stated, “The way they (principals) were structuring kids was ineffective. I won’t get into details,
but they were structuring them different than what the state recommends and what we know
works for English learners. Superintendents interviewed cited site-level leadership,
accountability, and small district size as essential elements in prevailing over barriers.
Superintendent B stressed, “Thinking about barriers and overcoming them, I always come back
to the importance of having a site leader that has bought into what is best for ELLs.” Moreover,
creativity was noted as an important element of successful leadership. According to
Superintendent C, “There are barriers, sometimes. Navigating through them is a matter of
leadership. You’ve got to think outside of the box.” In small districts, accountability at the
superintendent level was cite as fundamental in improving the academic achievement for English
learners. Superintendent B stated, “It’s a matter of my director of curriculum and I making sure
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
110
that we have structures in place to keep both of those principals focused on the needs of all
students. Lack of accountability of site-level administrators can adversely influence the
language development on ELL students. Superintendent A explained:
Last year we gave direction to the principals on clustering English learners. Not all of the
principals followed the direction. This year we had to say, “You will do this. We will
check, and if it is wrong, you’re going to basically get in front of your staff and say, ‘I did
this wrong.’” We had to ensure it because we were naïve, and thought, “We say
something, principals do it,” but we had one who didn’t.
The small size of districts translated to proximity, which facilitated superintendent
accountability, a necessary element for surmounting barriers. Superintendent E clarified the
value of small size district and proximity. She emphasized:
I try not to see barriers. Maybe I should. My principal’s right there in the next door. The
other principal, he can’t get away from me, he’s right down there. Everybody knows
what I’m doing, and I know what everybody’s doing. In a small district barriers are
minimized compared to a big district because of my immediate access.
Discussion
Small school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified district-wide
approaches to address obstacles perceived to seemingly hinder the academic achievement of
English language learners. Specifically, this study focused on unions, teachers, and school-level
administrators as potential barriers. Superintendents offered insights into each category
respectively and detailed how their districts had implemented changes to successfully attend to
conceivable barriers related to the academic achievement of ELLs.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
111
Superintendents concurred with the majority of the conceivable factors identified on the
quantitative survey. Qualitative interviews provided a first-hand account of strategies,
approaches, and changes small district superintendents initiate to mitigate obstacles associated
with the academic achievement of ELL students. Moreover, interviews corroborated survey
results and provided specific examples of survey results.
Research Question 3
How are resources allocated by small school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Table 13 depicts superintendent responses to the statement: Please rate the degree to
which you believe the following factors are considered when allocating resources toward the
improving the academic achievement of English language learners. Superintendents were asked
to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates strongly disagree,
“2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates neutral, “4” indicates agree, and “5” indicates strongly
agree.
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.55 to 4.34.
“Reclassification rate” was rated most favorably (4.34), whereas “standardized test scores”
received the lowest response mean (3.55).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
112
Table 13
Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Allocating Resources Toward the
Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Factor
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Response
Mean Total
Significant subgroup 1 0 4 8 16 4.31 29
Community input 0 1 5 16 7 4.00 29
Socioeconomic status 1 3 6 10 9 3.79 29
Reclassification rate 0 1 7 12 9 4.34 29
Standardized test
scores
2 3 7 11 6 3.55 29
CELDT scores 0 2 4 12 11 4.10 29
Reclassification Rate
“Reclassification rate” recorded the highest response mean (4.34) from superintendents.
21 out of 29 superintendents rated “Reclassification Rate” as the #1 factor when allocating
resources to increase ELL academic achievement. According to school districts, a significant
hindrance for the reclassification of English learners is the lack of academic language
proficiency (Parrish, Linquanti, Merickel, Quick, Laird, & Esra, 2002). Grissom (2004)
contends that the reclassification rate, which hovers just above 30 percent after five years of
United States schooling warrants dialogue about the adequacy of the reclassification process.
Optimistically the dialogue will lead to positive change. Along these lines, Superintendent A
explained:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
113
We had to restructure our reclassification criteria because it was way beyond what the
state of California required. I get that whole, let’s set the standard. Let’s reach for the
sky. I get all that, but that’s actually not what that is. I’m going to call that a ‘wall’ that’s
in their way. If the state of California says that this is the criteria, then this is the criteria.
If it’s a four or five with sub-score of a three, that’s what it’s going to be. If it’s an ELA
score of a 350, that’s what it was in the CST, but whatever it is, it’s not going to be 380.
It’s going to be 350. The state doesn’t require a math score. Why are we requiring a math
score? We had an English Learner Committee. We didn’t just make changes arbitrarily
because they had been living with that for the past 10 years, and that was just sacred, so
we had to create an understanding of why that criteria was actually to the detriment of the
students.
Superintendent A further explained the approach and process of changing stakeholder mindsets
about reclassification criteria. She noted:
That’s what we did. We showed them our RFEP data, and they couldn’t argue it, and so
what we said was, “Don’t we want all kids to be RFEP because they’re scoring way up in
these high levels. Then our ELs, what’s the difference? The difference is
reclassification.” Truly, you have CELDT levels 4s and 5s that are still classified as EL,
but didn’t reclassify because they have a C in a class, that’s the only difference between
them and an RFEP. Using our own data, it didn’t take much effort for them to agree. We
redid our reclassification criteria, rewrote our EL Master Plan and our Title 3 Plan.
Superintendent D corroborated the notion of reclassified English learners being academically
successful. He affirmed, “Reclassified students outshine even our English only students. They
do extremely well. We use to disaggregate the data with the prior California State Standards.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
114
Our reclassified students were in the API of 900 plus, while the rest of the students are in the 700
or 800 hundreds.” While allocating resources to the various components that support ELL
students to reclassify, the reclassification process itself transmits important messages about the
values of a school district. Superintendent A explained:
We have allocated monies for a reclassification ceremony district-wide, all of our board
members are invited to that. All the families are invited to that. All of cabinet attends
that. All the principals attend that, and we do a major ceremony. We have certificates,
public acknowledgement, and then of course, we have like a reception afterwards with
drinks and food to show collectively that we care and we’re invested. It’s quite a
ceremony with hundreds of people who attend this. It’s a big deal, we make it a big deal
to celebrate students.
Additionally, superintendent interviews reinforced the notion that resource allocations towards
improving the academic achievement of ELLS, including reclassification, are now prioritized
through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and LCAP structures. These processes
involve stakeholders and are student-achievement driven. Superintendent E emphasized:
By design, by the State of California, the LCAP money, and some of the expectations and
resources are earmarked for ELL students. Because we have that earmarking, then yes,
we are going to spend it where it is earmarked. We include stakeholders in the discussion
of how we’re going to spend it.
All superintendents interviewed emphasized the idea of reaching all students, especially at-risk
subgroups. Reclassification was noted as being a game changer for the future of ELL students.
Superintendent A reflected on the conditions and experience she is working hard to create for
ELL students. She stated:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
115
Honestly, if we become labeled as a district who reclassifies all students by fifth grade,
that would be an amazing legacy. Come to our district as an English learner, you’re going
to get reclassified by fifth grade. If I’m known as someone who has a heart for English
learners that challenges them and provides the best educational opportunity I’ve done my
job.
Significant Subgroup
“Significant subgroup” recorded the second highest response mean (4.31) from
superintendents. More specifically, 24 out of 29 superintendents surveyed rated “significant
subgroup” as the #2 rated factor when allocating resources toward the improvement of ELL
academic achievement. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) imposes the unrealistic undertaking that
all significant subgroups are required to make adequate yearly progress and be proficient by
2014 (Bracey, 2004). NCLB of 2001 further determined that English language learners were a
“significant subgroup,” thus placing a federal spotlight on their needs as well as school and
district accountability for their progress. Educational leaders are using NCLB as a catalyst to
attend to the educational needs of subgroups such as ELLs (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
California’s recently enacted Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has placed a clear
emphasis on three significant subgroups, one of them being ELLs. The LCFF requires school
districts to involve stakeholders in planning and decision making as well as in developing the
LCAP. According to Superintendent A, “We have Title III which is federal dollars, which are
allocated for English learners through the LCAP process. One of the three student groups that
we’re required to address is our English learners. We would do it anyway. We do that by
collectively determining the needs.” Resources allocated for significant subgroups were cited by
interviewees as progressive with regards to meeting their needs. Superintendent D noted,
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
116
“Through the LCAP we have earmarked money to support our significant subgroups, namely
English learners. We have extra teachers and software especially for English learners and
English 3D for long-term English learners. English learners need solid instruction plus more.
Specially earmarked funding allows us to do the plus more.” Superintendent C further expanded
on the responsibility of utilizing funding structures to meet the needs of significant subgroups.
She explained:
I think a school district between three and five thousand is a really ideal size. With this
new LCFF funding, we are able to do many things for our subgroups because we are 70%
unduplicated. I am getting about two million dollars in funding. I have absolutely no
excuse to not really strategically use my funding to meet the needs of my learners.
Superintendent interviews indicated that recent resource allocation earmarked for the academic
achievement of significant subgroups such as English learners is efficient. The LCFF and LCAP
processes are now guided by stakeholder input and include subgroup achievement data.
CELDT Scores
“CELDT scores” recorded the third highest response mean (4.10) from superintendents.
23 out of 29 superintendents rated “CELDT scores” as the #3 factor when allocating resources
toward the improvement of ELL academic achievement. According to the California
Department of Education (CDE), Title III of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act apportions
funding to support English Learners (ELs). Consequently, Local Education Agencies (LEAs)
receiving funds must comply with 3 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
each year. AMAO 1 requires EL students to demonstrate progress in attaining English
proficiency, as measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
AMAO 2 requires EL students to exhibit Proficiency on the CELDT. And AMAO 3 requires the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
117
EL subgroup to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives at the LEA level. All five
superintendents interviewed recognized the accountability that goes with Title III funding. Small
District leaders readily embraced responsibility for English learner success. Monitoring of
CELDT data was equally as important for future implications of English learner achievement.
Superintendent A stated:
In our state, rightly or wrongly, English learners get a label from the moment that they
arrive in our system, and it is our work and our responsibility to remove that label. It’s
not the kid’s responsibility and it’s not the parents’ responsibility to remove that label.
Our goal is to remove that label in 5 years if you come in as a CELDT level 1. If you
come in as a CELDT level 3, then our job is 3 years, because 1 year of growth is worth 1
year of instruction. I said to my principals, “I need you to meet with English learners and
understand the student’s perspective. If you think that they know what it means for their
life that they’re a CELDT level 4 they don’t.”
CELDT was noted as the primary assessment of English language development. Superintendent
B highlighted the importance of using multiple measures in educational settings to enhance the
validity of instructional decisions that influence the academic achievement of ELL students. He
noted:
The CELDT assessment, like every other district in the state, gets us baseline data on our
English learners. It tells us the language development progress of our students. It
informs us of student progress and identifies district, school, and student needs. We just
bought SchoolCity to get a benchmark in place. It’s an assessment analysis and reporting
program. It will cover all students, including English learners. We have about 97%
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
118
Latinos. Just under 50% of our students are considered English learners. In addition to
CELDT, SchoolCity will help us to better monitor and evaluate English learners.
CELDT scores were cited as being important to making decisions about the allocation of
resources. Interviewees recognized the instructional underpinnings necessary to produce
favorable CELDT results for English learners. Superintendent E explained:
CELDT results are an indicator of learning. We need to make sure we have teachers who
have an understanding of English language learners, what they’re going through, and how
to teach them. Putting my resources into personnel and their development, eighty-five
percent of our money goes into personnel. I can buy all kinds of programs, but if the
people don’t know how to use them what good are they? It’s like buying a good steak.
What good is it if somebody burns the food? It’s the skill and imagination of a good
teacher that will manifest in the CELDT scores.
Professional development on the right teachers will ensure they are equipped with the pedagogy
and skillset to deliver English Language Development (ELD) instruction. California has recently
adopted new ELD standards which will condense 5 levels into 3 levels consisting of developing,
bridging, and expanding. This means that a substantial number of LTELs will be trapped at the
bridging level. Moreover, the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California
(ELPAC) will soon be replacing the CELDT test. This will necessitate additional time resources
to build organizational capacity with both the new ELD standards and a new language
development assessment instrument. A central theme amongst superintendents was allocating
funds to the components of the organization that result in favorable CELDT scores. Such
components include personnel, professional development, and quality programs. State
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
119
accountability measures overseeing CELDT scores fostered organizational responsibility for the
academic achievement of English learners.
Discussion
Small school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified factors taken
into account when allocating resources in relation to the academic achievement of ELLs.
Specifically, this study focused on the following factors: reclassification rates, significant
subgroup, and CELDT scores. Superintendents offered insights into each factor respectively,
and described the implications of each factor when allocating resources in relation to the
academic achievement of English language learners. Superintendents concurred with the
majority of the conceivable factors identified on the quantitative survey. Qualitative interviews
provided a first-hand account of how superintendents allocate resources to support the academic
achievement of ELL students via the LCFF and LCAP. Moreover, interviews corroborated
survey data and provided concrete examples data-driven resource allocation.
Research Question 4
How do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Table 14 depicts superintendent responses to the statement: Please rate the degree to
which you believe the following are important in monitoring and evaluating the academic
achievement of English language learners. Superintendents were asked to indicate level of
agreement using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates strongly disagree, “2” indicates
disagree, “3” indicates neutral, “4” indicates agree, and “5” indicates strongly agree.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
120
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.93 to 4.66. “Valid and
reliable assessment instruments” was rated most favorably (4.66), whereas “superintendent
visibility at school sites” received the lowest response mean (3.93).
Table 14
Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Monitoring and Evaluating the Academic
Achievement of ELLs
Factor
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Response
Mean Total
Valid and reliable
assessment instruments
0 0 1 8 20 4.66 29
Reclassification rates 0 1 3 12 13 4.28 29
Analyzing ELL
subgroup assessment
data
0 0 1 10 18 4.59 29
Site administrator
classroom observations
0 0 5 7 17 4.41 29
Site administrator
collaboration at the
district-level
0 0 4 10 15 4.38 29
Superintendent visibility
at School
0 4 3 13 9 3.93 29
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
121
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
“Valid and reliable assessment instruments” recorded the highest response mean (4.66)
from superintendents. 28 out of 29 superintendents rated “Valid and Reliable Assessment
Instruments” as the #1 factor considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic
achievement of ELLs. Three of the five superintendents interviewed mentioned the value of
valid and reliable assessment instruments to monitor and support the academic achievement of
all students, including ELLs. All three superintendents placed confidence in the reliability of
local accountability measures, such as district benchmarks, program assessments, and teacher
developed assessments. Superintendent A stated:
We have DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills) assessments that we use.
That’s one of the reliable tools that we have in place to monitor students and evaluate
their academic achievement. We’re also using a new program this year, and it’s based on
adaptive diagnostic assessment to intervene immediately and electronically. It’s called “i-
Ready.” It’s a wonderful, it’s what we call a “Smart Program,” so I take a diagnostic, and
then based on my results, it can literally deliver curriculum to me at my level.
Superintendent B noted:
We just got SchoolCity assessment. I had them come and do training on the first day of
school because it is important. An assessment tool is effective if teachers know their
students are going to get assessed, the assessment is going to get looked at and discussed,
and possible shared with the grade level. Good assessment tools are the basis of great
valuable discussions that can be had amongst teachers on a regular basis.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
122
Superintendent D explained:
We are small, we’re a little district of 1200 plus students and specifically for English
learners, of course, we use state and some local assessments to determine how well or
how poorly they’re doing. We also have our benchmark exams for language arts and
math. What we are really doing is benchmarking the learning of students.
Valid and reliable assessment instruments, especially when triangulated, provide meaningful data
regarding the veracity of instruction, programs, and strategies. Moreover, they provide valuable
information about student learning. These data sources are the impetus for stakeholder
collaboration and instructional decision making with regards to all students, namely English
language learners.
Analyzing ELL Subgroup Assessment Data
“Analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data” recorded the second highest response mean
(4.59) from superintendents. 28 out of 29 superintendents rated “Analyzing ELL Subgroup
Assessment Data” as the #2 factor considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic
achievement of ELLs. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) imposed the unrealistic task that all
significant student subgroups must make adequate yearly progress and be proficient by 2014
(Bracey, 2004). Furthermore, NCLB of 2001 determined that English language learners were a
“significant subgroup,” thus placing a federal spotlight on their needs as well as school and
district accountability for their progress. Educational leaders are using NCLB as a catalyst to
attend to the educational needs of subgroups such as ELLs (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Superintendent C addressed ELL subgroup assessment data. She emphasized:
Analyzing a variety of assessment results gives us a better picture. Obviously we are
using the CELDT. We have benchmarks. We have other things that we use, for instance
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
123
accelerated reader. SBAC results of course. We are not waiting for a benchmark test, to
address the needs of our subgroups. We are using formative assessments to catch a
learning problem and address it in real time.
Superintendent D explained:
We use multiple measures to determine whether or not our English learners are making
progress. For example, we have been using Imagine Learning, which includes
technology-based formative assessments for our newcomers. The reports we get from
them are rather comprehensive. Of course, we look at CELDT scores. We use the results
to provide daily ELD instruction. That is not negotiable. Language development is
critical. We run and collectively examine a report where we know how many long-term
English learners we have and who they are.
Superintendent A asserted:
The most important part of assessments is the teaching part of it when teachers analyze
the results of those assessments, they look to see how they need to group their kids, and
then they pull them to the kidney table or small groups. We’re doing it at the middle
school as well because it’s K-8, and then they too deliver small group instruction.
Site Administrator Classroom Observations
“Site administrator classroom observations” recorded the third highest response mean
(4.41) from superintendents. 24 of 29 superintendents rated “Site Administrator Classroom
Observations” as the #3 factor considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic
achievement of ELLs. School Administrators play a considerable part in the instructional
process through their observations of classroom instruction and their conversations with teachers.
Johnson (2008) contends that instructional leaders observe classroom instruction frequently for
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
124
the purpose of assessing instruction and offering teachers constructive criticism. When
principals regularly visit classrooms, they are attentive to instructional issues and teacher
development. The desired organizational results are collectively accomplished by the principal
recurrently coaching and mentoring teachers (Johnson, 2008). In reference to principals being
connected to classroom instruction and monitoring English learner progress, Superintendent A
asserted:
Principals need to be present and involved in classroom instruction. If they are invested
and immersed in English learners, it’s the only way they can ensure the teachers are also
invested and immersed. For example, if we walk into a language arts class at a particular
school and ten students are receiving sheltered instruction, he (the principal) basically has
the teachers set up folders where student CELDT scores are kept because he thought that
it would be easier for them to keep track and monitor English learner progress. When the
principal walks into the classrooms, he goes over to the folders and looks to see the notes
and the progress that the teacher is required to keep, so that he can at any time check the
progress.
Classroom visitations for the purpose of improving instruction were noted by 4 out of 5
superintendents interviewed. Superintendent B elaborated on site-level administrator
expectations. He emphasized:
I focus on the administrators, and it’s the principal’s job to focus on teachers by
observing classroom instruction. Although being in such a small district, we still have a
very close connection with teachers. In a bigger district, I would say my focus would be
probably nothing but administrators. Here, I visit classrooms with the principals. As a
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
125
matter of fact, I taught PE a couple of weeks ago because they were short of sub. I just
went over and helped out. That’s a connection you can have in small district.
Superintendent D further corroborated the notion of expectations and accountability. He
explained:
I hold principals accountable making sure that they’re in those classrooms observing
ELD (English Language Development). ELA, math, and science are important too but I
want principals to focus on ELD and let the teachers know they’re going to do formal
observations on ELD. Principals do regular walkthroughs. They’re expected to be in the
classroom a minimum of five hours a week, a minimum and they are because I hold them
accountable. That’s how we do it here. It’s easy because it’s little here.
Purpose and focus of classroom observations was cited as fundamental to improving instruction
for all students, specifically English learners. Superintendent D concluded:
I also do walkthroughs with the principals. We see what’s happening in the classrooms
and we start saying, you know what, this is an area where I think our teachers need help.
The first thing is, you do walkthroughs, of course to supervise instruction, that’s
important. Also, to think, okay, if our teachers are having a very difficult time with
helping English learners, this is an area where I think we need to bring in an expert to
help us. Classroom observations are critical.
Discussion
Small school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified factors taken
into account when overseeing and evaluating the academic achievement of ELLs. Specifically,
this study focused on the following factors: valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing
ELL subgroup assessment data, and site administrator classroom observations. Superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
126
offered insights into each factor respectively, and described the implications of each factor when
overseeing and evaluating the academic achievement of English language learners.
Superintendents concurred with the majority of the conceivable factors identified on the
quantitative survey. Qualitative interviews provided a first-hand account of how superintendents
oversee, evaluate, and support the academic achievement of ELL students. Moreover, interviews
corroborated survey data and provided concrete examples of survey results.
Summary
Superintendents interviewed and surveyed cited a wide variety of strategies and
approaches they had implemented to improve the academic achievement of English language
learners. The data indicates the following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question 1 asks, What strategies do small school district superintendents in
California employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Teacher expectations for
ELL achievement, professional development focused on ELL instruction, data-driven decision-
making, high expectations for student achievement, collaboration amongst stakeholders, and
instructional leadership are all elements that influence strategies and approaches utilized by small
school district superintendents to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
First, in regard to teacher expectations for ELL performance, three of the five
superintendents interviewed connected teacher expectations with teacher beliefs. They agreed
that low expectations are often rooted in misconceptions. All superintendents believe that ELL
students, regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances or language limitations, are extremely
capable students. These small district superintendents maintain the expectation that teachers will
deliver the necessary language development and content instruction to ensure the academic
success of ELL students.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
127
Next, in regard to professional development focused on ELL instruction, superintendents
concurred that hiring and retaining teachers and administrators with the passion, disposition, and
skillset for ensuring the academic success of ELL students was vital. It was noted that a needs-
driven professional development plan was equally as important in sustaining and developing an
efficient culture of serving English learners.
Third, in regard to data-driven decision-making, all five of the superintendents
interviewed asserted that data should be a means to assess and improve the academic
achievement of all students, especially English learners and children of poverty. Each
superintendent cited data-driven decision making as vital to meeting the individual and diverse
needs of English learners.
Fourth, in regard to high expectations, superintendents concurred that high expectations
are critical to improving the academic achievement of ELLs. Every one of the five
superintendents interviewed was candid about the complexity of developing and nurturing a
culture of high expectations in an organization. Expectations are rooted in beliefs, which
transmute into perceptions thus leading to expectations. Superintendents acknowledged a
correlation between teacher mindset and student achievement.
Fifth, in regard to collaboration amongst stakeholders, superintendents noted that
successful collaborations with stakeholders are characterized by transparency, positive
relationships, and purpose driven. Superintendents emphasized that having collaboration
structures that are open to interested stakeholders sends the message that the work of committees
and task forces is transparent. Being proactive in encouraging participation by representative
stakeholders was deemed essential.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
128
Lastly, in regard to instructional leadership, superintendents noted that instructional
leadership was significant in executing the plan to improve the academic achievement for ELL
students. Small district superintendents underscored the importance of relying on teacher
leadership to realize the strategic plan of the district.
Research question 2 asks, What do small school district superintendents in California
perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs? Small
school district superintendents identified unions, teachers, and site-level administrators as
stakeholders with the potential to operate as conceivable obstacles toward the improvement of
ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to unions, transparency and trust seemed to be vital to a successful
superintendent-union partnership. This was underscored in my interview with superintendent C.
Superintendent C spoke on creating the conditions and culture of being metaphorically naked
and vulnerable in front of each other in the interest of transparency for the purpose of fulfilling
the common mission of serving all students better.
Next, in regard to teachers, superintendents noted that teachers play a vital role in the
academic achievement of all students, especially English learners. They are entrusted with using
their professional expertise on a daily basis to deliver sound instruction to all students. Their
skillset and disposition for differentiating instruction for at-risk students and subgroups is pivotal
to making content accessible to ELL students and advancing their academic achievement.
Lastly, in regard to school-level administrators, three out of five superintendents
interviewed recognized the importance of recruiting, hiring, and retaining culturally proficient
site-level administrators who know, appreciate, and utilize students’ diverse cultural
backgrounds, languages, and experiences to provide English learners with relevance and rigor.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
129
Superintendent C characterized this as ensuring that the product matches the customer. In regard
to the development and nurturing of site-level administrators, accountability and support were
mentioned as being pivotal.
Research question 3 asks, How are resources allocated by small school district
superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Reclassification
rates, significant subgroup, and CELDT scores were identified as elements considered by small
school district superintendents in California when allocating resources toward the improvement
of ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that resource allocations
towards improving the academic achievement of ELLs, including reclassification, are now
prioritized through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) structures. These processes involve stakeholders and are student-
achievement driven. Resource allocation to the programs and strategies that result in
reclassification was deemed fundamental. Reclassification was deemed as a game changer for
the future of English learners.
Next, in regard to significant subgroup, superintendents indicated that recent resource
allocation earmarked for the academic achievement of significant subgroups such as English
learners is efficient. The LCFF and LCAP processes are now guided by stakeholder input and
include subgroup achievement data. Superintendent interviews indicated that resources allocated
for significant subgroups were progressive with regards to meeting their needs.
Third, in regard to CELDT scores, all five superintendents interviewed recognized the
accountability that goes with Title III funding. Small district leaders readily embraced the
responsibility for English learner success. Monitoring of CELDT data was noted as being
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
130
equally important for future implications of English learner achievement. Superintendents also
underscored the need for focused professional development associated with state accountability
measures of English language development.
Research question 4 asks, How do small school district superintendents in California
evaluate programs used to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Valid and reliable
assessment instruments, analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, and site administrator
classroom observations were identified as factors considered by small school district
superintendents in California when overseeing and evaluating the academic achievement of
ELLs.
First, in regard to valid and reliable assessment instruments, three of the five
superintendents interviewed mentioned the value of valid and reliable assessment instruments to
monitor and support the academic achievement of all students, including ELLs. All three
superintendents placed confidence in the reliability of local accountability measures, such as
district benchmarks, program assessments, and teacher developed assessments. Superintendent
interviews concurred that the most valuable part of assessments is the collaborative teacher
analysis of those assessments. This ongoing analysis is the catalyst for program selection and
calibration of instruction.
Second, in regard to analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, superintendent interviews
noted the importance of multiple measures including CELDT in determining appropriate student
grouping. Superintendents also addressed the importance of formative assessments during
instruction for teachers to be able to respond to student needs in real time. Ongoing analysis of
subgroup data was cited as the catalyst for flexible student grouping based on varying needs.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
131
Lastly, in regard to site administrator classroom observations superintendents noted that
school administrators play a considerable part in the instructional process through their
observations of classroom instruction and conversations with teachers. When principals visit
classrooms regularly, they are attentive to instructional issues and teacher development.
Purposeful and focused classroom observations were noted as being fundamental to improving
instruction for all students, specifically English learners.
Chapter 5 continues with a summary of the research study including conclusions and
implications.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
132
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The role of a school superintendent is crucial to the direction and success of a school
district. As an organizational leader, the superintendent plays various roles in interacting with
differing stakeholders to achieve success. The superintendent is held responsible for
successfully managing human resources, fiscal responsibilities, safety of those within the district,
and student achievement. Moreover, superintendents are charged with implementing strategies
to improve the academic achievement of all students (Fuller, et al., 2003).
There is little debate that school superintendents possess one of the most challenging and
significant jobs in America’s public education system (Buchanan, 2004; CGCS, 2002;
Newcomb, 2004). In fact, the evolution of the role of superintendent, from a mostly managerial
function to that of an instructional leader, highly capable of leading district reform efforts, is no
small feat (Beam, 2004; Berlau, 2011). As a result, school boards today have an expressed
interest in hiring superintendents with a proven background in curriculum and instruction, and
who also possess a track record of increasing student achievement levels for all students,
especially ELLs (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Peterson & Young, 2004).
Moreover, an organizational leader such as a district superintendent needs to foster site-
level trust and leadership to fulfill the strategic plan of the district by promoting collective
responsibility (Miller, 2004). Previous studies have investigated the leadership styles of school
principals (DeMoss, 2002; Pepper, 2010; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2010), but not of superintendents.
Studies that have involved school superintendents have mainly focused on districts outside the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
133
state of California (Bird &Wang, 2013; Fenn & Mixon, 2011; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Trevino,
Braley, Brown, & Slate, 2008).
One particular subgroup that requires the attention of school superintendents is the ELL
population. In the United States, nearly 61 million people (21% of the overall national
population) ages five and older, speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 2011). The state of California has one of the largest English Language Learner
(ELL) student populations in the nation. From 2011 to 2014 there were between 1.4-1.6 million
ELLs who represented 22-25 percent of the overall student population in California schools
(Garcia Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011; Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014).
The strategies a small district superintendent implements to support the academic
achievement of ELLs is critical to both ELL students and district’s overall success. For all
students, but most notably ELLs, meeting challenging academic standards involves developing a
strong command of the English language, especially in terms of its academic uses (Saunders,
Foorman, & Carlson, 2006). Currently, the federal government requires state accountability
systems to include ELLs in high stakes testing, thus holding teachers, students, and schools
accountable for their academic progress, even if students cannot read the test they are taking, or
even if students have not been exposed to the academic content on which they are being
evaluated (Rios-Aguilar, Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012).
This chapter provides a concise summary of the research study, including a statement of
the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and
methodology utilized, followed by findings related to the four research questions. In concluding,
implications and recommendations for future study are specified.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
134
Statement of the Problem
Student achievement in the United States has taken a back seat to those of other
developing countries over the past decade (Gonzalez et al., 2009). Specifically, addressing the
academic achievement of ELLs educated in the US compared to that of native English speakers
has further perpetuated the achievement gap. Although historically, the high school dropout
dilemma has steadily improved throughout the years, wide disparities by race, Hispanic origin,
and foreign-born status continue to persist (Doll, 2011; Spears, 2011; Tavitian, 2013). For
example, the U.S. government reported that the high school dropout rate for Hispanics is nearly
ten times as high as native speakers of English, at 27.8% (NCES, 2002). Moreover, the Hispanic
Dropout Project published a report that pinpointed a 30-35% dropout rate for selected groups of
Hispanics at the completion of the project, many of whom were ELLs as well (U.S. Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, 1998). Since Hispanics constitute the most
sizeable U.S. population of ELLs, this has significant implications for the ELLs in California.
Equally important, between 2000 and 2010 the Latino population increased from 35.3
million to 50.5 million and is projected to increase by 17.8% by 2020. In addition, by 2050 the
population for this group is expected to spike by 24.4% to 102.6 million (Aud et al., 2012).
Likewise, the report accentuated that between 1990 and 2010 the Latino public school
enrollment escalated from 5.1 million to 12.1 million students, rising from 12% to 23% (Aud et
al., 2012). Similarly, Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly & Callahan (2003) illuminate the
concept that public schools are symbolic of the diverse communities in which they serve, and
therefore, have the important responsibility of providing equal educational opportunities to all
students, regardless of race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
135
Moreover, the total number of enrolled public school students in the United States is 48
million, and of that number, 4.7 million are ELLs (Aud et al., 2012). Better yet, the percentage
of this population moved up two percentage points between 2000-01 to 2009-10—from 3.7
million to 4.7 million. As it stands, California has the largest concentration of ELLs, amounting
to 29% attending public schools (Aud et al., 2012). Sadly enough, research has also uncovered
that one’s identification as an ELL puts he/she at high-risk of eventual high school dropout
(August & Shanahan, 2006; Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010). For this reason, it is
critical to examine the impact that superintendent leadership bears on the academic achievement
of ELLs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how strategies employed by small school
district superintendents in California improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What strategies do small school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do small school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by small school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do small school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
136
Review of the Literature
A review of the literature unearthed the reality that language acquisition in the United
States has a complicated history linked to social status and the truth that some selected European
languages are more highly valued then others (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). The anti-immigrant
sentiment has had a well-established presence in the United States. Terrell and Lindsey contend
that language acquisition converges with issues of race, ethnicity, and national origin and has a
tendency to be focused on recent arrivals. The anti-immigrant sentiment impacts a high number
of English learners because it is a continuation of the anti-Latino attitudes and dispositions
cultivated in the late nineteenth century (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). For English learners in the
United States, their level of academic achievement has historically trailed significantly behind
native English speakers (Genesee, Lindhold-Leary, Saunders, & Christian 2006). Kindler (2002)
asserts that in a 41 state study only 18.7% of ELLs met the state norm for reading in English.
Terrell and Lindsey (2009) argue that the rate of undocumented immigration to the United States
coupled with the interrelated economic and political cross-border relationships and migration
patterns of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have contributed to language
acquisition being a critical issue in schools today.
Furthermore, the literature review provided in-depth context for instructional leaders to
address the complexity and diversity of English language learner needs. There were a total of six
sections delineated in in this literature examination. The first section provided a historical
background of English learners in the United States and in the state of California. The U.S.
overview provided important context for the state of California. The second section examined the
most impactful recent policies, which have shaped English learner education. These policies and
court cases continue to shape education for ELLs today. The third section focused on the profile
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
137
and journey of English learners. This segment discussed pathways and important data providing
background for understanding the underachievement of this population. The fourth section
examined Long Term English Language Learners who have been unable to reclassify and exit
ELL status. The fifth section surveyed factors influencing the underachievement of English
learners. This section provides important context for organizational leaders to address these
factors at different levels of the organization. The sixth and final section presented a theoretical
framework of leadership necessary to influence English learner achievement. Superintendents, as
the highest organizational leaders in school districts, are entrusted with the moral charge of
creating the conditions for all students to succeed academically and socially.
Across the nation and more specifically in California, ELLs are a significant and rapidly
growing group making it an urgent concern for school leaders to take notice and develop a plan
to meet their needs (Kleyn & Menken, 2009). This includes education policy makers and
instructional leaders at all levels of the educational system. Essential to planning effective
education for ELLs and the LTEL subgroup of secondary students is correlating language
domains with systematic reviews of current findings and using results to bridge articulation
between educators and researchers (Genesee et al., 2006). In various aspects of education, there
has been a long standing lack of communication and disconnect between researchers and
practitioners. Staff development and alignment of policies and procedures in public education
are in urgent need of reform. Any degree of reform at this stage must be buttressed with a
comprehensive plan for sustainability. Protocols for classification and placement of ELL students
and the adults responsible for their learning and language development are important factors to
address at all levels of the K-12 system.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
138
Successful superintendent and site-level leadership can be examined through the four-part
model delineated by Bolman and Deal (2008). It provides a four-frame representation of
leadership to recognize distinctive lenses and skills needed by organizational leaders for different
purposes. Bolman and Deal (2008) assert that the four frames comprised of structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic components, are intended to support organizational leaders in
being effective. They support organizational ethics by embodying excellence, caring, justice,
and faith. Marzano and Waters (2006) assert that the expertise and talent of organizational
leaders to respond to organizational and stakeholder demands positively influence student
achievement. An organizational leader such as a district superintendent needs to foster site-level
trust and leadership to fulfill the strategic plan of the district by promoting collective
responsibility (Miller, 2004). Flexibility on behalf of organizational leaders to operate within all
four frames of Bolman and Deal (2008) will capitalize on their effectiveness by selecting the
suitable frame for the purpose at hand. The talent to navigate the four-frames would afford
district superintendents to address English language learner needs at all levels of the
organization.
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 29 quantitative surveys and
five qualitative interviews completed by small school district superintendents in California. This
method was selected for increased rigor, as it allows for comparison among findings and
provides greater depth and complexity to the data collected (Patton, 2002).
In order to distinguish superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, the
study used purposeful, criterion-based sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful,
criterion-based sampling allowed the researcher to select active, small school district
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
139
superintendents in California that served student populations with a significant subgroup of
students classified as ELLs. Quantitative sampling criteria served to determine superintendent
participation focused on district leaders meeting the following criteria: a) a student population of
less than 5,000; b) at or above the state average ELL percentage of 22.7%; c) at least two years
of experience as superintendent of the current district. The quantitative and qualitative sampling
selection criteria for the study were identical.
The quantitative survey addressed the five focused areas in the literature: (a) strategies
used; (b) superintendent’s implementation of plans; (c) stakeholders as obstacles; (d) allocation
of resources; and (e) monitoring and evaluating academic progress. Additionally, the
quantitative survey was comprised of the following types of questions: (a) six demographic
questions; (b) one question to determine the willingness to participate in a follow up interview;
and (c) 35 Likert style questions (Appendix B) associated with the four research questions.
Qualitative interviews were conducted using an interview protocol of 10 questions, accompanied
by follow-up questions to clarify responses. All interviews were recorded and transcribed to
ensure accuracy.
Findings
Research question 1 asks, What strategies do small district superintendents in California
employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Teacher expectations for ELL achievement, professional development focused on ELL
instruction, data-driven decision-making, high expectations for student achievement,
collaboration amongst stakeholders, and instructional leadership are all elements that influence
strategies and approaches utilized by small school district superintendents to improve the
academic achievement of ELLs.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
140
First, in regard to teacher expectations for ELL performance, three of the five
superintendents interviewed connected teacher expectations with teacher beliefs. They agreed
that low expectations are often rooted in misconceptions. All superintendents believe that ELL
students, regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances or language limitations, are extremely
capable students. These small district superintendents maintain the expectation that teachers will
deliver the necessary language development and content instruction to ensure the academic
success of ELL students.
Next, in regard to professional development focused on ELL instruction, superintendents
concurred that hiring and retaining teachers and administrators with the passion, disposition, and
skillset for ensuring the academic success of ELL students was vital. It was noted that a needs-
driven professional development plan was equally as important in sustaining and developing an
efficient culture of serving English learners.
Third, in regard to data-driven decision-making, all five of the superintendents
interviewed asserted that data should be a means to assess and improve the academic
achievement of all students, especially English learners and children of poverty. Each
superintendent cited data-driven decision making as vital to meeting the individual and diverse
needs of English learners.
Fourth, in regard to high expectations, superintendents concurred that high expectations
are critical to improving the academic achievement of ELLs. Every one of the five
superintendents interviewed was candid about the complexity of developing and nurturing a
culture of high expectations in an organization. Expectations are rooted in beliefs, which
transmute into perceptions thus leading to expectations. Superintendents acknowledged a
correlation between teacher mindset and student achievement.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
141
Fifth, in regard to collaboration amongst stakeholders, superintendents noted that
successful collaborations with stakeholders are characterized by transparency, positive
relationships, and purpose driven. Superintendents emphasized that having collaboration
structures that are open to interested stakeholders sends the message that the work of committees
and task forces is transparent. Being proactive in encouraging participation by representative
stakeholders was deemed essential.
Lastly, in regard to instructional leadership, superintendents noted that instructional
leadership was significant in executing the plan to improve the academic achievement for ELL
students. Small district superintendents underscored the importance of relying on teacher
leadership to realize the strategic plan of the district.
Research question 2 asks, What do small school district superintendents in California
perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs? Small
school district superintendents identified unions, teachers, and site-level administrators as
stakeholders with the potential to operate as conceivable obstacles toward the improvement of
ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to unions, transparency and trust seemed to be vital to a successful
superintendent-union partnership. This was underscored in my interview with superintendent C.
Superintendent C spoke on creating the conditions and culture of being metaphorically naked
and vulnerable in front of each other in the interest of transparency for the purpose of fulfilling
the common mission of serving all students better.
Next, in regard to teachers, superintendents noted that teachers play a vital role in the
academic achievement of all students, especially English learners. They are entrusted with using
their professional expertise on a daily basis to deliver sound instruction to all students. Their
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
142
skillset and disposition for differentiating instruction for at-risk students and subgroups is pivotal
to making content accessible to ELL students and advancing their academic achievement.
Lastly, in regard to school-level administrators, three out of five superintendents
interviewed recognized the importance of recruiting, hiring, and retaining culturally proficient
site-level administrators who know, appreciate, and utilize students’ diverse cultural
backgrounds, languages, and experiences to provide English learners with relevance and rigor.
Superintendent C characterized this as ensuring that the product matches the customer. In regard
to the development and nurturing of site-level administrators, accountability and support were
mentioned as being pivotal.
Research question 3 asks, How are resources allocated by small school district
superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Reclassification rates, significant subgroup, and CELDT scores were identified as
elements considered by small school district superintendents in California when allocating
resources toward the improvement of ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that resource allocations
towards improving the academic achievement of ELLs, including reclassification, are now
prioritized through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) structures. These processes involve stakeholders and are student-
achievement driven. Resource allocation to the programs and strategies that result in
reclassification was deemed fundamental. Reclassification was deemed as a game changer for
the future of English learners.
Next, in regard to significant subgroup, superintendents indicated that recent resource
allocation earmarked for the academic achievement of significant subgroups such as English
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
143
learners is efficient. The LCFF and LCAP processes are now guided by stakeholder input and
include subgroup achievement data. Superintendent interviews indicated that resources allocated
for significant subgroups were progressive with regards to meeting their needs.
Third, in regard to CELDT scores, all five superintendents interviewed recognized the
accountability that goes with Title III funding. Small district leaders readily embraced the
responsibility for English learner success. Monitoring of CELDT data was noted as being
equally important for future implications of English learner achievement. Superintendents also
underscored the need for focused professional development associated with state accountability
measures of English language development.
Research question 4 asks, How do small school district superintendents in California
evaluate programs used to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, and
site administrator classroom observations were identified as factors considered by small school
district superintendents in California when overseeing and evaluating the academic achievement
of ELLs.
First, in regard to valid and reliable assessment instruments, three of the five
superintendents interviewed mentioned the value of valid and reliable assessment instruments to
monitor and support the academic achievement of all students, including ELLs. All three
superintendents placed confidence in the reliability of local accountability measures, such as
district benchmarks, program assessments, and teacher developed assessments. Superintendent
interviews concurred that the most valuable part of assessments is the collaborative teacher
analysis of those assessments. This ongoing analysis is the catalyst for program selection and
calibration of instruction.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
144
Second, in regard to analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, superintendent interviews
noted the importance of multiple measures including CELDT in determining appropriate student
grouping. Superintendents also addressed the importance of formative assessments during
instruction for teachers to be able to respond to student needs in real time. Ongoing analysis of
subgroup data was cited as the catalyst for flexible student grouping based on varying needs.
Lastly, in regard to site administrator classroom observations superintendents noted that
school administrators play a considerable part in the instructional process through their
observations of classroom instruction and conversations with teachers. When principals visit
classrooms regularly, they are attentive to instructional issues and teacher development.
Purposeful and focused classroom observations were noted as being fundamental to improving
instruction for all students, specifically English learners.
Implications
The important findings related to this research study add to the body of scholarly
literature by distinguishing the strategies used by small school district superintendents in
California to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. Data associated
with this study may be pertinent to current or would-be superintendents in small districts looking
to improve academic success for ELL students because it offers a framework that small district
superintendents have utilized to lead their districts in implementing change to address the needs
of this traditionally underachieving subgroup.
The findings of this research study exemplify the vital role that teachers play in
improving classroom experiences and instruction that result in improved academic achievement
for ELL students. Small district superintendents have the greatest access to classroom instruction
afforded by size and proximity. School district leaders can apply the findings of this research
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
145
study to increase district capacity to address the diverse needs of English learners and improve
their academic achievement. In regards to district leadership, small district superintendents
emphasized the importance of teacher leadership given the limited amount of formal leadership.
Moreover, they highlighted the importance of site-level leadership and ELL pedagogy expertise.
Disposition was also noted as a key factor influencing the academic achievement of ELL
students. All superintendents in this study emphasized the importance of retaining and hiring
educators with the skillset and passion to support the academic achievement of ELLs.
Additionally, the importance of having a district and/or site plan for addressing the needs of
English learners was underscored.
Furthermore, small school districts can use the findings of this study to foster an
organizational culture of capacity building and high expectations for ELL achievement. Every
one of the five superintendents interviewed was candid about the complexity of developing and
nurturing a culture of high expectations in an organization. Expectations are rooted in beliefs
which transmute into perceptions thus leading to expectations. The findings of this study note
the connection between teacher mindset and student achievement. Teachers play a vital role in
the academic achievement of all students, especially English learners. They are entrusted with
using their professional expertise on a daily basis to deliver sound instruction to all students.
Their skillset for differentiating instruction for at-risk students and subgroups is pivotal in
making content accessible to ELL students. Organizational leaders recognized the potential of
the position of superintendent to enact change. Leadership sets the themes and tone for how the
organization is going to function and what it is going to prioritize. This study offers some
guidance on how to enact change and prioritize initiatives on behalf of English language
learners.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
146
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of greater depth of knowledge about the actions superintendents undertake to
positively impact the academic outcomes of students classified as English language learners, the
researcher recommends the following be considered for future study:
1. Further analyze small district structures which would include site-level
administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals in support of ELL achievement.
2. Further investigate organizational effectiveness in support of ELL achievement in
small districts of specific structures, such as elementary, high school, or unified.
3. Further comparison studies among small, small-sized, and large school district
superintendents and the degree of involvement they have in the ELL decision-making
process at each level.
4. There is a need to analyze the influence K-5 language development programs have on
ELL students becoming Long Term English Learners (LTELs).
Conclusions
Having conducted the research study and analyzed the data, the researcher concludes that
small district superintendents in California play a critical role in the academic achievement of
English learners. This challenge is exponentially greater given the upcoming change of language
development assessment from the CELDT test to the ELPAC. Moreover, the cognitive and
language demands of the Smarter Balanced Assessment place an added sense of urgency on
organizational leaders to meet the needs of ELL students. Superintendents need to establish
capacity building systems and structures to build English learner instructional expertise amongst
teachers and site-level administrators in order to meet the diverse language development needs of
English learners (Olsen, 2010b). Given the limited number of support personnel, small district
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
147
superintendents need to be especially involved with principals and teachers and well versed in
English language development and English learner instructional pedagogy. Due to the hands-on
nature of the modern day superintendent, stakeholders have the expectation that the
superintendent will work actively with principals and teachers in the curriculum work
(development and implementation) and the standardized-test growth targets to close achievement
gap among student groups, particularly those classified as ELLs (Black, 2007; Gandara &
Rumberger, 2002). Organizational leaders are entrusted with the moral imperative of ensuring
site-level instructional leaders and teachers are proficient in raising the academic achievement of
ELL students and subsequently their reclassification to fully English proficient.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
148
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Zhang, J. (2012). The
condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics website:
http:/nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012045
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
Barth P., & Haycock, K. (2004). A core curriculum for all students. In R. Kazis, J. Varga, & N.
Hoffman (Eds.), Double the numbers: Increasing postsecondary credentials for
underrepresented youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Beam, C. (2004). Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school
superintendents. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3513717)
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002171
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, (131), 99–111.
doi: 10.1002/he.190
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, 36, 1.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
149
Berlau, D. C. (2011). Superintendent longevity and its relationship to student performance.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3503902)
Bird, J. J., & Wang, C. (2013). Superintendents describe their leadership styles: Implications for
practice. Management in Education, 27(1), 14-18. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1509088410?accountid=14749
Black, S. (2007). Leadership and Learning. American School Board Journal. September.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowman-Perrott, L. J., Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2010). Reading difficulties and grade retention:
What’s the connection for English Language Learners? Reading and Writing Quarterly,
26, 91-107.
Bracey, G. (2004). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public
education in the U.S. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Buchanan, B. (2004). Turnover at the top: Superintendent vacancies challenge big-city
boards. American School Board Journal, 191(12), 36-38.
Buchanan, B. (2006) Turnover at the Top: Superintendent Vacancies and the Urban School.
Rowman & Littlefield Education. Lanham, Maryland.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21, 104. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/41229013
California Department of Education (2010). Language census data. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
150
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. (2013). Cohort Outcome Data from
the Class of 2011-2012: 2011-2112 Statewide Results- Cohort Dropout Rate - Retrieved
from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortrates/CRByProgram. aspx?cds=
Callahan, R. (2006). The intersection of accountability and language: Can reading intervention
replace English language development? Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 1-21.
Carrera, J. (1992, January 1). Immigrant Students, Their Legal Right of Access to Public
Schools. A Guide for Advocates and Educators.
Cascio, E. U., & Lewis, E. G. (2012). Cracks in the melting pot: immigration, school choice, and
segregation. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 91-117.
Center on Reinventing Public Education. (2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban
superintendent’s chair. Retrieved September 8, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.crpe.org/pubs/pdf/ImpossibleJob_reportweb.pdf
Chavez, A., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (n.d.). Racial and Ethnic Identity and Development. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 39-47.
Christian, D., Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., & Saunders, W. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363-385. Retrieved from
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cehd/teri/Genesee%20et%20al%20English%20Language%20lear
ners%20in%20schools.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Coleman, J. (n.d.). Equality of Educational Opportunity (COLEMAN) Study (EEOS), 1966.
ICPSR Data Holdings.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
151
Connor, D. J. (2009). Urban narratives: Portraits in progress. Life at the intersection of learning
disability, race, and social class. New York, NY: Peter Lang. [Published in Florida
Educational Leadership]
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 45-64). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cordasco, F. (1969). The Bilingual Education Act. PHI Delta Kappa International, 51(2), 75-75.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Demoss, K. (2002). Leadership styles and high-stakes testing: Principals make a
difference. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 111-132.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1177/001312402237217
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2). New
York: Wiley.
Doll, J. J. (2010). Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the antecedents of school dropout
among English language learners at selected Texas schools. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas
A&M University, 2010. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/863421856?accountid=14749
Fenn, W. L., & Mixon, J. (2011). An examination of self-perceived transformational leadership
behaviors of Texas superintendents. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 6(2) Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1037909007?accountid=14749
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New rev. 20th-Anniversary ed.). New York:
Continuum.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
152
Fuller, H. L., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
Impossible Job? The View from the Urban Superintendent’s Chair.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2002). Tightly coupled policy in loosely coupled systems: Institutional capacity
and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 561-565.
Retrieved September 8, 2014, from the ProQuest database.
García Bedolla, Lisa; & Rodriguez, Rosaisela. (2011). Classifying California’s English Learners:
Is the CELDT too Blunt an Instrument? Center for Latino Policy Research. UC Berkeley:
Center for Latino Policy Research. Retrieved from:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m74v93d
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2003). The inequitable treatment of English learners in
California ’s public schools: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research
Institute.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36) 1-54. Retrieved from http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners a synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Glass, T. E. & Franceschini, L.A., The State of the American School Superintendency: A Mid-
Decade Study. American Association of School Administrators. Rowman & Littlefield
Education. 2007.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
153
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman Jr, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement.
Grissom, J. (2004). Reclassification of English Learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
12(36).
Grissom, J. A., & Andersen, S. (2012). Why superintendents turn over. American Educational
Research Journal, 49(6), 1146-1180. Retrieved from
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.3102/0002831212462622
Grogan, M., & Brunner, C. C. (2005). Women Leading Systems: What the Latest Facts and
Figures Say about Women in the Superintendency Today. School Administrator, 62(2),
46.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y., & Witt D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute (UCLMRI) Policy Report 2000-1.
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Achievement growth: International
and U.S. state trends in student achievement. Education Next, 12(4), 1-33.
Harding, J. (2013). Using codes to analyze an illustrative issue. Qualitative data analysis from
start to finish (pp. 81-106). London: SAGE.
Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations (Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
154
Hill, L.E., (2012). California’s English Learner Students. Public Policy Institute of California.
http://www.ppic.org
Hill, L. E., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. M., (2014) Reclassification of English learner students in
California. Public Policy Institute of California. http://www.ppic.org
Hispanic Dropout Project (U.S.). (1998). No more excuses: Final report of the Hispanic dropout
project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Language Affairs.
Ireh, M., & Bailey, J. (1999). A study of superintendents’ change leadership styles using the
situational leadership model. American Secondary Education, 27(4), 22-32. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/62380311?accountid=14749
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586-611.
Jacobs, C. Lynn (2008). Long-term English learners writing their stories. The English Journal,
97, 88. http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/40503418
Johnson, A. G. (2006). How systems of privilege work. In Privilege, power, and difference (pp.
90-107). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, W. (1977). The impact on society of youths who drop out or are undereducated.
Educational Leadership, 34(6), 411-417.
Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., & Chapman, C. (2004). Dropout rates in the United States: 2001
(NCES 2005–046). Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics website:
http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005046- 24k – 2004-11-04
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
155
Kim, J. (2011). Relationships among and between ELL status, demographic characteristics,
enrollment history, and school persistence (CRESST report 810). Los Angeles, CA:
University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (CRESST).
Kindler, A. L. 2002. Survey of the states ’ limited English proficient students and available
educational programs and services: 2000-2001 summary report. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction
Educational Programs.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lau v. Nichols. (1974, January 1). Retrieved March 8, 2015, from
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/lau.htm
Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority
students. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lopez, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically Responsive Teacher
Education: Preparing Classroom Teachers to Teach English Language Learners. Journal
of Teacher Education, 361-373.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
156
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. J. (2006). School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of
Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working Paper. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Maxwell, L. A. (2012). Study finds grades give ‘early warning’ on ELL dropouts. Education
Week, 31(33), 14-14, 15. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020874921?accountid=14749
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The difficult road for long-term English learners. Educational:
Leadership Supporting English Language Learners, 66. Retrieved from
http://www.adlit.org/researchbytopic/42384
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”:
Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6, 8. doi:10.1080/19313152.2012.665822
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons
Miller, K. (2004). Creating conditions for leadership effectiveness: the district’s role. McRel
policy brief. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). Denver, CO.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, D. N., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge: Using a qualitative
approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.
Moll, L., & Spear-Ellinwood, K. (2012). Funds of knowledge. In J. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
diversity in education. (pp. 938-939). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.4135/9781452218533.n299
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
157
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage.
Moss, M., & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The Congressionally mandated study of educational
growth and opportunity, First-year report on language minority and limited English
proficient students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States: 2000.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from
http://nces.ed.gov/ubs2002/droppub_2001
NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act. (2001) Retrieved September 5, 2015, from
http://www.ed.gov./nclb
Newcomb, A. (2004). Heifetz on public leadership. The School Administrator, 61, 20-23.
Oboler, S., & Gonzales, D. (2005). Bilingual Education Act. In The Oxford encyclopedia of
Latinos and Latinas in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ogbu, J. U., Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance with implication for education. Anthropology and
Educational Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Olsen, L., (2010a). Changing course for long term English learners. Leadership, 40, 30-33
Olsen, L., (2010b). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long term English learners. A Californian ’s Together Research & Policy
Publication.
Orr, M.T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination.
Teachers College Record 108(7), 1362-1403.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
158
Parrish, T., Linquanti, R., Merickel, A., Quick., Laird, J., & Esra, P. (2002) Effects of the
implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Year 2
Report. Palo Alto and San Francisco: American Institutes for Research and WestEd.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 339-360).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Petersen, G. J., & Young, M. D. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act and Its Influence on Current
and Future District Leaders, The. JL & Educ., 33, 343.
Pepper, K. (2010). Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student
success: A focus for the reauthorization of esea. Planning and Changing, 41(1/2), 42-56.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/909493024?accountid=14749
Pottinger, J. (1970, May 25). Memorandum To School Districts With More Than Five Percent
National Origin-Minority Children. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from
https://www.2ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/may25.html
Remland, M. (2012). An examination into the factors leading to superintendent longevity in
urban, southern California school districts: A comparative case study. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3513833)
Rios-Aguilar, C., Canché, M. S. G., & Sabetghadam, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of
restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development
block. Language Policy, 11(1), 47-80.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
159
Robinson, J. (2011). Evaluating Criteria for English Learner Reclassification: A Causal-Effects
Approach Using a Binding-Score Regression Discontinuity Design With Instrumental
Variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 267-292.
Ruiz de Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked & underserved: Immigrant students in U.S.
secondary schools. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1-41.
Saunders, W. M., Foorman, B. R., & Carlson, C. D. (2006). Is a separate block of time for oral
English language development in programs for English learners needed?. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(2), 181-198.
Skokut, M. A. (2010). Educational resilience among English language learners: Examining
factors associated with high school completion and post-secondary school attendance.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2009. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/622309153?accountid=14749
Smith-Maddox, R., & Solorzano, D. (2002). Using Critical Race Theory, Paulo Freire’s
Problem-Posing Method, and Case Study Research to Confront Race and Racism in
Education. Qualitative Inquiry, 66-84.
Spears, K. (2011). Dropout and retention: The transactional nature of predictor variables.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana, 2011. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/915016933?accountid=14749
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
160
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later. New Focus:
The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 6, 1-10.
Tavitian, M. d. C. M. (2013). Latino dropouts ’ perceptions of their school experiences in
southern California. Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2013. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1356694361?accountid=14749
Terrell, R., & Lindsey, R. (2009). Culturally proficient leadership: The personal journey begins
within. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
The White House. (2002). Fact sheet: No child left behind act. Retrieved December 29, 2010
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108.html
Trevino, D., Braley, R. T., Brown, M. S., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Challenges of the public school
superintendency: Differences by tenure and district location. Florida Journal of
Educational Administration & Policy, 1(2), 98-109. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/815959118?accountid=14749
Torlakson, T., (2012). Context, development, and validation of the California English language
development standards. California Department of Education, 2. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/sbeapddcondev.pdf
Urban school superintendents: Characteristics, tenure, and salary. Seventh survey and report.
Urban indicator, fall 2010 (2010). Council of the Great City Schools. 1301 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW Suite 702, Washington, DC 20004. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/870284557?accountid=14749
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2011). Language use in the United States. American Survey
Community Reports. (Issued 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. Camille Ryan. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
161
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Dropout Rates
in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Condition
of Education 2003. NCES 2003-067. Washington, DC: 2003. Table 1. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2009.html
U.S. General Accounting Office (2005). No Child Left Behind Act. Education could do more to
help states better define graduation rates and improve knowledge about intervention
strategies [Report to Congressional requesters]. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/cgibin/getrpt?GAO-05-879
Valdés, G. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minority second language learners. In
A. Ball & S. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Valencia, R. R., (2002) Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future. New York:
Routledge/Palmer.
Vásquez, O. A., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. (1994). Pushing boundaries: Language and
culture in a Mexicano community. New York: Cambridge Press University.
Verdugo, R. (2006). A Report on the Status of Hispanics in Education: Overcoming a History of
Neglect. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States Human
and Civil Rights.
Walquí, A., (2006) Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 2.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
162
Whitsett, G. (2007). Perceptions of leadership styles of department chairs. College Student
Journal, 41(2), 274-286. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/62058925?accountid=14749
Zembylas, M., & Iasonos, S. (2010). Leadership styles and multicultural education approaches:
An exploration of their relationship. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 13(2), 163-183. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/754908316?accountid=14749
Zoltán, D., (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31,
pp 117135 doi:10.1017/S026144480001315X
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
163
APPENDIX A
RESEARCH QUESTION/INSTRUMENT ALIGNMENT
Research
Question 1
What strategies do small-sized school district superintendents in California
employ to improve the academic achievement of ELL students?
Survey Please rate how the following factors influence the strategies used to improve
the academic achievement of English language learners
1. Bureaucratic accountability
2. Demands from the community
3. Culturally responsive curriculum
4. Standardized assessment design
5. Teacher expectations for ELL performance
6. Data- driven decision making
7. Professional development focused on instruction for ELLs
Please rate the degree to which you believe the following are important to a
superintendent’s implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement
of English language learners
1. High expectations for student achievement
2. Collaboration among stakeholder
3. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students
4. Instructional leadership
5. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff
6. Alignment between district vision and school vision
7. On- site teacher collaboration
8. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework
Interview 1. What are your beliefs about the academic achievement of English language
learners in your district?
2. What systems or tools does your district have in place to monitor the
academic achievement of English language learners?
4. What strategies have you implemented during your tenure in this district to
meet the academic needs of English language learners?
6. How does your district select professional development opportunities related
to the academic achievement of English language learners?
7. In a district your size, how do critical stakeholders influence the strategic plan
to improve the academic achievement of English language learners?
8. How do you develop and nurture site level leadership to implement plans to
improve the academic achievement of English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
164
Research
Question 2
What do small-sized school district superintendents in California perceive
to be the greatest obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELL
students?
Survey Please rate the degree to which you believe the following stakeholders are
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of English language learners
1. Community members
2. District- level personnel
3. Parents
4. School-level administrators
5. Teachers
6. Unions
7. School board
8. County office of education
Interview 1. What are your beliefs about the academic achievement of English language
learners in your district?
9. In a district your size, what are the barriers to improving and sustaining the
instructional practices that support the academic achievement of English
language learners?
Research
Question 3
How are resources allocated by small-sized school district superintendents
in California to improve the academic achievement of ELL students?
Survey Please rate to the degree in which you consider the following factors in
allocation resources in the academic achievement of English language learners
1. Significant subgroup
2. Community input
3. Socioeconomic status
4. Reclassification rate
5. Standardized test scores
6. CELDT scores
Interview 1. What are your beliefs about the academic achievement of English language
learners in your district?
2. What systems or tools does your district have in place to monitor and evaluate
the academic achievement of English language learners?
5. Can you share your long-term strategic plan to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners?
6. How does your district select professional development opportunities related
to the academic achievement of English language learners?
10. In a district your size, how do you allocate resources to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
165
Research
Question 4
How do small-sized school district superintendents in California evaluate
programs used to improve the academic achievement of ELL students?
Survey Please rate the degree to which you believe that the following are important in
monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of English language learners
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments
2. Reclassification rates
3. Analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data
4. Site administrator classroom observations
5. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level
6. Superintendent visibility at school sites
Interview 1. What are your beliefs about the academic Achievement of English language
learners in your district?
2. What systems or tools does your district have in place to monitor and
evaluate the academic achievement of English language learners?
3. What accountability structures do you have in place to ensure the academic
achievement of English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
166
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Gender?
Male
Female
Ethnicity?
American Indian/ Alaska Native
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Other: ____________
Age Category?
29 and under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over
Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
Other Professional Degree
Years of experience as the superintendent of your current district: _____
Total years of experience as a superintendent: _____
Would you be willing to participate in a 35 minute follow up interview?
Yes
No
Maybe
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
167
Question 1: Please rate how the following factors influence the strategies used to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
1. Bureaucratic accountability 1 2 3 4 5
2. Demands from the community 1 2 3 4 5
3. Culturally responsive curriculum 1 2 3 4 5
4. Standardized assessment design 1 2 3 4 5
5. Teacher expectations for ELL performance 1 2 3 4 5
6. Data- driven decision making 1 2 3 4 5
7. Professional development focused on instruction for ELLs 1 2 3 4 5
Question 2: Please rate the degree to which you believe the following are important to a
superintendent’s implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
1. High expectations for student achievement 1 2 3 4 5
2. Collaboration among stakeholders 1 2 3 4 5
3. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students 1 2 3 4 5
4. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4 5
5. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff 1 2 3 4 5
6. Alignment between district vision and school vision 1 2 3 4 5
7. On- site teacher collaboration 1 2 3 4 5
8. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework 1 2 3 4 5
Question 3: Please rate the degree to which you believe the following stakeholders are obstacles
to improving the academic achievement of English language learners
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
1. Community members 1 2 3 4 5
2. District- level personnel 1 2 3 4 5
3. Parents 1 2 3 4 5
4. School-level administrators 1 2 3 4 5
5. Teachers 1 2 3 4 5
6. Unions 1 2 3 4 5
7. School boards 1 2 3 4 5
8. County office of education 1 2 3 4 5
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
168
Question 4: Please rate to the degree in which you consider the following factors in allocation
resources in the academic achievement of English language learners
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
9. Significant subgroup 1 2 3 4 5
10. Community input 1 2 3 4 5
11. Socioeconomic status 1 2 3 4 5
12. Reclassification rate 1 2 3 4 5
13. Standardized test scores 1 2 3 4 5
14. CELDT scores 1 2 3 4 5
Question 5: Please rate the degree to which you believe that the following are important in
monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of English language learners
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments 1 2 3 4 5
2. Reclassification rates 1 2 3 4 5
3. Analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4 5
4. Site administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4 5
5. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level 1 2 3 4 5
6. Superintendent visibility at school sites 1 2 3 4 5
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
169
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
An Examination of Small-Sized School District Superintendents and the Strategies They
Employ to Improve the Academic Achievement of English Language Learners
1. What are your beliefs about the academic achievement of English language learners in
your district?
2. What systems or tools does your district have in place to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of English language learners?
3. What accountability structures do you have in place to ensure the academic achievement
of English language learners?
4. What strategies have you implemented during your tenure in this district to meet the
academic needs of English language learners?
5. Can you share your long-term strategic plan to improve the academic achievement of
English language learners?
6. How does your district select professional development opportunities related to the
academic achievement of English language learners?
7. In a district your size, how do critical stakeholders influence the strategic plan to improve
the academic achievement of English language learners?
8. How do you develop and nurture site level leadership to implement plans to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners?
9. In a district your size, what are the barriers to improving and sustaining the instructional
practices that support the academic achievement of English language learners?
10. In a district your size, how do you allocate resources to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
170
APPENDIX D
SURVEY COVER LETTER
Date
Dear (Superintendent’s Name),
Based on your success with supporting students classified as English Language Learners in your
district, I would like to invite you to participate in my research study. The study is being
conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita as part of my doctoral studies in the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study seeks to identify the
strategies employed by the superintendents of small-sized districts to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English Language Learners.
I understand your time is extremely valuable and limited. The survey has been piloted and will
take approximately ten minutes to complete. Your voluntary participation would be immensely
appreciated. It will provide an important contribution to the research on superintendent
implementation of leadership strategies to close the achievement gap associated with English
Language Learners. Your relationship with the University of Southern California and parties
associated with the study will not be affected whether you choose to participate in this study or
not. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.
Thank you in advance for your time. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding
this study.
Respectfully,
George Herrera
Doctoral Candidate
gaherrer@usc.edu
(323) 246-2713
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
171
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW LETTER
Date
(Superintendent’s Name), Superintendent
Unified School District
1234 First Street
Anywhere, CA 99999
Dear (Superintendent’s Name),
My name is George Herrera and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. My study focuses on leadership strategies
employed by California superintendents of small-sized districts to support the academic
achievement of English Language Learners.
You have been identified as an outstanding superintendent of a small-sized district. The size and
demographic constitution of your school district is ideal for my study. Participation in this study
consists of one interview lasting approximately 35 minutes and with your consent may be audio
taped.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. All interviews will take place in a private
location of your choice.
Please let me know if you are willing to participate or if you have any further questions
regarding my study. I can be contacted via email at gaherrer@usc.edu or via phone at (323) 246-
2713.
Your consideration is immensely appreciated,
George Herrera
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The implications of the achievement gap between ELLs and native English speaking students can no longer be overlooked. The inability of California’s public school system to meet the needs of ELLs exasperates the widening of the achievement gap by failing to provide all students equal access to curriculum and desired educational outcomes, with the end point being high school graduation (Bennett, 2001
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
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
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
PDF
Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement
PDF
A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
Asset Metadata
Creator
Herrera, George Anthony
(author)
Core Title
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/07/2016
Defense Date
04/20/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic achievement of English learners,achievement gap,California,CELDT,critical stakeholders,differentiation,ELL strategies,English learner history,English learner policies,English learners,instruction,long term English learners,LTELS,OAI-PMH Harvest,small districts,student achievement,superintendent impact on ELL achievement,superintendents,underachievement of English learners
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Ott, Maria G. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gah31@hotmail.com,gaherrer@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-225661
Unique identifier
UC11277055
Identifier
etd-HerreraGeo-4232.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-225661 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HerreraGeo-4232.pdf
Dmrecord
225661
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Herrera, George Anthony
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
Tags
academic achievement of English learners
achievement gap
CELDT
critical stakeholders
differentiation
ELL strategies
English learner history
English learner policies
English learners
instruction
long term English learners
LTELS
small districts
student achievement
superintendent impact on ELL achievement
superintendents
underachievement of English learners