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
Henry D. Romero
_____________________________________________________________________
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 Henry D. Romero
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful daughter, Leazah, who was born during
year two of my doctoral journey. My prayer is that this dissertation will serve to inspire her to
further her education as well, to set her sights on ambitious goals, and most importantly, to make
a difference in this world. And if she decides to become a Trojan like her papa, I couldn’t ask for
more. Love you princess!
I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my loving wife, Jabneel, who had to take on
additional responsibilities as both mother and wife these past few years as I embarked upon this
doctoral journey, ultimately enabling me to the complete this study. Thank you for loving me
when I wasn’t always easy to love.
Also, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Henry Sr. and Susan, who
have been my #1 supporters from the very beginning. Words can hardly express the gratitude
that I have for these two amazing individuals who have always encouraged me to pursue my
dreams, even when I doubted myself. Mom and dad, it is because of your belief in me that I now
have the letters “D” and “R” in front of my name and can proudly say that I completed my
doctoral studies at the University of Southern California. Fight On!
Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to the hundreds of English language learners that I
have had the privilege of working with thus far in my career, and to the millions more across the
country that may ultimately benefit from the findings in this study.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee who
oversaw this study from its infancy: Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair; Dr. Pedro Garcia;
and Dr. Maria Ott. Dr. Castruita, you are the consummate professional and I greatly valued your
mentorship throughout the entire dissertation process. Thank you synthesizing my passions for
educational leadership and English language learners through this study, and for your belief in its
potential impact on the profession. Dr. Garcia, thank you for your wisdom, positivity, and
encouragement throughout this journey. Dr. Ott, I cannot fully express what a pleasure it has
been having you a part of my committee for this study. Not only because you are a distinguished
expert on the topic, but also because you are the main proponent for me completing this study at
USC in the first place. Thank you for inviting me into the Trojan family!
Furthermore, I am indebted to the fantastic professors I had along my journey through the
doctoral program. Dr. Stowe, Dr. Greene, Dr. Pulver, and Dr. Johnson are just a few names that
come to mind.
I would also like to thank my USC colleagues for their invaluable support during the
entire doctoral program. I want to especially acknowledge and thank George Herrera and Isaac
Huang for their continued support and motivation as we worked together to complete our classes,
in conjunction with this research study. I consider you both brothers, and look forward to seeing
our careers unfold.
I am also grateful for the support that I received from my site principals during this
journey, Dr. Ursula Reveles and Mauricio Gormaz, who cleared the pathway for me to persist
through the process and provided me with the opportunities needed to pursue my Ed.D.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
4
Next, I would like to thank my very first mentor, Dr. Robert Meteau, who instilled in me
the confidence and urgency to lead, early on in my teaching career. I credit you with planting the
seed in me to become an educational leader, and to lead with purpose and conviction. Thank you
for continuing to check up on me throughout the years and for subtly encouraging me to keep
pushing forward in this journey by referring to me as “Dr. Romero” in all text and email
communication. I knew I couldn’t let you down.
Lastly, I would like to thank my CALSA “familia” for all their support and
encouragement the past few years as I have also been fortunate to be a part of the organization’s
mentorship program, specifically Cohort 11. A special shout out goes to my CALSA mentor Dr.
Juan Santos who provided timely advice and inspiration necessary for me to complete my
dissertation.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...8
Preface………………………………………………………………………………………… ...9
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………………………... ...38
Theoretical Framework of Leadership Influencing English Learner Achievement…....45
Social Justice and Equity
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...46
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…………………………………………………………………....84
Research Question 3…………………………………………………………………....94
Research Question 4………………………………………………………………......101
Summary……………………………………………………………………………....107
Chapter 5: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….. ...113
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… ...113
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………... ...114
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………….. ...116
Research Questions………………………………………………………………… ...116
Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………....116
Methodology……………………………………………………………………….. ...118
Findings…………………………………………………………………………….....119
Implications………………………………………………………………………… ...124
Recommendations for Future Study………………………………………………......126
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………… ...127
References………………………………………………………………………………….. ...128
Appendices
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Alignment…………………………. ...144
Appendix B: Survey Instrument………………………………………………….. ...147
Appendix C: Interview Protocol………………………………………………….. ...150
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter………………………………………………... ...151
Appendix E: Interview Letter…………………………………………………….. ...152
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 Implementation ...77
Plan Towards the Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Table 12. Superintendent Rating of Stakeholders that Function as Obstacles Toward the…...85
Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Table 13. Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Allocating Resources……......95
Toward the Improvement of ELL Academic Achievement
Table 14. Superintendent Rating of Factors Considered when Monitoring and Evaluating...102
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 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 large school districts in
California used to support the academic instruction of English language learners (For small
districts, please see Herrera, 2016, and for mid-sized districts, please see Huang, 2016).
The research questions used to guide the study were: What strategies do large school
district superintendents in California employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
What do large school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest obstacles
to improving the academic achievement of ELLs? How are resources allocated by large school
district superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? And
finally: How do large 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 24 superintendents in large
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; 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; Saunders, Foorman, & Carlson, 2006).
In this accountability system, annual achievement objectives are measured by the percentage of
students meeting challenging academic standards. For all students, but most notably ELLs,
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
13
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 a 2003, 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
of NCLB blurs the line between these two competencies: equating academic achievement to
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
14
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
(Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Peterson & Young, 2004). Due to the hands-on nature of the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
15
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 achievement gap among student groups,
particularly those classified as ELLs (Black, 2007; Gandara & Rumberger, 2002).
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
school dropout dilemma has steadily improved throughout the years, wide disparities by race,
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
16
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, 2001).
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 ELL’s (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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
17
(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 large 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 large school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do large school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by large school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do large 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
findings will contribute information to school boards with supplementary information that could
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
18
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 large
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 large school district superintendents and similar demographics; and
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
19
Delimitations
Data collection was limited to:
1. Large school district superintendents of California with more than 15,000 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 supplemental 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 and
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 review. The first section provides a historical background
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
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 of 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 (2005) asserts 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 known
amendments to Title VII 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 (Terrel, 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). 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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
29
the number of 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; Bowan-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 et al., 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 prevent ELLs from becoming LTELs
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
38
and to support ELLs once they have become LTELs. Olsen (2010b) 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
living in impoverished communities seem to lack the caliber of learning experiences available to
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
39
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 student’s 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
(CELDT) scores due to a variety of factors including a significant lack of motivation. English
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
40
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. Dörnyei (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
initiating the pursuit of this goal constitutes an active choice problem. English Language
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
41
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
the value of eliciting students’ life experiences for the purpose of developing student identity and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
42
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
students are building capacity. The motivation solution self-efficacy principle states that well-
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
43
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
students) construct an awareness by which they must challenge, create, and recreate knowledge
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
44
that can empower the oppressed to better resist their subordinate status (Bennett, 2001; Chavez
& Guido-DiBrito, 1999; Lopez, 2003; Samad, 2009; 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.
Orchestrating experiences and opportunities for LTEL students to develop personal
connections with the Institutional Agents and opportunities for personal identification and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
45
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.
Resources utilized in the name of equity need to include high quality human expertise (Terrell
and Lindsey, 2009). Critical research advocates for the equitable educational outcomes of all
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
46
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; Pliner, 2010; Schick, 2006). 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 can be supported by certain aspects of NCLB, which allows
for addressing social justice issues on a regular basis (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
47
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, should 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
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
48
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. Chapters 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 will guide the study:
1. What strategies do large school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do large school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by large school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do large 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 large 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 large school districts in California with a
student population over 15,000 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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
54
Appendix A provides the outlines for the alignment between the four research questions and the
quantitative and qualitative questions used for the study.
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 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 1-5 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 (45 minutes) 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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
55
perceptions are 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 large 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 five 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 large 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 large 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 large district superintendents in California employ to improve the
academic achievement of ELLs. The research findings have the potential to assist current and
aspiring school superintendents with strategies in addressing second language learners. Thus, the
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.
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 24 California superintendents and qualitative interviews
conducted with five superintendents. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What strategies do large school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do large school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by large school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do large 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 large district superintendents in
California employed to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Response Rate
Based upon the design criteria utilized for this study, 37 superintendents of large school
districts in California qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. The survey was
distributed through Google Form (an online survey tool) to 37 superintendents of large school
districts in California meeting the following criteria: a) a student population of at least 15,001; b)
at or above the state average ELL percentage of 22.7%; c) at lease two years of experience as
superintendent of their current district. Table 1 indicates that of the 37 potential participants, 24
elected to participate. This result yielded a response rate of 65% of superintendents, which
satisfied 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 37 24 65
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
62
Of the 24 superintendents who elected to participate in the quantitative survey, 12 agreed
to an interview, and 5 were selected by the researcher to participate in a qualitative interview.
Interview participants were selected based on the following criteria: a) proximity to the
researcher, and b) participant availability for an interview.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 2 displays the gender of the 24 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Of the 24 superintendents that responded to the online survey, 70.8% were male, and
29.1% were female.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of Superintendents 17 7 24
% of Superintendents 70.8 29.2 100
These values are a departure 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 two surveys yielded a variance of 5.0%.
Research has shown that the race/ethnicity of superintendents has been predominately
White (Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Grogan, & Brunner, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2010). Table 3
reports the ethnic breakdown of the 24 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Superintendents surveyed were 4.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.2% Black/African
American, 58.3% Hispanic, 29.2% White, 4.2 % 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 14 7 1 24
% of Superintendents 4.2 4.2 58.3 29.2 4.2 100
In a research study, 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 large 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 bands of 10
years. Of the 24 superintendents surveyed, 33.3% were 40-49, 33.3% were 50-59, 29.2% were
60-69, and 4.2% were 70 and over.
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 0 8 8 7 1 24
% of Superintendents 0 0 33.3 33.3 29.2 4.2 100
As can be seen in Table 4, very few superintendents 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. T he superintendents in this study were 15.3% more likely to be over 60.
Table 5 represents the highest level of education by the 24 superintendents who
participated in the quantitative survey. Superintendents with a master’s degree were 33.3%,
other professional degree was 4.2%, and doctoral degree was 62.5%.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Highest Degree Earned
Measure
Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Other
Professional
Degree
Doctoral
Degree Total
No. of Superintendents 0 8 1 15 24
% of Superintendents 0 33.3 4.2 62.5 100
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 17.2% above
projected national rates.
Table 6 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent, reported by
the 24 respondents. Interestingly, about one-third (33.3%) of superintendents surveyed had three
years or less of overall experience in the superintendency, as opposed to the 29.2% that had 10 or
more years of experience in the superintendency.
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience
Measure 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 or more Total
No. of Superintendents 8 8 1 1 7 24
% of Superintendents 33.3 33.3 4.2 4.2 29.2 100
Superintendents had an average of 6.4 years of experience. This result is important
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 24 participants. Interestingly, 50% 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 12 8 2 1 1 24
% of Superintendents 50 33.3 8.3 4.2 4.2 100
On average, superintendents reported four years of tenure in their current district. This
numeric value closely aligns with 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. Districts surveyed ranged
from 15,385 to 653,826 students in attendance and had an average enrollment of 53,565.
Percentage of English language learners ranged from 24% to 58.30%, and had an average of
33.59%.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
67
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Total Enrollment % English language learners
1 653,826 27.40
2 57,620 28.00
3 53,785 27.60
4 46,936 40.90
5 34,468 24.00
6 31,122 27.90
7 29,951 31.10
8 29,750 24.20
9 29,684 30.80
10 29,472 36.00
11 29,156 24.30
12 26,264 36.70
13 25,670 24.30
14 23,362 26.50
15 22,767 46.40
16 22,018 24.70
17 19,480 41.30
18 19,471 37.50
19 19,308 58.30
20 17,826 28.00
21 16,803 53.40
22 15,911 36.20
23 15,518 31.00
24 15,385 39.70
Average 53,565 33.59
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
68
Qualitative Demographic Data
Qualitative data was gathered using one-on-one interviews with five superintendents of
large California public school districts. Of the 24 superintendents who responded to the
quantitative survey, five superintendents were selected and interviewed. Interview participants
were selected based on the following criteria: a) proximity to the researcher, and b) participant
availability for an interview. The five superintendents that were interviewed have been referred
to as Superintendents A-E. The researcher made sure that the confidentiality of each
superintendent was preserved 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 minutes) and provided an easier means for data analysis (Creswell, 2014;
Patton, 2002). In addition, Merriam (2014) has 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 move in a
direction that may have not been initially recognized by the researcher. 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.
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 reduced the weaknesses found if using a singular study method (Creswell, 2014). All
of the data collected was maintained and protected 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: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Masters
Yrs. as superintendent: 11
Yrs. in current position: 11
Enrollment: 19,471
English learner: 37.50%
B Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 9
Yrs. in current position: 9
Enrollment: 15,911
English learner: 36.20%
C Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino
Age: 50-59
Education level: Other
Yrs. as superintendent: 6
Yrs. in current position: 6
Enrollment: 26,264
English learner: 36.70%
D Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 12
Yrs. in current position: 2
Enrollment: 19,308
English learner: 58.30%
E Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Yrs. as superintendent: 14
Yrs. in current position: 3
Enrollment: 29,156
English learner: 24.30%
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
70
Of the superintendents interviewed, four were male and one was female. The ethnic
distribution was as follows: three White, and two Hispanic/Latino. Two superintendents were
50-59 years old, and three were 60-69 years old. One of the superintendents possessed a
master’s degree, one had a professional degree, and three had earned doctoral degrees. Overall
years of experience in the superintendency ranged from 6-14 years. Collectively, they had an
average experience of 10 years as a superintendent.
Three 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 6 years, one had a tenure
of 9 years, and one had a tenure of 11 years. They had an average tenure of 6.2 years in their
current position.
Research Question 1
What strategies do large 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.
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 3 11 6 2 3.13 24
Demands from the
community
0 3 6 13 2 3.58 24
Culturally responsive
curriculum
0 1 2 13 8 4.17 24
Standardized
assessment design
0 0 3 18 3 4.00 24
Teacher expectations
for ELL performance
0 0 0 6 18 4.75 24
Data-driven decision
making
0 0 0 1 23 4.96 24
Professional
development focused
on ELL instruction
0 0 0 3 21 4.88 24
The response mean range for all categories within this item is 3.13 to 4.96. “Data-driven
decision making” was rated most favorably (4.96), whereas “bureaucratic accountability”
received the lowest response mean (3.13).
Data-driven Decision Making
“Data-driven decision making” recorded the highest response mean (4.96) from
superintendents. All five of the superintendents interviewed affirmed that data should be the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
72
catalyst for implementing instructional strategies that improve academic achievement for all
students, namely English language learners. Each of the superintendents cited data-driven
decision-making as pivotal to establishing instructional goals that target ELL achievement.
Superintendent B stated that, “You need to first of all rely on the data and what it is
telling you, and what it is exposing, and let that be partially your road map, and your menu of
either services or engagement or priorities that are built around academic achievement.” Along
these lines, Superintendent E asserted that, “We track progress, we set SMART goals, we expect
to see ongoing progress, and we’ve supported teachers with the best practices and materials to
achieve those purposes for all the subgroups.”
Superintendent E further described the significance of tracking progress and goal setting
in the context of evaluation meetings with site-principals at the beginning of the year:
We just did goal setting with our principals and question one, in their entire evaluation
process was ‘talk to us about your plan to move English learners along on AMAO1?’
You know, ‘Look at your data, what are you doing?’ And then having the principals
reflect on their informal and formal processes. We use the SRI, we use the CELDT data,
and the principals are asked to monitor the data. We rely somewhat on standardized tests
scores, a lot on local accountability measures, teacher made tests, as well as system wide
tests.
In terms of teacher developed assessments, Superintendent A spoke about the internal structures
that are driven by both the grade level teams and the internal assessments. Furthermore,
Superintendent A stated that, “We have had collaboration with the district built into ours
teachers’ contracts for the past several years, so grade-level teams are always assessing their
students and they’re always looking at the subgroups.”
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
73
Professional Development Focused on ELL Instruction
“Professional development focused on ELL instruction” recorded the second highest
response mean (4.88) from superintendents. Similarly, all five superintendents mentioned
professional development focused on ELL instruction as a factor influencing the strategies used
to improve ELL academic achievement. While each of the superintendents asserted that hiring
practices were instrumental in securing teachers equipped with the research-based instructional
strategies for delivering high quality instruction to ELLs, it was noted that a robust professional
development plan was equally as significant, with its potential for leveraging the best practices
for veteran teachers as well. Superintendent D stated that it all comes down to “looking at the
research of what really, really works.” She continued on to say that “we know that the more
students talk, the more that they’re developing their language skills. We don’t go for lots of
things that are maybe fun and interesting and sexy.”
Along the lines of leveraging best practices for all teachers, Superintendent E had taken a
proactive approach to ensuring access to research-based instructional strategies for all teachers
using a systematic, site-specific protocol called TRAC (Team Response and Achievement
through Collaboration). Through TRAC, each school-site is provided a coach that works with
the principal on designing and putting into place research-based strategies and programs to meet
the needs of all kids, most notably the English language subgroup. Superintendent E provided an
overview of the TRAC system throughout the organization:
Together they (site principal and coach) establish expectations and metrics for groups and
subgroups at the site. We have a large number of people and principals who are out and
about always looking for the best programs and services. We look at other districts that
are excelling and we look at what they do for best practices. We also host many visitors
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
74
here that want to see what we’re up to, and we pick their brains while they are here to see
what pockets of excellence they have and what they are doing to support kids. And then
we integrate professional development for English learners within our TRAC system,
which is really just about good, solid, initial, research-based instruction.
Interviewees described an intentional desire to move away from the one-size fits all, prescriptive
professional development model, and instead empower school-site teams to analyze the data and
determine the instructional approach that meets the needs of its students, and more specifically,
its subgroups. On this topic, Superintendent C stated that, “We’re moving into a more
collaborative approach depending on our school sites. We have five schools that we piloted,
incorporating this deeper listening, deeper cooperation.” With support from the teacher’s unions,
classified union and the district management team, these five schools were designated as site
learning teams. Superintendent C was able to fund this endeavor through a grant that he
obtained from the National Education Association. He explained this approach to professional
development in the following manner:
As far as professional development, we’ve given a little more latitude at five pilot
schools. It’s really having our teachers take more ownership of their profession and their
work and since they’re the experts in the classroom, they know what they’re doing. This
initiative is allowing decisions to be made by teams rather than individuals. So, not by
principals or not by the assistant superintendent of instruction or the superintendent or
board of education, but really, let us crunch the data, and let us determine what direction
we need to go as a school and let us determine what our needs are because it is
differentiated depending on the teacher, and the units of the teacher.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
75
Essentially, teachers are the instructional experts since they are working with the students on a
day-to-day basis, and therefore including them in the instructional decision-making process
increases their engagement and validates their professional expertise.
Teacher Expectation for ELL Performance
“Teacher expectation for ELL performance” recorded the third highest response mean
(4.75) from superintendents. Two of the five superintendents interviewed attributed low teacher
expectations for ELL performance to the drastic change in demographics experienced in their
respective communities. Superintendent D asserted that, “Many times a problem, a failure to
succeed in that area has to do with middle class, English only values imposed on a student that
maybe needs a different approach.” Superintendent D added further clarification by stating:
It merely requires optimistic, understanding adults to unpack the achievement. I think it’s
a uniquely trained individual that does this well, I think it’s an art and requires a lot of
thought on the part of the educator to best approach a student who’s limited in English.
And I shamelessly interview for those skills. We don’t apologize. That’s whom we need,
and that’s whom we hire.
Along the same lines, Superintendent A noted that he too is faced with the challenge of trying to
assure that his teachers are attentive to the needs of all children, ELLs included, as the
demographics of the community have shifted from 8,000 White students to 2,000 at present.
According to Superintendent A, “There are still teachers with low expectations; there are
teachers who have been in this community a long time and like the way it used to be, not the way
it is.” Superintendent A noted that the issue of low teacher expectation for ELLs was also
compounded by the rise in poverty within his community. Superintendent A clarified this
sentiment in saying:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
76
There are two issues that affect English language learners in my district. One is, that they
don’t come here speaking English. Secondly, that they’re general low or moderate
income students. And third, that sometimes they’ve had no prior education before coming
here. ELLs in my district are primarily Spanish speaking. Over the years the poverty level
of the ELLs have increased, meaning that probably 20 years ago, they were relatively
middle class, Hispanic students from Mexico. So we’re dealing with issues of poverty
that compound ELLs.
Superintendents recognize that teachers are tasked with the critical function of delivering high
quality instruction to all students who enter their classroom doors, regardless of the linguistic
limitations or socioeconomic challenges that may exist at home. Superintendent E shared his
success with transforming school culture by championing a district wide focus of “strong initial
first instruction,” which combated the need for remediation. This district wide initiative not only
served to strengthen collaboration amongst teachers through PLCs (professional learning
communities), but also communicated to teachers the message of high expectations for all
students, especially ELLs, and that remediation was not a viable option.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
77
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 0 24 5.00 24
Collaboration
among stakeholders
0 0 0 5 19 4.79 24
Clearly defined
district-wide
academic goals for
ELLs
0 0 1 2 21 4.83 24
Instructional
leadership
0 0 0 1 23 4.96 24
Two-way
communication
between district and
school-site staff
0 0 0 7 17 4.71 24
Alignment between
district vision and
school vision
0 0 0 5 19 4.79 24
On-site teacher
collaboration
0 0 0 2 22 4.92 24
Alignment of
instruction with
curricula framework
0 0 0 8 16 4.67 24
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
78
The response mean range for all categories within this item is 4.67 to 5.00. “High
expectations for student achievement” was rated most favorably (5.00), whereas “alignment of
instruction with curricula framework” received the lowest response mean (4.67).
High Expectations for Student Achievement
“High expectations for student achievement” recorded the highest response mean (5.00)
from superintendents. All 24 superintendents surveyed rated “high expectations for student
achievement” as the top rated factor leading toward the improvement of ELL academic
achievement. It is important to note that the outcomes as defined by this study in regard to 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 as 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. Superintendent B grounded his high expectations
for student achievement by first examining his own principles. He stated that:
I think it has to do with one’s principles that you build around yourself as to the academic
achievement of those students (ELLs), and building a team around you that has the same
beliefs is critical in relating to acuity and the services that are available to those students.
I think not only acuity comes to mind but fidelity. Making sure that the course that you
set and the conditions of renewal for those students are kept in mind, kept very visible,
and everyone within the entire district understands the need to ratchet up the academic
achievement of those particular students. I tend to believe that it’s really crucial to social
economics here in the state of California, if not the nation.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
79
In an age of accountability, the expectation level for ELL achievement has never been
higher. 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
raise the expectations for ELLs is critical to both the students’ and district’s overall success.
Moreover, the landscape of education has changed with the Common Core standards and
the premium placed on College and Career Readiness. Superintendent A asserted that one
should be able to randomly select any two students from different districts, starting in
kindergarten, and both “should have an equal chance of going to a CSU or a UC.” Additionally,
Superintendent C expounded on the expectation of ELLs satisfying the prerequisites attending a
four-year university by stating that, “We want to make sure that they, in fact, can move forward
and take on AP courses and other courses that are being offered to get them college ready.”
Furthermore, Superintendent D maintained that ELLs have the “capacity, at least equal to their
English speaking peers, to excel in all areas of the curriculum,” thus omitting “chance” from the
college readiness equation. She affirmed that:
The distance between that goal and where they are now has to do with our work with
them, specifically our optimism around their ability to accomplish what it is we’re trying
to teach, our ability to connect with them in a way that’s culturally appropriate, and
responsive to their families and the way they maybe think and interact. Many times a
problem, a failure to succeed in that area has to do with middle class, English-only values
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
80
imposed on a student that maybe needs a different approach. But I believe the full
capacity is there.
The literature on ELL academic achievement is clear on the fact that high expectations are
critical to ensuring that ELLs meet the prescribed reclassification criteria and are provided access
to rigorous, core curriculum.
Instructional Leadership
“Instructional leadership” recorded the second highest response mean (4.96) from
superintendents. 23 out of 24 superintendents surveyed strongly agreed that “Instructional
Leadership” was a key factor of importance to his/her implementation plan towards the
improvement of ELL academic achievement. 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). 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). According to Superintendent C, “We’re probably meeting with principals in here
anywhere from two to four times a month at the district level.” Superintendent C explained:
We’re also providing support and guidance by our director of our elementary, our
director of secondary, and they’re on sites pretty much most of the time and it’s really
always looking at data, looking at where we’re going, looking at what they’re doing,
helping them as they do their PD as their late start Fridays, and walking into classrooms
to see that it reflects what we’re saying we’re doing.
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
81
instructional expertise among teachers and principals (Olsen, 2010b). Superintendents who
place a premium on instructional leadership understand the role that capacity building (of site
leadership) plays in leveraging support to teachers. Superintendent C expounded upon this idea
by saying:
A goal in the system is to make the principal our primary customer from the central
office. We do whatever we can do to support our principals, that way the principals are
able to support teachers and parents. Our goal is to make sure that our principals are
totally empowered to do the wonderful thing that you expect from them. It’s our job to
provide all the resources, smooth the path, and provide anything that they need. There
are the meetings, and the support from our directors. There are continuous reports that we
put out from this office on Fridays, including a weekly email from instructional services,
from our deputy superintendent, that contains online tools and resources.
In addition, Superintendent D reiterated the notion of developing and nurturing site leadership by
maintaining, “That’s what we do, period. There’s a ton of interactive work with principals.”
Superintendent D elaborated more by mentioning:
We have a chief leadership officer and his entire job is to support the goals and
principles. The goals and the principles are written around the English learner, and you
know one of the key goals, first goal, is about English learner improvement. So his whole
day is spent going site-to-site coaching, observing, monitoring, and mentoring.
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 E spoke on the power of collaboration amongst site principals through the PLC
model of collective expertise. He stated that:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
82
We have bi-monthly leadership team meetings, in cohort groups like elementary, middle
school, and high school, where the principals get together. Then within those groups, we
have cohort PLC groups that meet together. They work together to look at their data, to
share their practices, to go into each other’s schools and do instructional rounds, and to
give feedback on what they are seeing in classrooms.
Instructional methodology and pedagogy are critical elements in addressing the
underachievement of ELLs. Learning experiences for ELLs need to be designed to offer
opportunities for students to be successful in core classes with academic language while
simultaneously challenging them. Site principals, as instructional leaders, bear the important
responsibility of modeling the instructional proficiency that they expect to see from their
teachers.
On-site Teacher Collaboration
“On-site teacher collaboration” recorded the third highest response mean (4.92) from
superintendents. According to the literature, teachers play a critical role in targeting
differentiated teaching strategies to address the academic gaps of ELLs, and supporting student
access to the content (Bennett, 2001; Johnson, 2006; Olsen, 2010a; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). On-
site teacher collaboration, which encompasses the characteristics of a PLC, facilitates the
opportunity for grade-level/department teams to analyze data, share effective instructional
strategies targeting ELLs, and design units of study and common assessments. In support of this
assertion, Superintendent C said that:
We’re doing just a lot of PLCs across the system allowing just more time and choice for
teachers across the system. You know, how are we using that time on our late start
Fridays or early out Wednesdays? We’re really giving them time to crunch the data, have
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
83
conversations with colleagues on the subject matter, and in the elementary, the
elementary schools were really wanting to create levels to be talking to one another and
chat. An hour and a half a week is what we’ve giving them. So we’re just trying to figure
out how to carve up even more time than that.
This change in expectation for superintendents reflected how demands for improving student
achievement have led schools and districts to allocate more time and resources dedicated to
teacher collaboration with an expressed focus on increased student achievement. Superintendent
B further validated this expectation by stating, “I think the system that we most often use in this
school district as it relates to our EL students and ELD students is that we are professionally
developing together with the kind of PLC framework.”
One method of on-site teacher collaboration is the peer-coaching model. In this
variation, the peer coach is a teacher expert from the specific site or from within the district.
Superintendent A expounded upon this method by stating that, “We have eighteen coaches that
split their time half between the classroom and half with professional development.” In addition,
he explained that, “Our professional development is going to be focused on delivering the
curriculum for all students.” Furthermore, the coach, in this model, is able to impact ELL
student achievement at the ground level through collaboration with other teachers in the context
of their own classrooms, making the implementation of new research-based instructional
strategies more attainable.
Discussion
Large school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed expressed widespread
support for using a variety of strategies to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners. In particular, this study focused on data-driven decision-making, professional
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
84
development focused on ELL instruction, teacher expectation for ELL achievement, high
expectations for student achievement, instructional leadership, and on-site teacher collaboration.
Superintendents provided insight into each category and detailed how their districts had
implemented these strategies successfully.
Superintendents agreed with most of the strategies offered on the quantitative survey.
The qualitative interviews helped to gain a deeper perspective into the responses garnered
through survey, and served to articulate descriptions of superintendent strategies.
Research Question 2
What do large 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.
The response mean range for all categories within this item is 1.92 to 3.13. “Unions” was
rated the greatest obstacle (3.13), whereas “School Board” received the lowest response mean
(1.92).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
85
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
4 11 5 3 1 2.42 24
District-level
personnel
6 12 3 3 0 2.13 24
Parents 9 10 1 3 1 2.04 24
School-level
administrators
2 13 3 6 0 2.54 24
Teachers 2 7 9 4 2 2.88 24
Unions 1 6 9 5 3 3.13 24
School Board 9 9 5 1 0 1.92 24
County office of
education
8 8 7 0 1 2.08 24
Unions
“Unions” recorded the highest response mean (3.13) from superintendents. More
specifically, one-third of superintendents surveyed rated unions as a potential obstacle toward the
improvement of ELL academic achievement. However, Bolman and Deal (2008) provide the
recipe for a successful superintendent-union partnership that can be examined through a four-part
leadership model. Bolman and Deal (2008) assert that the four frames comprised of structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic components, are intended to support organizational
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
86
leaders in dealing effectively with stakeholder groups, such as unions. Moreover, Marzano and
Waters (2006) assert that the expertise and talent of organizational leaders to respond to
organizational and stakeholder demands positively influence student achievement. This notion
of a successful superintendent-union partnership was highlighted in my interview with
Superintendent C. On this topic, he explained that, “We are trying to become the type of district
where everything is being talked about, and everything is being decided together, everything.”
Superintendent C further credited the success of his site-learning team collaboration
model, which he refers to as a “lab,” currently piloted at five schools within his district, with his
ability to deal effectively with critical stakeholders. The idea for this collaboration model
originated from the ABC school district, which is not a member of CTA (California Teacher’s
Association), but rather AFT (American Federation Teachers). Superintendent C elaborated on
this rationale by stating, “They’re at the point where all decisions of PD and decisions for
schools are made by a team and not the principal. It’s not usurping your authority but it’s really
having people own decisions.”
In the context of Superintendent C’s district, the critical stakeholders credited for the
creation of this newly adopted program were the teacher’s union, classified union, and the
management team. Representatives from each of three major stakeholder groups were integral in
the recruitment of five potential schools for the pilot program. When asked how the potential
schools were selected, Superintendent C explained the following:
Just like what any superintendent would do, you look and okay, where are my principals
that would be more open to this? Where is the relationship between labor and
management at the school site? Where do we currently not have many grievances
coming out of that area, out of that school? So we went to about six or seven schools that
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
87
we identified right away. We went out, and it was myself, the president of the unions, and
my assistant superintendent of personnel. And I wanted to make sure that the union
leaders, basically the building reps, were there.
An organizational leader, such as a district superintendent, is wise to foster site-level trust and
leadership to fulfill the strategic plan of the district by promoting collective responsibility
(Miller, 2004). Superintendent C demonstrated his ability to tap into each of the four-frames, as
outlined by Bolman and Deal (2008), and in turn, was successful in his ability to fulfill a key
initiative in his strategic plan that ultimately seeks to improve the academic achievement of
ELLs.
Superintendent D spoke of the challenge associated with responding both to
organizational and stakeholder demands. She articulated this duality in the context of the
demographics shaping her school community and the need to reexamine the hiring process to
reflect this shift in demographics. She explained:
Just yesterday, the classified union was pushing back about bilingual preferred. And we
just, again, we pretty much shamelessly say we hire people that speak Spanish, as that’s
going to be a priority for us. Everyone on the cabinet speaks Spanish. It’s just an
expectation that we are able to work with people in their first language. So while that
doesn’t have maybe an immediate impact on kids, I think it really impacts our ability to
get it with regard to their cultural context and language needs.
The literature supports Superintendent D’s deliberate practice of hiring employees who can
communicate in the dominant language of the community. 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). Quite often the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
88
needs of underserved student subgroups are addressed with substandard materials and
inexperienced personnel. According to the research, 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).
However, Superintendent D’s ability to navigate within Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames
will underpin her collaborative dialogue with the classified union in carrying out her strategic
plan for improving ELL academic achievement.
Teachers
“Teachers” recorded the second highest response mean (2.88) from superintendents.
More specifically, 25% of superintendents surveyed rated teachers as a potential obstacle toward
the improvement of ELL academic achievement. Teachers play the most critical role in the lives
of their students as they are entrusted to use their professional expertise and judgment to deliver
the state-approved content standards while simultaneously implementing research-based
instructional strategies that are engaging, differentiated, and most importantly, accessible to all
students, especially ELLs. However, the transition from the 1997 CA state standards to the new
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has introduced a whole host of new challenges that
teachers, at present, are still grappling with. Superintendent C stated:
The Common Core has been something that hasn’t been embraced wholeheartedly by
everyone, and you have the political rhetoric that goes with it. Everyone’s trying to wrap
their hands around it, and embrace this because the bottom line is it’s not going away and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
89
that’s where I think sometimes our teachers are hoping that this too will pass and we will
be back to normal in a couple years.
In the age of the Common Core, teacher teams have embraced the added pressure of designing
their own curriculum (aligned to the CCSS and the content area in which they teach) as opposed
to being issued the traditional district-approved textbook. Superintendent A explained this new
phenomenon as followed:
We had about a hundred teachers develop our units of study, which are essentially our
delivery of what are now California State standards. As I’m sure you’re aware of, this is
the first year there was a mathematics curriculum, and next year will be the first year
there’s an English language arts curriculum that’s really aligned with Common Core
standards. So we’ve kind of made this transition because ten years ago when we were
adopting curriculum it was aligned with state standards. The textbook was the
curriculum. Now we are saying our units of study are the curriculum. Use the textbook,
but it’s not the curriculum. It’s a major change.
Moreover, 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. Consequently, as teachers become more acclimated to the CCSS and the shift from
textbooks to teacher developed units of study, the need for professional development becomes
increasingly important, especially as it relates to instructional strategies for ELLs.
Superintendent D asserted:
We have a whole English language division and they do a ton of going into schools and
training teachers on best strategies for working with ELLs. That’s an everyday thing,
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
90
sending them out, having them provide PD, they walk classrooms, and then they coach
teachers on strategies. There’s co-teaching and there’s coaching. We have some major
deficits still. It might be teachers that are not getting it. The problem is expectation of
student achievement or a lack of high expectations for student achievement. I want to
drop them into a non-English speaking place and have them kind of survive awhile, just
to get a sense of what’s needed.
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.
Next, 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). 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.
Superintendent C identified his concern with teachers differentiating instruction for ELL
as evidenced by classroom walk-throughs. He mentioned that ELLs in his district, at the
elementary level receive at least 45 minutes of ELD support built into the school day, but in the
secondary schools, ELD support (designated and inclusive) is not so clear. In addition, he
explained that ELD in the elementary schools takes place first thing in the morning, and students
are able to rotate into different language levels or classes, and teachers are able to differentiate
instruction accordingly. Ultimately, Superintendent C concluded that the degree to which
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
91
teachers effectively implement differentiated instructional strategies to ELLs is directly linked to
the effectiveness of teacher collaboration time through the PLC model, and their ability to “dive
into those deep conversations that really make a difference.”
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. Keeping language demands in mind, research on ELLs supports the
notion that 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). Superintendent D reiterated this expectation in her stance that,
“We’re expecting to see kids being active learners and talking. Big emphasis on student talk; we
want to hear them engaged.” Up until this point, it has been easy to overlook ELLs because they
tend to be quiet, well behaved, and blend effortlessly into the background. However, educational
leaders, such as Superintendent D, understand that ELLs build language through talking and not
simply listening, and therefore hold teachers accountable for this expectation.
School-level Administrators
“School-level administrators” recorded the third highest response mean (2.54) from
superintendents. More specifically, 25% of superintendents surveyed rated school-level
administrators as a potential obstacle toward the improvement of ELL academic achievement.
Four out of the five superintendents interviewed noted the importance of recruiting and hiring
culturally proficient principals who understand, value, and utilize students’ cultural backgrounds
and languages to fulfill the commitment to high levels of learning for all students (Terrell &
Lindsey, 2009). Superintendent A explained:
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
92
I put a lot of effort into making sure our leadership at the site level is the right kind of
leadership; that they care about all kids. Again, if you are a principal, I guess to me it’s
implicit in the job. If they don’t care about ELLs they’re not going to get the job. Where
possible, and I have to say where they’re the best candidates, it’s great to have bilingual
site administrators.
Superintendent B noted:
One thing that I think has become clear is that when you have leaders that have
experienced some of the same phenomenon as the students that we have demographically
within a district, there’s kind of a common language or understanding of some of the
aspects of that work and some of the challenges that our families and students have, in
particular our ELLs.
Superintendent D asserted:
We pretty much shamelessly say we hire people that speak Spanish. It’s just an
expectation that we are able to work with people in their first language. I think it really
impacts our ability to get it with regard to their cultural context and needs, language
needs.
Superintendent E continued:
I think that hiring needs to reflect our community and that includes Latino leadership
being critical. And we’ve had good success in recruiting and retaining some strong
leaders that are both able to connect with their community and their primary language
and present good role models for our kids.
In regard to the development and nurturing of site-level administrators, the topic of
mentorship arose during an interview with Superintendent C. He mentioned that his district has
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
93
a contract with Pivot Learning for professional mentorship and coaching of site-level
administrators. However, his district also offers coaching in-house where veteran principals are
paid a stipend to serve as mentors to newer principals. In his own words, “We do them both
because we can’t always support ourselves; there just isn’t enough. We have a population that
has a lot of demands, and so our principals wear different hats; you know, counselor, principal,
teacher, and specialist of all kinds.”
Another type of support system, designed to assist in the development and nurturing of
site-level administrators, arose during an interview with Superintendent D. She mentioned the
integral role of her Chief Leadership Officer whose entire job is to support the goals and
principles of site-level administrators. Moreover, she went on say that, “The goals and the
principles are written around English learners” and “the first goal is about English learner
improvement. So his whole day is spent going site to site, coaching, observing, monitoring, and
mentoring.”
An additional type of support system, designed to assist in the development and nurturing
of site-level administrators, arose during an interview with Superintendent E. He detailed the
vital role of PLCs designed for site-level administrators where twice a month leadership teams
meet in cohort groups (elementary, middle school, high school) to analyze data, share practices
specific to sites, and visit each others sites to give feedback on student engagement and best
practices. This system of collaboration amongst site-level administrators helps to actualize
Bennett’s (2001) “Conceptual Framework of Research Genres,” which seeks to identify
curriculum reform, equity pedagogy, societal equity, and multicultural competence, all of which
highlight the responsibility of the site-level administrator to set the “stage” for an equal
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
94
distribution of instructional support, by which all students are actively engaged in the content,
and have equitable access to positive educational gains.
Discussion
Large school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed provided district-wide
initiatives designed for dealing with obstacles, generally perceived, to hinder the academic
achievement of English language learners. In particular, this study focused on unions, teachers,
and school-level administrators as potential barriers. Superintendents provided insight into each
category and detailed how their districts had implemented initiatives to successfully address the
potential obstacles associated therewith.
Superintendents agreed with most of the potential barriers offered on the quantitative
survey. The qualitative interviews helped to gain a deeper perspective into the responses
garnered through survey, and served to articulate descriptions of superintendent strategies
targeted at minimizing the potential barriers through proactive, district-wide initiatives.
Research Question 3
How are resources allocated by large 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
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
95
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
0 0 1 10 13 4.50 24
Community input 0 1 6 12 5 3.88 24
Socioeconomic
status
2 0 3 10 9 4.00 24
Reclassification
rate
1 0 2 7 14 4.38 24
Standardized test
scores
0 1 1 12 10 4.29 24
CELDT scores 0 0 1 8 15 4.58 24
The response mean range for all categories within this item is 4.58 to 3.88. “CELDT
scores” was rated most favorably (4.58), whereas “community input” received the lowest
response mean (3.88).
CELDT Scores
“CELDT scores” recorded the highest response mean (4.58) from superintendents. 23
out of 24 superintendents rated “CELDT scores” as the #1 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 allocates
funding to help English Learners (ELs) and immigrant students. As a result, Local Education
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
96
Agencies (LEAs) receiving funds must meet 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 EL subgroup to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives at the LEA level.
Since all five superintendents interviewed receive Title 3 funding, the regular monitoring of
CELDT data was of high importance, especially as it related to achieving the three AMAOs.
Superintendent D stated:
We study the AMAOs. We recently did goal setting with our principals and question 1
was to talk to us about your plan to move English learners along AMAO 1. We also use
the CELDT data and principals are asked to monitor for short cell data. So I would say
that the emphasis is on lots of really good professional development. 60% of all the PD is
going to be focused on the English learner.
Professional development is the catalyst for ensuring that teachers are equipped with the skills to
deliver ELD (English Language Development) and the research-based instructional strategies
designed for ELLs. To complicate matters, 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.
However, California’s new funding formula, known as the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF), allows districts to determine their own local priorities through a board
approved Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) which details resource allocations to
“fuel those goals,” according to Superintendent E. For instance, in his district’s LCAP, one of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
97
his action areas is to provide on-going professional development on the English Language
Development Framework and standards, curriculum, and instructional strategies through his
district-wide “Team Response for Achievement through Collaboration” (TRAC) system.
Superintendent A elaborated on the LCAP:
In terms of the LCAP now, we have to meet our proportionality requirements. The
problem with allocating resources is it’s very, very structured even under LCFF where
you have the opportunity to just make local decisions. Because we’ve always had Title 3,
we’ve always used those to the best we could to purchase instructional materials, devices,
and staff development. So a lot of staff development would be one of those resources.
Altogether, funds allocated toward professional development focused on ELL instruction was a
central theme amongst superintendents interviewed. State accountability measures associated
with CELDT scores drove the need for targeted professional development.
Significant Subgroup
“Significant subgroup” recorded the second highest response mean (4.50) from
superintendents. More specifically, 23 out of 24 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) dictates the unfeasible task that all
significant student subgroups must make adequate yearly progress and be proficient by 2014
(Bracey, 2004). NCLB of 2001 also 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. 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 & Lindsey, 2009). California’s recently enacted funding
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
98
formula, also known as The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), has placed a strong
emphasis on three significant subgroups, with one of them being ELLs. According to
Superintendent A:
In terms of the LCAP now, we have to meet our proportionality requirements. The
problem with allocating resources is it’s very, very structured even under LCFF where
you have the opportunity just to make local decisions. It’s still structured, so you have to
meet the guidelines of how many resources go where. You have your proportionality
basically for low-income, your ELs and your foster youth too. Under the eight goals you
still have to assure that what you’re doing is going to improve the instruction for those
kids. So on a district level, there’s certain allocations that go to the school from the
district, obviously. But each school also gets an allocation.
Although the structured format of LCFF has manufactured particular challenges in allocating
resources that didn’t exist previously, some champion the new funding formula for its increased
opportunity for stakeholder dialogue around the data and potential redistribution of funds.
Superintendent C stated:
As I look at it, LCAP and LCFF have been very helpful. It really allows us to take a look
at our data from different areas, and reach into our district school sites. We’re able to put
that in front of principals. We’re able to put it in front of parents, union groups, our board
of education and it’s really nice to have the data in front of us. Now where we find
ourselves, we can then redistribute, redirect funding where it’s needed and that could
change from year to year. That’s the nice piece of revisiting with your LCAP and
refreshing it and reinvigorating that annually.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
99
Interviews recorded by superintendents indicated that resources allocated toward the
improvement of academic achievement of significant subgroups, such as ELLs, are now
streamlined through the LCFF and LCAP processes, driven by the student achievement data, and
can improve stakeholder transparency.
Reclassification Rate
“Reclassification rate” recorded the third highest response mean (4.38) from
superintendents. 21 out of 24 superintendents rated “Reclassification Rate” as the #3 factor
when allocating resources toward the improvement of ELL academic achievement. 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). 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. Along these lines, Superintendent C explained:
Reclassification, I’m unhappy with. It’s just not happening quick enough. And it does
have an impact on how well they do in high school and we all know that. We just want to
make sure that they, in fact, can move forward and take on either AP courses. Yes, we do
have quite a bit of interventions and programs and we set milestones and benchmarks for
ourselves. Yes, there are initiatives that we have coming at us all at one time, and so
when you’re also trying to have students reclassify, it’s really looking at what tools we
have that work. Many teachers are getting it that these tools are really good tools to help
me advance the academic achievement, especially with our ELL kids. I tell folks, this is
an opportunity for us to really advance because the tools are there.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
100
The reclassification rate of ELLs hinges upon the resources allocations, namely programs and
services, that a district aligns with its priorities. Superintendent interviews indicated that
research-based practices and programs not only have the potential to advance ELLs toward
reclassification, but also serve to further the academic achievement of all students.
Superintendent B stated:
Your resources actualize your mission and your priorities, so we seriously look at where
we might need to provide stronger assistance, what might that look like, what might the
cost or the price tag be, and what’s the potential outcome that we’re looking for with
regards to allocating those resources. We are very upfront about making sure that our
teachers union for example understands that we’re going to place our resources in that
direction. We make sure that when we’re addressing the governing board or any of our
parents that they realize that the improvement of those particular students (ELLs) is
critical to our overall good health, if you will. So we examine that (ELL achievement) on
a regular basis and prior to creating our budget, we make sure the resources are there.
Furthermore, superintendent interviews supported the notion that resource allocations toward the
improvement of academic achievement of ELLs are now prioritized through the LCFF and
LCAP processes are driven by the student achievement data, improve stakeholder transparency,
and are outcome-oriented.
Discussion
Large school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed detailed factors
considered when allocating resources toward improving the achievement of English language
learners. In particular, this study focused on the following factors: CELDT scores, significant
subgroup, and reclassification rates. Superintendents provided insight into each factor, and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
101
detailed how their districts had taken into consideration the aforementioned factor(s) before
allocating resources toward improving the academic achievement of English language learners.
Superintendents agreed with most of the potential factors offered on the quantitative survey. The
qualitative interviews helped to provide a deeper perspective into the responses garnered through
survey, and served to articulate how superintendents: allocate resources toward the academic
achievement of ELLs through the LCFF; keep student achievement data at the forefront;
welcome stakeholder transparency, and are outcome-oriented.
Research Question 4
How do large 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.
The response mean range for all categories within this item is 4.88 to 4.25. “Analyzing
ELL subgroup assessment data” was rated most favorably (4.88), whereas “superintendent
visibility at school sites” received the lowest response mean (4.25).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
102
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 0 5 19 4.79 24
Reclassification
rates
0 0 2 8 14 4.50 24
Analyzing ELL
subgroup
assessment data
0 0 0 3 21 4.88 24
Site administrator
classroom
observations
0 0 2 10 12 4.42 24
Site administrator
collaboration at the
district-level
0 0 3 9 12 4.38 24
Superintendent
visibility at School
sites
0 0 5 8 11 4.25 24
Analyzing ELL Subgroup Assessment Data
“Analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data” recorded the highest response mean (4.88)
from superintendents. All 24 superintendents rated “Analyzing ELL Subgroup Assessment
Data” as the #1 factor considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of
ELLs. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) dictated the unfeasible task that all significant student
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
103
subgroups must make adequate yearly progress and be proficient by 2014 (Bracey, 2004).
Additionally, 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. Although NCLB continues to have its adversaries,
conscientious educational leaders have used the legislation as a catalyst to address the academic
needs of subgroups such as ELLs (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). In regard to ELL subgroup
assessment data, Superintendent A responded:
Other than the CELDT, I wouldn’t say we evaluate their (ELL) academic achievement
any differently than any other students. We not only used what in the past was the STAR
test, the whole regime of state testing, but we’ve had district assessments, that are
primarily written by our own teachers. We now have units of study. Each unit of study
has a post assessment required for our teachers to give. So that’s how we assess students
and then we look at subgroups.
Superintendent C explained:
We use Imagine Learning in our district. We use that web-based solution to help our
students with literature, but really for our English language learners as a tool to help them
through that. And there are a lot of reports and information that we get back that it kind
of shares how well they’re doing and how well they’re progressing.
Superintendent C continued:
We have EL rotations in the morning, at the elementary level, where students, based on
their needs, will move into different classes. We do that daily for 45 minutes. We’re able,
at that point, to see their progress. And they are constantly being monitored and assessed,
to move them up to another level.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
104
Superintendent E stated:
Each school has a coach and we establish metrics and expectations for groups and
subgroups at every school. And they work with the principal on designing and putting
into place research-based strategies and programs to meet the needs of all kids, but
certainly that English language subgroup is a critical one.
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
“Valid and reliable assessment instruments” recorded the second highest response mean
(4.79) from superintendents. All 24 superintendents rated “Valid and Reliable Assessment
Instruments “ as the #2 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 conduct ongoing, formative assessments to monitor
academic achievement for all students, including ELLs. All three superintendents placed
confidence in the rigor and reliability of local accountability measures, such as district
benchmarks and/or teacher created assessments. Superintendent E stated:
We do, in addition to state-required self-testing and CAASSP, we do have benchmark
assessments collected for all kids that track academic progress. That is true for English
learners and for all students. And we do have our own district local measures. That’s our
benchmark in reading and math that track progress as well.
Superintendent D explained:
We use the CELDT data. We rely somewhat on standardized test scores, a lot on local
accountability measures and local teacher made tests, as well as system wide tests.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
105
Superintendent A asserted:
We now have units of study. Each unit’s a unit of study as a post assessment required for
our teachers to give that. So that’s how we assess all students and then we look at sub
groups. We do now in third grade Universal GATE Testing. We’ve done that for about
ten years because I believe teachers did not have a tendency to identify ELs as GATE
students. It is an EL strategy really.
Valid and reliable assessment instruments provide critical stakeholders with meaningful data that
informs the effectiveness of curriculum selection and design, student engagement strategies, and
instructional programs targeting remediation or advancement.
Reclassification Rates
“Reclassification rates” recorded the third highest response mean (4.50) from
superintendents. 22 of 24 superintendents rated “Reclassification Rates “ as the #3 factor
considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of ELLs. 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). 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. In reference to ELLs being reclassified at an acceptable
rate, Superintendent C stated:
Reclassification, I’m unhappy with. It’s just, it’s not happening quick enough. And it
does have an impact on how well they do in high school and, and we all know that. And
so that’s something that always worries me and it worries my parents. Because what
we’ve done in this system is we are educating our parents, empowering our parents at the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
106
elementary levels. We’re doing better at this in regards to reclassification, but still you
know, it doesn’t hit 10% mark or 11%.
Furthermore, Superintendent C spoke of the importance of aligning after-school intervention
with the school-based instructional program in effort to provide ELLs additional support toward
achieving reclassification. He explained:
You know, ACES, we make sure that with our after-school program we tied in our
interventions, and the teachers that support each school are also the intervention teacher
by day. They’re also the coordinators of that site of the after-school programs. So it’s
very deliberate, very strategic, and very prescriptive what we do with intervention after-
school. That ties closely with what’s happening in the classroom each day. So, we do that
and we’re monitoring our progress; we use different tools. It’s a limited amount of
students, so it kind of becomes our test environment, our lab and then we’re able to then
bring it in, if we’re seeing some success. Most everything that we use has an assessment
side to it and we’re able to monitor student performance, student progress.
According to Superintendent E, monitoring and evaluating the academic progress of ELLs is
directly tied to the district strategic plan for all students, however site specific goals and targets
for subgroups are designed through SMART goals. He asserted:
We track progress, we set smart goals, we expect to see ongoing progress and we’ve
supported teachers with the best practices and materials to achieve those purposes for all
the subgroups. But, in general, um, uh, strong ELD support for students um, RTI
practices to where students are grouped and sub-grouped by language ability and by
academic ability in our schools. Um, and the expectation we see the achievement cap
narrowing, over time.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
107
Reclassification rates provide critical stakeholders with meaningful data that informs the
effectiveness of ELD instruction, implementation of student engagement strategies, and
instructional programs such as after-school intervention, and also prompt the revisiting of
SMART goals for efficacy.
Discussion
Large school district superintendents surveyed and interviewed detailed factors
considered when monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of ELLs. In particular,
this study focused on the following factors: analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, valid and
reliable assessment instruments, and reclassification rates. Superintendents provided insight into
each factor, and detailed how their districts had taken into consideration the aforementioned
factor(s) before monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of English language
learners. Superintendents agreed with most of the potential factors offered on the quantitative
survey. The qualitative interviews helped to provide a deeper perspective into the responses
garnered through survey, and served to articulate how superintendents monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of ELLs and analyze student achievement data.
Summary
Superintendents interviewed and surveyed cited a wide variety of strategies they had
employed to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. The data suggests
the following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question 1 asks, What strategies do large school district superintendents in
California employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Data-driven decision-making,
professional development focused on ELL instruction, teacher expectation for ELL achievement,
high expectations for student achievement, instructional leadership, and on-site teacher
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
108
collaboration are all factors that influence the strategies employed by large school district
superintendents to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
First, in regard to data-driven decision-making, all five of the superintendents
interviewed affirmed that data should be the catalyst for implementing instructional strategies
that improve academic achievement for all students, namely English language learners. Each of
the superintendents cited data-driven decision-making as pivotal to establishing instructional
goals that target ELL achievement.
Next, in regard to professional development focused on ELL instruction, each of the
superintendents asserted that hiring practices were instrumental in securing teachers equipped
with the research-based instructional strategies for delivering high quality instruction to ELLs. It
was noted that a robust professional development plan was equally as significant, with its
potential for leveraging the best practices for veteran teachers as well.
Also, in regard to low expectation for ELL performance, two of the five superintendents
interviewed attributed low teacher expectations for ELL performance to the drastic change in
demographics experienced in their respective communities. These superintendents uphold the
belief that teachers are tasked with the critical function of delivering high quality instruction to
all students who enter their classroom doors, regardless of the linguistic limitations or
socioeconomic challenges that may exist at home.
Fourth, in regard to high expectations, superintendents contended that high expectations
are critical for ensuring that ELLs meet the prescribed reclassification criteria and are provided
access to rigorous, core curriculum. Moreover, superintendents highlighted the notion that the
landscape of education has changed with the Common Core standards and the premium placed
on College and Career Readiness. Superintendents also acknowledged that the strategies
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
109
implemented to raise the expectations for ELLs are critical to both the students’ and district’s
overall success.
Fifth, in regard to instructional leadership, superintendents placed a priority on
instructional leadership and understood the role that capacity building (of site leadership) plays
in leveraging support to teachers. Superintendents identified the need to foster site-level trust
and collective responsibility to fulfill the strategic plan of the district.
Lastly, in regard to on-site teacher collaboration, superintendents noted on-site teacher
collaboration, which encompasses the characteristics of a PLC, facilitates the opportunity for
grade-level/department teams to analyze data, share effective instructional strategies targeting
ELLs, and design units of study and common assessments. In addition, superintendents cited
that demands for improving student achievement have led schools and districts to allocate more
time and resources dedicated to teacher collaboration with an expressed focus on increased
student achievement.
Research question 2 asks, What do large school district superintendents in California
perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs? Large
school district superintendents identified unions, teachers, and school-level administrators as
stakeholders with the potential to function as obstacles toward the improvement of ELL
academic achievement.
First, in regard to unions, the notion of establishing a successful superintendent-union
partnership was highlighted in my interview with Superintendent C. Superintendent D spoke of
the challenge associated with responding both to organizational and stakeholder demands. She
articulated this duality in the context of the demographics shaping her school community and the
need to reexamine the hiring process to reflect this shift in demographics.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
110
Next, in regard to teachers, superintendents noted that in the age of the Common Core,
teacher teams have embraced the added pressure of designing their own curriculum (aligned to
the CCSS and the content area in which they teach) as opposed to being issued the traditional
district-approved textbook. Superintendents also recognized the need for professional
development, especially as it relates to instructional strategies for ELLs, as teachers become
more acclimated to the CCSS and the shift from textbooks to teacher developed units of study.
Moreover, superintendents also highlighted teacher skillset and disposition as critical factors in
advancing the academic achievement of ELLs.
Lastly, in regard to school-level administrators, four out of the five superintendents noted
the importance of recruiting and hiring culturally proficient principals who understand, value,
and utilize students’ cultural backgrounds and languages to fulfill the commitment to high levels
of learning for all students. In regard to the development and nurturing of site-level
administrators, the topic of mentorship arose.
Research question 3 asks, How are resources allocated by large school district
superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? CELDT scores,
significant subgroup, and reclassification rates were identified as factors considered by large
school district superintendents in California when allocating resources toward the improvement
of ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to CELDT scores, superintendents noted professional development as the
catalyst for ensuring that teachers are equipped with the skills to deliver ELD (English Language
Development) and the research-based instructional strategies designed for ELLs. The allocation
of funds toward professional development focused on ELL instruction was a central theme
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
111
amongst superintendents interviewed. Superintendents also discussed how state accountability
measures associated with CELDT scores drove the need for targeted professional development.
Next, in regard to significant subgroup, superintendents noted that although the structured
format of LCFF has produced particular challenges in allocating resources that didn’t exist
previously, some champion the new funding formula for its increased opportunity for
stakeholder dialogue around the data and potential redistribution of funds. Interviews recorded
by superintendents indicated that resources allocated toward the improvement of academic
achievement of significant subgroups, such as ELLs, are now streamlined through the LCFF and
LCAP processes, driven by the student achievement data, and can improve stakeholder
transparency.
Lastly, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that the reclassification
rate of ELLs hinges upon the resource allocations, namely programs and services, that a district
aligns with its priorities. Superintendent interviews indicated that research-based practices and
programs not only have the potential to advance ELLs toward reclassification, but also serve to
further the academic achievement of all students.
Research question 4 asks, How do large school district superintendents in California
evaluate programs used to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Analyzing ELL
subgroup assessment data, valid and reliable assessment instruments, and reclassification rates
were identified as factors considered by large school district superintendents in California when
monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of ELLs.
First, in regard to analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, superintendent interviews
noted the importance of CELDT data in determining appropriate student placement.
Superintendents also addressed the importance of school sites establishing metrics and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
112
expectations for student groups, and then designing and putting into place research-based
strategies and programs to meet the needs of all students, including ELLs.
Next, in regard to valid and reliable assessment instruments, three of the five
superintendents interviewed noted the value of valid and reliable assessment instruments to
conduct ongoing, formative assessments to monitor the academic achievement for all students,
including ELLs. All three superintendents placed confidence in the rigor and reliability of local
accountability measures, such as district benchmarks and/or teacher created assessments.
Superintendent interviews demonstrated that valid and reliable assessment instruments provide
critical stakeholders with meaningful data that informs the effectiveness of curriculum selection
and design, student engagement strategies, and instructional programs targeting remediation or
advancement.
Lastly, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that reclassification rates
provide critical stakeholders with meaningful data that informs the effectiveness of ELD
instruction, implementation of student engagement strategies, and instructional programs such as
after-school intervention, and also prompt the revisiting of SMART goals for efficacy.
Chapter 5 follows with a summary of the research study including conclusions and
implications.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
113
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
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. Moreover,
superintendents are charged with implementing strategies to improve the academic achievement
of all students (Fuller, et al., 2003).
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 (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).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
114
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.
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and methodology used,
followed by findings related to the four research questions. In closing, implications and
recommendations for future study are detailed.
Statement of the Problem
Student achievement in the US has taken a back seat to those of other developing
countries over the past decade (Gonzalez et al., 2009). Specifically, addressing the academic
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
115
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 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 ELL’s (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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
116
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; 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
The purpose of this study was to investigate how strategies employed by small, mid-
sized, and large school district superintendents in California improve the academic achievement
of ELLs.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What strategies do large school district superintendents in California employ to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
2. What do large school district superintendents in California perceive to be the greatest
obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs?
3. How are resources allocated by large school district superintendents in California to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
4. How do large school district superintendents in California evaluate programs used to
improve the academic achievement of ELLs?
Review of the Literature
A review of the literature 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 this literature review. The first section provided a historical background of
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
117
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 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 (Menken & Kleyn, 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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
118
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. Waters and Marzano (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 24 quantitative surveys and
five qualitative interviews completed by large 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).
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
119
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, large school district
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
at least 15,001; 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 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. 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 large school district superintendents in
California employ to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Data-driven decision-making,
professional development focused on ELL instruction, teacher expectation for ELL achievement,
high expectations for student achievement, instructional leadership, and on-site teacher
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
120
collaboration are all factors that influence the strategies employed by large school district
superintendents to improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
First, in regard to data-driven decision-making, all five of the superintendents
interviewed affirmed that data should be the catalyst for implementing instructional strategies
that improve academic achievement for all students, namely English language learners. Each of
the superintendents cited data-driven decision-making as pivotal to establishing instructional
goals that target ELL achievement.
Next, in regard to professional development focused on ELL instruction, each of the
superintendents asserted that hiring practices were instrumental in securing teachers equipped
with the research-based instructional strategies for delivering high quality instruction to ELLs. It
was noted that a robust professional development plan was equally as significant, with its
potential for leveraging the best practices for veteran teachers as well.
Also, in regard to low expectation for ELL performance, two of the five superintendents
interviewed attributed low teacher expectations for ELL performance to the drastic change in
demographics experienced in their respective communities. These superintendents uphold the
belief that teachers are tasked with the critical function of delivering high quality instruction to
all students who enter their classroom doors, regardless of the linguistic limitations or
socioeconomic challenges that may exist at home.
Fourth, in regard to high expectations, superintendents contended that high expectations
are critical to ensuring that ELLs meet the prescribed reclassification criteria and are provided
access to rigorous, core curriculum. Moreover, superintendents highlighted the notion that the
landscape of education has changed with the Common Core standards and the premium placed
on College and Career Readiness. Superintendents also acknowledged that the strategies
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
121
implemented to raise the expectations for ELLs are critical to both the students’ and district’s
overall success.
Fifth, in regard to instructional leadership, superintendents placed a priority on
instructional leadership and understood the role that capacity building (of site leadership) plays
in leveraging support to teachers. Superintendents identified the need to foster site-level trust
and collective responsibility to fulfill the strategic plan of the district.
Lastly, in regard to on-site teacher collaboration, superintendents noted on-site teacher
collaboration, which encompasses the characteristics of a PLC, facilitates the opportunity for
grade-level/department teams to analyze data, share effective instructional strategies targeting
ELLs, and design units of study and common assessments. In addition, superintendents cited
that demands for improving student achievement have led schools and districts to allocate more
time and resources dedicated to teacher collaboration with an expressed focus on increased
student achievement.
Research question 2 asks, What do large school district superintendents in California
perceive to be the greatest obstacles to improving the academic achievement of ELLs? Large
school district superintendents identified unions, teachers, and school-level administrators as
stakeholders with the potential to function as obstacles toward the improvement of ELL
academic achievement.
First, in regard to unions, the notion of establishing a successful superintendent-union
partnership was highlighted in my interview with Superintendent C. Superintendent D spoke of
the challenge associated with responding both to organizational and stakeholder demands. She
articulated this duality in the context of the demographics shaping her school community and the
need to reexamine the hiring process to reflect this shift in demographics.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
122
Next, in regard to teachers, superintendents noted that in the age of the Common Core,
teacher teams have embraced the added pressure of designing their own curriculum (aligned to
the CCSS and the content area in which they teach) as opposed to being issued the traditional
district-approved textbook. Superintendents also recognized the need for professional
development, especially as it relates to instructional strategies for ELLs, as teachers become
more acclimated to the CCSS and the shift from textbooks to teacher developed units of study.
Moreover, superintendents also highlighted teacher skillset and disposition as critical factors in
advancing the academic achievement of ELLs.
Lastly, in regard to school-level administrators, four out of the five superintendents noted
the importance of recruiting and hiring culturally proficient principals who understand, value,
and utilize students’ cultural backgrounds and languages to fulfill the commitment to high levels
of learning for all students. In regard to the development and nurturing of site-level
administrators, the topic of mentorship arose.
Research question 3 asks, How are resources allocated by large school district
superintendents in California to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? CELDT scores,
significant subgroup, and reclassification rates were identified as factors considered by large
school district superintendents in California when allocating resources toward the improvement
of ELL academic achievement.
First, in regard to CELDT scores, superintendents noted professional development as the
catalyst for ensuring that teachers are equipped with the skills to deliver ELD (English Language
Development) and the research-based instructional strategies designed for ELLs. The allocation
of funds toward professional development focused on ELL instruction was a central theme
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
123
amongst superintendents interviewed. Superintendents also discussed how state accountability
measures associated with CELDT scores drove the need for targeted professional development.
Next, in regard to significant subgroup, superintendents noted that although the structured
format of LCFF has manufactured particular challenges in allocating resources that didn’t exist
previously, some champion the new funding formula for its increased opportunity for
stakeholder dialogue around the data and potential redistribution of funds. Interviews recorded
by superintendents indicated that resources allocated toward the improvement of academic
achievement of significant subgroups, such as ELLs, are now streamlined through the LCFF and
LCAP processes, driven by the student achievement data, and can improve stakeholder
transparency.
Lastly, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that the reclassification
rate of ELLs hinges upon the resource allocations, namely programs and services, that a district
aligns with its priorities. Superintendent interviews indicated that research-based practices and
programs not only have the potential to advance ELLs toward reclassification, but also serve to
further the academic achievement of all students.
Research question 4 asks, How do large school district superintendents in California
evaluate programs used to improve the academic achievement of ELLs? Analyzing ELL
subgroup assessment data, valid and reliable assessment instruments, and reclassification rates
were identified as factors considered by large school district superintendents in California when
monitoring and evaluating the academic achievement of ELLs.
First, in regard to analyzing ELL subgroup assessment data, superintendent interviews
noted the importance of CELDT data in determining appropriate student placement.
Superintendents also addressed the importance of school sites establishing metrics and
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
124
expectations for student groups, and then designing and putting into place research-based
strategies and programs to meet the needs of all students, including ELLs.
Next, in regard to valid and reliable assessment instruments, three of the five
superintendents interviewed noted the value of valid and reliable assessment instruments to
conduct ongoing, formative assessments to monitor the academic achievement for all students,
including ELLs. All three superintendents placed confidence in the rigor and reliability of local
accountability measures, such as district benchmarks and/or teacher created assessments.
Superintendent interviews demonstrated that valid and reliable assessment instruments provide
critical stakeholders with meaningful data that informs the effectiveness of curriculum selection
and design, student engagement strategies, and instructional programs targeting remediation or
advancement.
Lastly, in regard to reclassification rates, superintendents noted that reclassification rates
provide critical stakeholders with meaningful data that informs the effectiveness of ELD
instruction, implementation of student engagement strategies, and instructional programs such as
after-school intervention, and also prompt the revisiting of SMART goals for efficacy.
Implications
The significant findings associated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying the strategies used by large school district superintendents in California
to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. The insights herein are
useful for current or aspiring superintendents in large school districts seeking to improve the
academic attainment for ELLs because they provide a framework for the approach that
superintendents have engaged in to lead their organizations in addressing the needs of this
historically underserved demographic population.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
125
The findings of this study can be utilized by school district leaders seeking to increase
site-level trust and leadership, in an effort to fulfill the strategic plan of the district through
collective responsibility. Specifically, the findings illustrate the integral role of classroom
teachers in facilitating positive educational outcomes for ELLs. In regard to classroom teachers,
superintendents in this study noted that in the age of the Common Core, teacher teams have
embraced the added pressure of designing their own curriculum (aligned to the CCSS and the
content area in which they teach) as opposed to being issued the traditional district-approved
textbook. Superintendents also recognized the need for professional development, especially as
it relates to instructional strategies for ELLs, as teachers become more acclimated to the CCSS
and the shift from textbooks to teacher developed units of study. Moreover, superintendents also
highlighted teacher skillset and disposition as critical factors in advancing the academic
achievement of ELLs.
Additionally, the findings of this study can be used by large school districts to raise the
level of expectations for ELL performance. In regard to low expectation for ELL performance,
two of the five superintendents interviewed attributed low teacher expectations for ELL
performance to the drastic change in demographics experienced in their respective communities.
These superintendents upheld the belief that teachers are responsible for delivering high quality
instruction to all students who enter the classroom doors, regardless of the linguistic limitations
or socioeconomic challenges that may exist at home. Superintendents contended that high
expectations were critical to ensuring that ELLs meet the prescribed reclassification criteria and
are provided access to rigorous, core curriculum. Moreover, superintendents highlighted the
notion that the landscape of education has changed with the Common Core standards and the
premium placed on College and Career Readiness. Superintendents also acknowledged that the
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
126
strategies implemented to raise the expectations for ELLs are critical not only to the success of
the students but also to the overall success of the district.
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:
• This study suggested that superintendents involve stakeholders at all levels of the
organization in support of ELL students. This support structure creates a need to
analyze the complex inter-relationships among these groups and how they facilitate
increased achievement for ELL students. Based on the results of the study, case
studies of teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators should be
included in the inquiry.
• Identifying the strategies utilized by superintendents in large school districts in
California underscores the need for comparison among large districts of specific
structures, such as elementary, high school, or unified. These findings would assist in
identifying how factors and strategies may contribute to organizational effectiveness.
• Identifying the strategies utilized by large school district superintendents in California
highlight the need for comparison among small, medium, and large school districts
superintendents and the degree of involvement he/she has in the ELL decision-
making process at each level. This information would help to further refine the
strategies that contribute to ELL academic success.
• There is a need to analyze documents used by the districts in this study to develop,
implement, and monitor plans to impact the achievement of ELL students. This study
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
127
mentioned ELL master plans, Local Education Agency (LEA) plans, and Local
Control Accountability Plans (LCAP), which could provide significant insight into
the leadership of superintendents in large urban districts.
Conclusions
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
128
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.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language Learners: Developing
literacy in second-language learners--report of the national literacy panel on the
language-minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432-452.
Retrieved from http://search.progquest.com/docview/85714538?accountid=14749
Baldwin, B., Moffett, R., & Lane, K. (1992). The high school dropout: Antecedents, societal
consequences and alternatives. Journal of School Leadership, 2(3), 355-362.
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)
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
129
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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
130
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
Callahan, R. (2006). The intersection of accountability and language: Can reading intervention
replace English language development? Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 1-21.
California Department of Education (2010). Language census data. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
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=
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
131
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.
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.
Cordesco, 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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
132
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.
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. (2002). The inequitable treatment of English learners in
California’s public schools. University of California, Linguistic Minority Research
Institute
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
133
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.
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.
Gorski, P. (2008). Peddling poverty for profit: elements of oppression in Ruby Payne's
framework. Equity & Excellence in Education, 130-148.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
134
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.
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
135
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
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
136
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.
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
137
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
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.
Norris-Holt, J. (2001). Motivation as a contributing factor in second language acquisition. The
Internet TESL Journal, 7, 6. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html
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.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
138
Ogbu, J. U., Simon, 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.
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
139
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.
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.
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.
Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students:
Implications to schools and teacher education. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 84(3), 98-103.
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
140
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.
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
141
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
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
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
142
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.
Valencia, R. R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano
school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 70-113). London:
Routledge.
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.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. 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).
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
143
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
144
APPENDIX A
RESEARCH QUESTION/INSTRUMENT ALIGNMENT
Research
Question 1
What strategies do large 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 stakeholders
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
145
Research
Question 2
What do large 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 large 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
146
Research
Question 4
How do large 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
147
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
148
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 vison 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
149
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
150
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
An Examination of Large 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
151
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 at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study seeks to identify the
strategies employed by the superintendents of large districts to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English Language Learners.
I understand that your time is both extremely valuable and limited. The survey has been piloted
and will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. Your voluntary participation would be
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.
Sincerely,
Henry Romero
Doctoral Candidate
hdromero@usc.edu
(951) 334-7818
SUPERINTENDENT IMPACT ON ELL ACHIEVEMENT
152
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW LETTER
Date
(Superintendent’s Name), Superintendent
Unified School District
1234 First Street
Anywhere, CA 99999
Re: Request for Interview
Dear (Superintendent’s Name),
My name is Henry Romero 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 the leadership
strategies employed by California superintendents of large districts to support the academic
achievement of English Language Learners.
You have been identified as an outstanding superintendent of a large district. The size and
demographic constitution of your school district is ideal for my study. Participation in this study
would require one interview lasting approximately 35 minutes and 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 hdromero@usc.edu or via phone at (951)
334-7818.
Thank you for your consideration,
Henry Romero
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 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
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 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
School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts
PDF
An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives
PDF
A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012
PDF
An investigation of the relationship between educational attainment goals and motivation theory: a mixed-methods study of past and present graduate students in the United States
PDF
English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?
PDF
How the leaders of one high-achieving, large, urban high school communicate with Latino families about math
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
The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready
PDF
Implementation of instructional programs targeting African American students to increase academic achievement
PDF
Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study
PDF
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
PDF
Examining Hispanic students' access to AP courses in high schools in Orange County
Asset Metadata
Creator
Romero, Henry D.
(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
02/16/2016
Defense Date
12/17/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
CELDT,college readiness,ELD,ELL,high expectations,LCAP,LTEL,NCLB,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hdromero@usc.edu,hromero34@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-207878
Unique identifier
UC11278301
Identifier
etd-RomeroHenr-4102.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-207878 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RomeroHenr-4102.pdf
Dmrecord
207878
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Romero, Henry D.
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
CELDT
college readiness
ELD
ELL
high expectations
LCAP
LTEL
NCLB